Opinion
A decision of the Stamford planning board to amend the master plan by changing the land-use category of the plaintiffs' land was referred to the board of representatives under a charter provision similar to the one under which it reviews a decision by the zoning board to amend the zoning map. Held that the action of the board of representatives in rejecting the amendment was not invalidated by the fact that it held no hearing, gave no notice of hearing, did not give the plaintiffs an opportunity to see certain letters or refute the statements in them, and did not follow the procedure prescribed in the charter for the adoption of ordinances or resolutions.
Argued November 3, 1960
Decided January 3, 1961
Appeal from a decision by the defendant rejecting the action of the planning board of the city of Stamford in changing the land-use category of certain property, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford and tried to the court, Dwyer, J.; judgment sustaining the appeal, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Error; judgment directed.
Isadore M. Mackler, with whom was Theodore Godlin, for the appellant (defendant).
Saul Kwartin, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
This case was argued together with Burke v. Board of Representatives and DeCarlo v. Board of Representatives, decided this day.
The plaintiffs owned land on Hope Street in Stamford on which it was proposed to erect a branch post office. On April 15, 1958, on their application; Stamford Charter 522.3; 26 Spec. Laws 1229; the planning board changed the land-use category of their property from R-7 1/2 (one-family residence district) to C-N (neighborhood business district) by amending the master plan of the city adopted pursuant to 522.1 of the charter. 26 Spec. Laws 1229. On April 28, 1958, a petition of objection to the amendment was filed with the planning board, as permitted by 522.4 of the charter. 26 Spec. Laws 1229. On May 6, 1958, that board, acting under 522.4, referred the matter to the board of representatives and forwarded to it forty copies of the minutes of the meetings of the planning board held in connection with the application for the amendment, as well as two maps which were used at the public hearings. The board of representatives committed the matter to a legislative and rules committee composed of ten of its members. The committee had before it not only the maps and a transcript of the minutes of the meetings of the planning board held on March 18 and April 15 but also a transcript of the hearings held by the planning board on the application for the amendment, together with letters from individuals and civic organizations. The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the amendment be rejected. Thereafter, on July 7, 1958, upon motion duly made and seconded, the board of representatives rejected the amendment.
It is conceded by the board of representatives, the defendant, that the plaintiffs were given no notice of a hearing by either the committee or the board of representatives and no hearing was held, although the plaintiffs requested a hearing before the committee. The plaintiffs did not see, nor were they given an opportunity to refute, statements contained in letters received by the committee and the board of representatives. The procedure for the adoption of ordinances or resolutions prescribed in 204.1 of the Stamford charter; 26 Spec. Laws 938; was not followed by the board of representatives. It kept no stenographic transcript of the proceedings of its committee or of the deliberations of the board itself.
This case involved an amendment of the master plan by the planning board, whereas the Burke and DeCarlo cases, decided this day, involved an amendment of the zoning map by the zoning board. The sections of the charter dealing with amendment of the master plan and of the zoning map are identical in language so far as the issues in the case at bar are concerned. Stamford Charter 522.2, 522.3, 522.4, 552, 552.1, 552.2; 26 Spec. Laws 1229, 1235. An appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from the action of the planning board in amending the master plan, or, in case that action is referred to the board of representatives, from it, is provided for in 529 of the charter. 26 Spec. Laws 1233. The facts in this case are similar to those in the Burke and DeCarlo cases and raise identical questions of law. The decision in those cases requires a like decision in this.