Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of the Town of Torrington

• Decision Date: 16 October 1997
• Docket Number: Nos. 16526,16528,s. 16526
• Citation: 46 Conn.App. 566,700 A.2d 67
• Parties: CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TORRINGTON et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

Page 67

700 A.2d 67

46 Conn.App. 566

CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TORRINGTON et al.

Nos. 16526, 16528.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued June 2, 1997.

Decided Sept. 2, 1997.

Certifications Denied Oct. 16, 1997.

Peter C. Herbst, Torrington, for appellant (defendant Torrington Land Associates, Inc.).

Albert G. Vasko, Corporation Counsel, Torrington, for appellant (named defendant).

Douglas A. Cho, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before FOTI, LAVERY and HEIMAN, JJ.

LAVERY, Judge.

The defendants, Torrington planning and zoning commission (commission) and Torrington Land Associates, Inc. (TLA), appeal from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff, Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority's (CRRA) appeal from the granting of a special exception in favor of TLA. On appeal, the defendants contend that the trial court improperly found that the subject premises constituted a flag lot ¹ and, therefore, did not conform with Torrington's zoning regulations.

The following facts and procedural history are necessary for disposition of this appeal. TLA applied to the commission for a special exception and a site plan approval to construct a solid waste transfer station and leaf composting facility on real property it owns in Torrington. TLA's land abuts property owned by CRRA. A public hearing and site visit was conducted concerning TLA's applications, and the commission subsequently approved them.

CRRA appealed to the Superior Court from the special exception approval, but not from the site plan approval, raising four separate issues concerning the commission's decision. CRRA claimed that (1) TLA improperly posted a sign that was to provide public notice of its special exception application, (2) TLA's proposed facility constituted an impermissible flag lot, (3) TLA's proposed facility would hamper Torrington's traffic circulation, and (4) leaf composting was not allowed in the area in question. The trial court sustained CRRA's appeal on the ground that the TLA parcel was a flag lot and that Torrington's regulations do not provide for the use of a flag lot in an industrial zone. ² The defendants filed petitions for certification to appeal to this court. Both petitions were subsequently granted.

The defendants claim that, when the commission approved TLA's special exception application, it found that the subject premises was a legal lot and not a flag lot. The defendants contend that the proper issue before the trial court was whether the commission correctly interpreted the regulations concerning the definition of a flag lot and applied them with reasonable discretion to the facts.

In the present case, TLA's lot is in an industrial, as opposed to a residential, zone. The lot is landlocked, having no frontage on a city accepted street and is accessible only by an easement over property owned by the town of Torrington and by CRRA. The defendants contend that the subject parcel is located in an industrial zone and is nonconforming because of its lack of frontage on a city accepted street. Furthermore, the defendants argue that zoning regulations for a flag lot apply only to residential areas, and the commission was correct in granting TLA's application for a special exception and concluding that TLA's proposed facility constitutes a valid building lot. We agree with the defendants.

"The terms special permit and special exception have the same legal import and can be used interchangeably.... A special permit allows a property owner to use his property in a manner expressly permitted by the local zoning regulation.... The proposed use, however, must satisfy standards set forth in the zoning regulations themselves as well as the conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience, and property values.... Acting in this administrative capacity, the [zoning commission's] function is to determine whether the applicant's proposed use is expressly permitted under the regulations, and whether the standards set forth in the regulations and the statute are satisfied....

"It is well settled that in granting a special permit, an applicant must satisf[y] all conditions imposed by the regulations.... The zoning commission has no discretion to deny the special exception if the regulations and statutes are satisfied.... When a zoning authority has stated the reasons for its actions, a reviewing court may determine only if the reasons given are supported by the record and are pertinent to the decision.... The zoning [commission's] action must be sustained if even one of the stated reasons is sufficient to support it...." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 32 Conn.App. 515, 520-22, 630 A.2d 108 (1993).

A site plan is a "plan filed with a zoning commission or other municipal agency or official to determine the conformity of a proposed building, use or structure with specific provisions of the zoning regulations. It is a physical plan showing the layout and design of a proposed use, including structures, parking areas and open space and their relation to adjacent uses and roads, and containing the information required by the zoning regulations for that use. The agency has no independent discretion beyond determining whether the plan complies with the site plan regulations and applicable zoning regulations incorporated by reference. 'A site plan may be modified or denied only if it fails to comply with requirements already set forth in the regulations.' " R. Fuller, 9 Connecticut Practice Series: Land Use Law and Practice (1993) § 2.2, pp. 17-18; see also Barberino Realty & Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 222 Conn. 607, 613-14, 610 A.2d 1205 (1992); SSM Associates Limited Partnership v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 15 Conn.App. 561, 566-67, 545 A.2d 602 (1988); aff'd, 211 Conn. 331, 559 A.2d 196 (1989); Allied Plywood, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 2 Conn.App. 506, 512, 480 A.2d 584, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 808, 483 A.2d 612 (1984).

The plaintiff claims that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed because it corrected an error of law by the commission. The plaintiff's position is that TLA's lot is a flag lot and the commission does not have the authority to approve it for industrial use as a special exception under the regulations. They claim flag lots can be used only for residential purposes, and since TLA's lot is in an industrial zone it cannot be used because that use is not expressly permitted under the regulations.

We disagree with the...