Bethlehem Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission

• Decision Date: 05 November 2002
• Docket Number: (AC 21614)
• Citation: 807 A.2d 1089,73 Conn. App. 442
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: BETHLEHEM CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, INC. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF MORRIS.

73 Conn. App. 442

807 A.2d 1089

BETHLEHEM CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, INC. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF MORRIS.

(AC 21614)

Appellate Court of Connecticut

Argued June 12, 2002

Officially released November 5, 2002

Flynn, Bishop and Hennessy, Js. Kenneth R. Slater, Jr., for the appellant (plaintiff).

Andrew W. Roraback, for the appellee (named defendant).

Jeanne Farrell, pro se, the appellee (intervening defendant).

Stephen Reinhold, pro se, the appellee (intervening defendant).

Opinion

HENNESSY, J.

The plaintiff, Bethlehem Christian Fellowship, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Morris (commission), which denied the plaintiff's application for a special exception to construct a house of worship in a residential area.¹ The plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed its appeal by sustaining five of the commission's six reasons to deny the special exception, where the town's zoning regulations provide that houses of worship may be located only in residential zones pursuant to a special exception.² We reverse the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS

Our review of the return of record discloses the following facts. On October 1, 1997, the plaintiff, a tax-exempt, religious, Connecticut corporation, filed an application with the commission for a special exception. At the time of the application, the plaintiff's membership totaled ninety people from fifteen families.³ The special exception application sought permission to construct a house of worship on lot number nine of the Mosimann resubdivision at 450 West Morris Road, which is approximately 5.09 acres.⁴ The application represented that the land is in a residential R-60 district and that the requested use is an authorized special exception under §§ 21 and 22 of the Morris zoning regulations.⁵ The structure is to encompass an area approximately fifty feet by eighty-five feet at the rear of the parcel. The plaintiff intends to use the house of worship for Sunday morning services, midweek meetings and occasional outings and weddings. All of the functions held in the facility will be related to the plaintiff's religious purpose. The plaintiff will not lease the premises to others and will not tolerate the consumption of alcohol thereon.

The commission held a public hearing on the application on October 15, 1997.⁶ The proposed house of worship is designed to look like a single-family dwelling that could be converted to a single-family residence if the plaintiff should ever leave the premises. Photographs of contemporary houses on the same side of West Morris Road and the architectural renderings of the house of worship depict structures of a similar design. The 4100 square foot wooden structure proposed by the plaintiff is to be situated on the northeast corner of the parcel. The topography of the parcel slopes away from West Morris Road and therefore the house of worship will not be distinctly visible from the road. A stone wall and vegetation will partially obscure a view of the building. The front of the building will face the road, and the parking lot, which will accommodate fifty vehicles, will be behind it.

The plaintiff's expert, a registered professional engineer, explained that the layout and design of the house of worship substantially satisfies the town's zoning requirements.⁷ The size of the lot is 221,000 square feet with 484 feet of frontage. The front yard setback is 155 feet, the sideline setback exceeds 200 feet and the rear yard setback is more that 160 feet. The ratio of the floor area of the proposed structure to the gross size of the lot is 4 percent, and the lot coverage ratio is 2 percent. Although the zoning regulations do not restrict the height of a house of worship, the maximum height of the proposed structure is twenty-eight feet. The parking lot will accommodate fifty vehicles, where zoning regulations for a building with a similar seating capacity require a minimum of forty spaces.⁸ In response to concerns raised by the fire marshal, Robert Mosimann has agreed to construct a fire pond on his property to supply water for the neighborhood.⁹

The land on which the plaintiff proposes to construct its house of worship is adjacent to two sand and gravel operations and a septic lagoon that has been condemned by the state. The property across the road from the proposed site is occupied by two older house trailers. The area along West Morris Road is rural in character and contains single-family residences, among other uses.

At the commission's request, the plaintiff engaged the services of an expert to study the effect, if any, the house of worship may have on vehicular traffic on West Morris Road. The commission also asked that the study be based on a "worst case" scenario, i.e., 200 people attending Sunday worship services and fifty people attending Wednesday evening meetings. There were three components of the traffic study: A safety evaluation of access into and out of the property; an evaluation of the effect, if any, on the flow of traffic caused by vehicular traffic to and from the property; and an evaluation of traffic safety on West Morris Road. West Morris Road is approximately four miles in length and runs north and south between state Routes 202 and 109.¹⁰

The study concluded that traffic safety on West Morris Road would be virtually unaffected by the plaintiff's house of worship. Applying state department of transportation guidelines to the posted and recorded speed of traffic on West Morris Road, the expert concluded that a 265 foot sight line was needed on both sides of the entrance to the house of worship to ensure that vehicles could safely enter and leave the premises. The application proposed sight lines of approximately 445 feet north of the entrance and 590 feet to the south of the entrance.

The state department of transportation utilizes a three tiered level of traffic service to describe traffic flow or congestion. The A level of service means virtually no delay. The plaintiff's study demonstrated that both before and after the construction of the proposed meetinghouse, even under the worst case scenario, West Morris Road would have an A level rating of traffic service. Finally, the expert obtained accident data records for West Morris Road between 1993 and 1995 from the state police barracks in Litchfield. Only one accident had occurred on the road during that time. The accident was caused by a person operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating drugs or alcohol and was not due to a defect in the road. The accident also did not occur near the site of the proposed entrance to the house of worship.

The traffic safety report of the plaintiff's expert was reviewed by an independent professional engineer at the request of the town's zoning enforcement officer. The independent analysis concluded that the plaintiff's study was consistent with standard traffic engineering practices and that the conclusion that the proposed house of worship would have a minimal effect on traffic safety and operations on the surrounding roadways was consistent with the data presented and its own independent field investigation.

Counsel for the plaintiff informed the commission that the plaintiff was ready, willing and able to take whatever action was necessary to satisfy the commission's concerns with technical aspects of the proposed house of worship. He also informed the commission that the plaintiff was willing to submit to reasonable conditions that the commission might impose on the granting of the special exception.

A number of people attending the hearing spoke in opposition to the special exception. One individual wanted a guarantee that the value of his real property would not be diminished as a result of the construction of a house of worship on West Morris Road. Another individual indicated that due to the toxic site adjoining the plaintiff's parcel, the parcel was not appropriate for a residence. He also considered West Morris Road too dangerous to cross safely. Another person expressed concern that the plaintiff had ulterior motives in wanting to construct its house of worship on a five acre lot in a rural setting, citing a day camp operated by a religious organization in another part of Litchfield County. A resident of the area offered an implied threat to the members of the commission.¹¹ Several others spoke against the house of worship, opining that no public building should be permitted in a single-family residential neighborhood and that a "huge public building" did not make sense in the neighborhood. Others feared the increased traffic, noting that many people walk, jog, and ride bicycles or horses along the road. One person noted that eighteen-wheel trucks use West Morris Road daily to go to and from the gravel pits and that more traffic was not needed.

Several people did not want the increased traffic on their rural road and thought that houses of worship should be built in villages or in more commercial areas adjacent to state highways. The chairwoman of the commission read into the record a letter from an opponent, stating in part: "Our spot in Morris is unusual and special, even for rural Morris, because it is so very quiet and peaceful and natural. It is the quiet . . . that is so wonderful.... It has become apparent that the presence of the [plaintiff's house of worship] would destroy the peace and quiet of our beautiful place." The attorney representing more than fifty individuals opposed to the special exception stated to the commission in part: "Under Connecticut law, the church can have a wide variety of activities additional to what we may think of as traditional worship activities that are sanctioned by the law. These activities, in our opinion, could well be detrimental to the neighborhood and would tend to devalue the...