City of West Haven v. Impact
| Decision Date | 03 January 1978 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF WEST HAVEN v. IMPACT et al. |
Peter L. Truebner, Hartford, for appellant (defendant Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund).
Charles A. Sherwood, New Haven, for appellant (defendant Phyllis', Incorporated).
Stuart Bear, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Jacob D. Zeldes, Fairfield, for appellee (named defendant).
Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.
Prior to 1965 and pursuant to the provisions of chapter 130 of the General Statutes, the city of West Haven adopted a redevelopment and urban renewal plan which was designated as the "Savin Rock Urban Renewal Project No. 2." Soon thereafter, the redevelopment agency gave the renewal project substantial publicity and made parcels of land available to prospective redevelopers. By 1974 at least six proposals were actually approved and developed on the redevelopment site. 1 At the same time, the agency had sanitary and storm sewers constructed within the project to service proposed commercial and residential development. The agency even raised the level of the land of one parcel to an elevation of ten feet above high water to prevent flooding. 2
On October 2, 1974, a referendum, initiated by the defendant Impact, a civic organization, was ordered on the ballot by a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. The referendum read as follows: "Be it resolved, that the City of West Haven acquire title to all remaining property in the Savin Rock Urban Renewal Project No. 2 (Conn.R-75) known as Redevelopment Parcels, I, J, M, N, O & T, such property to be held forever as part of the Public Domain of West Haven, devoted to Park and Outdoor Recreational Use." If passed, the referendum would cause the city to reverse its course and turn the remaining parcels into a public park even though one of the remaining parcels of substantial size, parcel M, had already been designated as a public park. The West Haven electorate on October 17, 1974, approved the ordinance.
In response to the referendum vote, the agency sought the consent of the existing redevelopers to the proposed modification of the plan. When five of the seven redevelopers withheld their consent, the plaintiff city brought this declaratory judgment action naming Impact as well as all existing redevelopers as defendants. A stipulation to certain facts was submitted to the court. The sole issue before the court was whether the ordinance passed by the referendum constituted a modification of the original redevelopment plan within the meaning of § 8-136 3 of the General Statutes.
The trial court concluded that the referendum ordinance was not a modification of the original redevelopment plan and that the city could proceed to enforce it without the consent of the redevelopers. From the judgment rendered, the defendants, Phyllis', Incorporated, and Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, have appealed assigning error in the court's conclusions and in the overruling of their claims of law.
The stipulation of the parties included a copy of the West Haven, Connecticut, Savin Rock Urban Renewal Project No. 2, Urban Renewal Plan, marked exhibit "E," and a map of Savin Rock Urban Renewal Reuse Parcels, marked exhibit "F." Those exhibits reveal that the land use plan for the renewal project was in accordance with a long range plan of development prepared by the West Haven planning and zoning commission. The land use map shows proposed land uses, public streets, a fire station, a neighborhood park, and easements for certain utilities. Inasmuch as the project area had considerable frontage on the waters of Long Island Sound, the plan anticipated that the land uses such as motels, beach clubs and multifamily residences would be water oriented. To preserve a historical site, the neighborhood park on parcel M encompassed what is left of the original Savin Rock landmark.
Those exhibits show that the individual parcels involved in the referendum were designated as follows:
I. Commercial Recreation and Apartments.
J. Commercial Recreation and Apartments.
M. Neighborhood Park.
N. Commercial Recreation and Apartments.
O. Commercial Recreation and Apartments.
T. Commercial Recreation and Apartments.
The following are permitted uses in parcels I, J, N, O and T: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gentry v. City of Norwalk
...must be considered. Harris Data Communications, Inc. v. Heffernan, 183 Conn. 194, 197, 438 A.2d 1178 (1981); West Haven v. Impact, 174 Conn. 160, 164, 384 A.2d 353 (1978). In ascertaining legislative intent, we may look to the history of the statute, the policy underlying it and the circums......
-
West Haven Sound Development Corp. v. West Haven
...eleven years. The facts leading up to the alleged breach have been clearly and adequately set forth in the cases of West Haven v. Impact, 174 Conn. 160, 384 A.2d 353 (1978), and New Haven Savings Bank v. West Haven Sound Development, 190 Conn. 60, 459 A.2d 999 (1983). We will, therefore, li......
-
West Haven Sound Development Corp. v. City of West Haven
...this court, and we have heretofore clearly and adequately set forth the facts leading to the breach of contract. West Haven v. Impact, 174 Conn. 160, 384 A.2d 353 (1978); New Haven Savings Bank v. West Haven Sound Development, 190 Conn. 60, 459 A.2d 999 (1983); West Haven Sound Development ......
-
Serrani v. Board of Ethics of City of Stamford
...of raising it. Although a declaratory judgment action is appropriately employed to construe an ordinance; e.g., West Haven v. Impact, 174 Conn. 160, 384 A.2d 353 (1978); or to determine the constitutionality of an ordinance; e.g., Horwitz v. Waterford, 151 Conn. [225 Conn. 314] 320, 197 A.2......