Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Milford
| Decision Date | 09 March 1954 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BEACH v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF TOWN OF MILFORD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Richard H. Lynch, Milford, for appellant (defendant).
Joseph Weiner, New Haven, William Gitlitz, Milford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN and WYNNE, JJ., and DALY, Superior Court Judge.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from the refusal of the town planning and zoning commission of Milford to approve his plan for a subdivision of a portion of his property. The court rendered judgment sustaining the appeal and from that judgment this appeal has been taken.
The court's finding has been attacked in many particulars. We believe that there was no occasion for the court to hear much of the evidence which was offered or to make a finding with so many immaterial details as were found. We again observe that an appeal from an administrative tribunal should ordinarily be determined on the record made before that tribunal, and only when that record fails to present the hearing in sufficient scope to determine the merit of the appeal or when some extraordinary reason requires it should the court hear evidence. Cohen v. Board of Appeals on Zoning, 139 Conn. 450, 453, 94 A.2d 793. But this aside, the facts, which are not in dispute, are the following: The plaintiff is the owner of a farm of about 100 acres in the northeast portion of Milford. In 1952 he entered into an agreement to sell 50 acres of it for $92,000 on condition that the approval of the defendant, hereinafter referred to as the commission, could be obtained for a subdivision of the land into 145 building lots as sites for single-family residences. Accordingly, application for such approval was made on October 15, 1952; it was denied on October 28, 1952.
The property in question is located in a residence A zone and is therefore, so far as the zoning ordinance of the town of Milford is concerned, available for use for either farming or residential purposes. By special act of the General Assembly, the defendant is given the powers of a town planning commission. 25 Spec.Laws 752, § 4. Consequently, so far as the matters involved in this case are concerned, it has the powers, and only the powers, conferred on municipal planning authorities by §§ 856 and 858 of the General Statutes. No master plan or plans of development as provided in § 856 have ever been adopted for the town of Milford.
Effective as of February 4, 1952, an ordinance regulating the subdivision of land in the town was adopted by the town council upon recommendation of the commission. This ordinance contains a rather elaborate set of regulations governing procedure in submitting applications and setting forth requirements as to the width and intersection of streets, block dimensions, pedestrian ways, easements, lot requirements and various other details. It does not contain any specific provisions granting the commission authority to reject a subdivision application on the ground that the development of the subdivision will increase the town's burden of providing schools, roads and police and fire protection or on the ground that the financial condition of the town is such that it will not sustain an increased burden. The plan submitted by the plaintiff complied with the regulations which had been adopted.
The reasons given by the commission for its rejection of the plaintiff's application were these:
The trial court based its decision on the conclusion that the commission acted illegally in refusing its approval of the subdivision for the reasons it gave. The ultimate question before us is whether the court erred in so concluding.
As has already been pointed out, this case does not involve any question of zoning. See State ex rel. Haverback v. Thomson, 134 Conn. 288, 294, 57 A.2d 259. The zoning ordinance permitted the use of the land in question for residential purposes, and the commission made no attempt to change the ordinance. If the commission had the power to disapprove the subdivision, it was solely by virtue of the authority conferred upon it as a municipal planning commission. The limits of that authority are defined in § 858 of the General Statutes.
So far as relevant to the present issue, § 858 reads: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore
...(Baltimore Planning Com'n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387, 275 A.2d 478) and Connecticut (Beach v. Planning & Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 79, 103 A.2d 814). In sum, I realize the easiest course is for this court to defer to the political judgment of the townspeople of Li......
-
Gerlt v. Planning and Zoning Com'n
...an administrative tribunal should ordinarily be determined on the record made before that tribunal...." Beach v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 141 Conn. 79, 80, 103 A.2d 814 (1954). Supplemental evidence may be submitted to the trial court "only if it [is] essential to the equitable disposi......
-
Town of Westport v. City of Norwalk
...Commission, 152 Conn. 518, 521, 209 A.2d 177; Langbein v. Planning Board, supra, 145 Conn. 679, 146 A.2d 412; Beach v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 141 Conn. 79, 83, 103 A.2d 814. If the subdivision plan conforms to the existing regulations the council 'has no discretion or choice but to a......
-
Reed v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Chester
...and relying on RK Development Corporation v. Norwalk, 156 Conn. 369, 377, 242 A.2d 781 (1968), and Beach v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 141 Conn. 79, 85, 103 A.2d 814 (1954). Thereafter, the commission appealed to the Appellate Court, which upheld the judgment of the trial court. See Reed......
-
Case List
...Ill. App. 3d 24, 626 N.E.2d 245 (1993) Batch v. Town of Chapel Hill , 326 N.C. 1, 387 S.E.2d 655 (1990) Beach v. Planning Zoning Comm’n , 141 Conn. 79, 103 A.2d 814 (1954) Beasley v. Potter , 493 F. Supp. 1059 (W.D. Mich. 1980) Beaver Meadows v. Board of County Comm’rs , 709 P.2d 928 (Colo.......
-
Land Development Conditions
...of Simsbury, No. CV 960559508, 1999 WL 162761, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 1999). 491. Id. (citing Beach v. Planning Zoning Comm’n, 141 Conn. 79, 84-85, 103 A.2d 814 (1954)). 492. Id. at *4. 493. Id. 494. Id. at *1. For a different treatment of “discretion” exercised to deny plat approv......