Chouinard v. Zoning Commission of Town of East Hartford

Decision Date19 May 1953
Citation139 Conn. 728,97 A.2d 562
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesCHOUINARD et al. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Ralph C. Dixon, Hartford, with whom was C. Duane Blinn, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).

John D. Brennan, Jr., East Hartford, with whom was Louis B. Warren, East Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before BROWN, C. J., BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ., and QUINLAN, Superior Court Judge.

BALDWIN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiffs applied to the zoning commission of the town of East Hartford for a change of zone for property owned by them and located in an 'A' residence zone, and the commission denied their application. Their appeal to the Court of Common Pleas was dismissed, and from the judgment rendered thereon they have now appealed to this court.

The facts found by the trial court may be stated as follows: The plaintiffs own land on the northwest corner at the intersection of Broad and Main Streets in East Hartford. It is presently zoned 'A' residence. They applied to the commission for a change of zone to 'A' business for a part of this land with a frontage of 290 feet on Main Street and 232.12 feet on Broad Street, and for a change of zone to 'parking' for another portion fronting 110 feet on Main Street, adjacent to and just north of the parcel first described. See East Hartford Bldg. Zone Regs. (1949) §§ 3, 4-A. The commission denied their application.

The plaintiffs' land has been zoned 'A' residence since the adoption of the zoning ordinance on March 1, 1927. In recent years, many new homes have been built in the area around the plaintiffs' property. The land to the north, west and south is zoned 'A' residence and is occupied by dwellings, many of them costing from $12,000 to $15,000. At the intersection of Main and Sutton Streets, about 1,000 feet north of the plaintiffs' property, there is an 'A' business zone. In February, 1930, the commission re-classified, from 'A' residence to 'A' business, land belonging to Joseph Godar on the northeast corner at the intersection of Maple and Main Streets. This land lies directly across Main Street from the plaintiffs' land and has a frontage of 68.46 feet on Main Street. In May, 1941, the commission changed, from 'A' residence to 'A' business, an additional parcel of Godar's land adjacent to and just north of the other parcel and fronting 57.05 feet on Main Street. The second change was made 'to allow the expansion or enlargement of business in this particular locality.' There are a grill, a drugstore, a tailor shop and a market on the Godar land. It is assessed for taxation purposes at the rate of $100 a front foot on Main Street. The plaintiffs' land is assessed at $15 a front foot. There are no business zones south of these properties to the town line. Ten property owners within 200 feet of the land for which the plaintiffs seek a change of zone, and forty-six people residing in the vicinity, presented a petition opposing any zone change. Upon these facts, the trial court sustained the action of the commission in denying the plaintiffs' application.

The plaintiffs seek to correct the finding by adding certain paragraphs of their draft finding. These paragraphs are predicated upon the testimony of a real estate expert who was the only witness called in the Court of Common Pleas. A fact is not an admitted or undisputed fact because the witness who testified to it has not been contradicted. The acceptance or rejection of testimony is a matter for the trial court. Practice Book, § 397; Maltbie, Conn. App.Proc., p. 124. The finding is not subject to the correction claimed by the plaintiffs.

The question before the court was whether the commission acted arbitrarily or illegally, or so unreasonably as to have abused its discretion. The burden of proof is always on the plaintiff. Perdue v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 118 Conn. 174, 178, 171 A. 26; DeFelice v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 130 Conn. 156, 164, 32 A.2d 635, 147 A.L.R. 161. Zoning authorities are endowed with a wide and liberal discretion. Mallory v. West Hartford, 138 Conn. 497, 505, 86 A.2d 668. This must be so because circumstances and conditions affecting zone regulations and changes are matters of local concern and peculiarly within the knowledge of the local authorities. Kutcher v. Town Planning Commission, 138 Conn. 705, 710, 88 A.2d 538. Neither the trial court nor this court can substitute its own discretion for that of the commission 138 Conn. 709, 88 A.2d 538; Blake v. Board of Appeals, 117 Conn. 527, 533, 169 A. 195; Piccolo v. West Haven, 120 Conn. 449, 455, 181 A. 615. These rules are the guideposts along the way to a decision on an appeal such as this.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Parker v. Zoning Comm'n of the Town of Wash.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 11 Enero 2022
    ...(1989) (party challenging action of zoning commission bears burden of proving commission acted improperly); Chouinard v. Zoning Commission , 139 Conn. 728, 731, 97 A.2d 562 (1953) ("[t]he burden of proof is always on the plaintiff" who challenges zoning commission determination). On our rev......
  • Florentine v. Town of Darien
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 7 Junio 1955
    ...exists and the power is reasonably exercised, the public interest is supreme and private interest must give way. Chouinard v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 728, 732, 97 A.2d 562; Bartram v. Zoning Commission, 136 Conn. 89, 96, 68 A.2d 308; Town of Windsor v. Whitney, 95 Conn. 357, 366, 111 A......
  • Iowa Natural Resources Council v. Van Zee
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 9 Abril 1968
    ...40 A.2d 177, 156 A.L.R. 568; Second National Bank of New Haven v. Loftus, 121 Conn. 454, 460, 185 A. 423; see Chouinard v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 728, 732, 97 A.2d 562.' I would hold a similar distinction is created by the provisions of section 455A.33, the material portions of which ......
  • Parker v. Zoning Comm'n of Town of Wash.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 11 Enero 2022
    ... ROBERT PARKER ET AL. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF WASHINGTON ET AL. No. AC 44130 Court of Appeals of ... Vanderbilt ... Co ... v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co ., ... 171 Conn.App. 61, 279 n.104, 156 A.3d ... commission acted improperly); Chouinard v. Zoning ... Commission , 139 Conn. 728, 731, 97 A.2d 562 (1953) ... requested: ... ‘‘1. Regrading along the rear and east ... side of the Main Building ... ‘‘2. Addition of a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT