Andrew C. Petersen, Inc. v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Bloomfield
| Decision Date | 23 March 1967 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANDREW C. PETERSEN, INC., et al. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF BLOOMFIELD. |
Michael Grossman, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Arnold W. Aronson, with whom, on the brief, was Lawrence C. Klaczak, Rockville, for appellee (defendant).
Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, COTTER and RYAN, JJ.
On July 15, 1965, upon application of some 100 residents and property owners, the defendant, the town plan and zoning commission of the town of Bloomfield, amended the zoning regulations by upgrading the zone applicable to a certain residential area, which lies south of Terry Plains Road and west of Brown Street, from an R-20 zone to an R-30 zone. An R-20 zone requires 20,000 square feet per lot, with a minimum frontage of 125 feet, a 40-foot minimum front yard depth, 20-foot minimum side yards, and a 25-foot minimum rear yard. The change to an R-30 zone increased the requirements to 30,000 square feet per lot, with a minimum frontage of 150 feet, a minimum front yard depth of 50 feet, side yards of a minimum of 25 feet, and a 25-foot minimum rear yard. Bloomfield Zoning Regs., p. 17 (1965). The minimum area for the first floor of a dwelling which could be constructed on each lot was increased from 1250 to 1600 square feet for a one-story house, from 800 to 1000 square feet for a one and one-half story house, and from 700 to 800 square feet for a two-story dwelling. Id., p. 18. The area to the south and west of the land in question was already zoned R-30, and the change of zone in question would make the entire area enclosed by Brown Street and Terry Plains Road an R-30 zone. The plaintiffs, owners of a major portion of the land affected, have appealed to this court from a decision of the Court of Common Pleas which upheld the action of the commission. They claim that the commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion in granting a change of zone for the following reasons: (1) The evidence presented at the hearing was insufficient to support the decision. (2) The reasons given by the commission for granting the change were inadequate and arbitrary. (3) No change in the conditions or character of the area was shown. The other assignments of error were not pursued in the plaintiffs' brief and must be assumed to have been abandoned. Pluhowsky v. New Haven, 151 Conn. 337, 345, 197 A.2d 645.
The commission gave the following reasons for the adoption of the change of zone: 1
Upon receipt of the petition for a change of zone, the commission, of its own motion, included an additional area with that which was requested by the property owners to be considered at the hearing. This was done to avoid leaving a small island of R-20 land remaining. The area thus included was duly embraced in the notice of the hearing. At the public hearing there was evidence that for several years the commission had been considering certain zone changes as a result of recommendations made by a former consultant to the commission. The master plan proposed a dividing line for residential density at Maple Avenue and its extension, Brown Street and Tunxis Avenue. Everything west of this line was to be a lower density area and would include R-30, R-40 and R-80 zones. There was evidence that the proposed change of zone would bring the area in question into conformity with adjacent properties to the north, west and south. There was testimony at the hearing that the change suggested would be beneficial to the town and would protect some of its undeveloped areas suitable for residential use.
Section 8-2 of the General Statutes provides, in part, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morningside Ass'n v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of City of Milford
...& Zoning Commission, supra; see Sheridan v. Planning Board, 159 Conn. 1, 19, 266 A.2d 396; Andrew C. Peterson, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 154 Conn. 638, 643, 228 A.2d 126. In applying these principles to the case before us, we find that the evidence before the board was such tha......
-
Slavitt v. Ives
...Andrew's Protestant Episcopal Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 350, 360, 232 A.2d 916; Andrew C. Peterson, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 154 Conn. 638, 640, 228 A.2d 126; Rossignol v. Danbury School of Aeronautics, Inc., 154 Conn. 549, 556-557, 227 A.2d 418; Labbadia v.......
- Clark v. Nickeson, Civ. No. 14160.
-
Malafronte v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of City of Milford
...arbitrary. A less strict rule would require the court to exercise a legislative judgment. See Andrew C. Petersen, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 154 Conn. 638, 642, 228 A.2d 126; Pierrepont v. Zoning Commission, supra; Winslow v. Zoning Board, 143 Conn. 381, 390, 122 A.2d Zoning mus......