City of Meriden v. Planning & Zoning Commission of Wallingford.
Decision Date | 01 October 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 34290.,34290. |
Citation | 146 Conn.App. 240,77 A.3d 859 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | CITY OF MERIDEN v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF WALLINGFORD. |
Deborah Leigh Moore, corporation counsel, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Janis M. Small, corporation counsel, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff, the city of Meriden, appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing its administrative appeal from the decision of the defendant, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the town of Wallingford, denying its application for a special permit. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the defendant's denial of the special permit application was not supported by substantial evidence.1 We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. In July, 2007, the plaintiff, the owner of a parcel of land in Wallingford, applied for a special permit to use approximately six acres of a landfill for disposing of street sweepings, soil, concrete, bricks and various other nonhazardous materials generated from public works projects. Specifically, the plaintiff submitted its application pursuant to §§ 6.10 and 7.5 of the Wallingford Zoning Regulations.2 The plaintiff wanted to construct and to operate a disposal cell at a closed landfill site on Hanover Street, located between two aquifer protection areas. The defendant conducted a hearing on August 13, 2007, and considered the plaintiff's application. At the hearing, representatives of the plaintiff indicated that the site would not be used for trash and would be limited to use by the plaintiff's employees. The capacity of the disposal cell was 80,000 cubic yards and would have an operating life of ten to fifteen years. The plaintiff's representatives estimated that approximately 4000 to 6000 cubic yards of fill per year would be placed in the disposal cell.
Robert Parisi, the chairman of the Wallingford Town Council, spoke at the hearing, and stated that he had received “a lot of calls from residents in the area” who were opposed to the plaintiff's application. Mary G. Fritz, a state representative, also spoke against the application, questioning whether the disposal cell was compatible with the neighborhood. Finally, Robert Jacques, a Wallingford resident, opposed the application, noting that there would be an increased use and that other garbage in all likelihood would be placed in the disposal cell.
The defendant unanimously voted to deny the plaintiff's application for a special permit. The reason for the denial was that “based upon the ... totality of the evidence, and based upon all matters raised at the hearing, it appears that the intensity of the proposed use is unacceptable, it will likely—will adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and there's been no evidence that there are—are any technical constraints necessitating location on Wallingford property.” In a letter dated August 16, 2007, the defendant notified the plaintiff as to the reasons for the denial of its special permit application.
In September, 2007, the plaintiff appealed the denial of its special permit application to the Superior Court. The court heard argument on July 29 and August 8, 2011.3 In its October 14, 2011 memorandum of decision, the court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the evidence did not support the defendant's decision to deny the special permit application. Specifically, the court stated: This appeal followed.
Before addressing the specific issues raised by the plaintiff, we set forth the legal principles regarding special permits. . (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Trumbull Falls, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 97 Conn.App. 17, 20–21, 902 A.2d 706, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 923, 908 A.2d 545 (2006). We have observed that (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 115 Conn.App. 655, 659, 974 A.2d 61, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 919, 979 A.2d 489 (2009). Guided by these principles, we turn to the specifics of the plaintiff's appeal.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.4 Within this claim, it argues that the defendant “gave only general, nonspecific reasons as the basis of [its] unanimous denial” and that the court's reliance on the defendant's finding of intensification was improper and not supported by the record. We disagree.
Our Supreme Court has (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 627–28, 711 A.2d 675 (1998).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 285 Conn. 381, 427, 941 A.2d 868 (2008).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Joseph's High Sch., Inc. v. Planning
...Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 285 Conn. 381, 436, 941 A.2d 868 (2008) ; accord Meriden v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 146 Conn.App. 240, 248–49, 77 A.3d 859 (2013) (upholding denial of special permit on basis of general standard regarding intensification of use); Ch......
-
St. Joseph's High Sch., Inc. v. Planning
...Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 285 Conn. 381, 436, 941 A.2d 868 (2008); accord Meriden v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 146 Conn. App. 240, 248-49, 77 A.3d 859 (2013) (upholding denial of special permit on basis of general standard regarding intensification of use); Chil......
-
Congamond Lake Environmental Protection Organization v. Suffield Zoning &
Planning Commission, LNDCV146052619S
... ... quotation marks omitted.) Meriden v. Planning & ... Zoning Commission , 146 Conn.App. 240, 244-46, 77 A.3d ... 859 ... create a vested right. See Ebzery v. City of ... Sheridan , 982 P.2d 1251, 1257 (Wyo. 1999); Matter of ... Westbury Laundromat, ... ...
-
Sofia's Plazas, LLC v. East Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission
...is subject to review by the courts only to determine whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 246. "In reviewing a decision of a zoning board, a court is bound by the substantial evidence rule, according to which ... [c]onclusions reached ......