Corthouts v. Town of Newington
| Decision Date | 04 August 1953 |
| Citation | 140 Conn. 284,99 A.2d 112,38 A.L.R.2d 1136 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 38 A.L.R.2d 1136 CORTHOUTS v. TOWN OF NEWINGTON et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
William W. Sprague, Hartford, for appellants (defendants).
Frank A. Francis, Hartford, with whom was John J. Devine, Jr., Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before BROWN, C. J., and BALDWIN, CORNELL, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant town and its zoning commission to enjoin the enforcement of an amendment to the zoning ordinance of the town which prohibited, in an industrial zone, the use of land for residential purposes. The action has been treated by the parties as one for a declaratory judgment to determine whether the amendment is a lawful and constitutional exercise of the powers vested in the town and the commission. We will so consider it. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and the defendants have appealed.
The material facts in the finding, with certain additions which are warranted, can be stated as follows: The town of Newington is neither a thickly settled nor an industrial community. Its population in 1930 was 4552; in 1940, 5449; in 1950, 9110. On August 26, 1930, a zoning ordinance was adopted which divided the town into districts designated as residence 'A' and 'B,' business, industrial No. 1 and industrial No. 2. Newington Zoning Ordinance, Art. 1, § 2 (1949). The regulations for an industrial district No. 2 permit uses which are generally described as heavy industrial. Id., Art. 2, § 10. The total area of the town is 8382 acres. Out of this, approximately 6600 acres are confined to 'A' residence districts, 95 acres to 'B' residence districts, 185 acres to business districts, 11 acres to industrial district No. 1, and 627 acres to industrial district No. 2. After more than twenty years of zoning, only 38.5 acres in industrial district No. 2 have been built upon or are occupied by industry. The right of way of the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad crosses the westerly part of the town. When the zoning regulations were originally adopted, the land on both sides of the right of way to a depth of 600 feet was placed in an industrial district No. 2.
On December 14, 1951, the plaintiff purchased a tract of land for the purpose of erecting dwelling houses. His land, approximately 30 acres in extent, is situated in the westerly part of the town near the New Britain town line. It lies 150 feet west of the railroad right of way, which at this point is at a substantially lower level. There are several dwelling houses in the residence 'B' zone west of and adjacent to the plaintiff's land. The more westerly portion of it, containing about 11.5 acres, is located in a 'B' residence district. The remainder lies within the industrial district No. 2 hereinbefore referred to. There is a right of way appurtenant to it for a railway siding across land of the Hartford Electric Light Company which lies immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks. The city of New Britain has a right of way varying from twenty-five to fifty feet in width across the plaintiff's land for a trunk-line sewer. When the plaintiff made his purchase, the zoning ordinance permitted the use of land in an industrial district for residential purposes. Newington Zoning Ordinance, Art. 2, § 10 (1949). Effective February 1, 1952, the zoning commission amended the regulations pertaining to an industrial district No. 2 so as to prohibit, within such a district, the erection of a dwelling of any kind except the residence of a janitor or a caretaker of premises or a plant of a permitted industry. Newington Zoning Ordinance, Art. 2, § 10-33b. The plaintiff's land is adapted to development for residential use, for which there is a demand. Such use is the highest and best to which it can be put. Unless it can be devoted to residential purposes, in all probability it will remain unused for many years. It is not adapted to industrial use, for which there is not any present demand in Newington and none is expected. Although the amendment prohibits the use of land in an industrial district No. 2 for residential purposes, the ordinance allows such land to be used for community buildings, hotels, clubhouses, hospitals, churches, schools, playgrounds and businesses generally.
The Newington zoning ordinance follows the prescribed pattern in that it enumerates the uses which are permitted in residence districts, and lists only those which are prohibited in business and industrial districts. Generally, the districts of less restricted uses admit the uses of the more restricted ones. Baker, Legal Aspects of Zoning, p. 66; Yokley, Zoning Law & Practice, pp. 64, 66. Before the amendment under consideration was adopted, there was no prohibition against the use of land in an industrial district for residential purposes. The amendment proscribes what has usually been considered as the highest use to which land can be put, namely, residential use, in an industrial district where uses regarded as among the lowest and most burdensome are permitted. This is a marked departure from what has heretofore been accepted as standard practice. It is not altogether novel, however. Some communities already have ordinances which prohibit a residential use in an industrial district. Rathkopf, Law of Zoning & Planning (2d Ed.) (Sup. & Dig.1951, p. 58); Baker, op. cit., p. 66; Williams, Law of City Planning & Zoning, p. 277.
Zoning regulations constitute a valid exercise of the police power only when they have a 'rational relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and prosperity of the community' and are 'not such an unreasonable exercise of [the police] power as to become arbitrary, destructive or confiscatory.' State v. Hillman, 110 Conn. 92, 100, 105, 147 A. 294, 297. Whether a zoning ordinance meets this test...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florentine v. Town of Darien
...State v. Hillman, 110 Conn. 92, 100, 105, 147 A. 294; Strain v. Mims, 123 Conn. 275, 286, 193 A. 754; Corthouts v. Newington, 140 Conn. 284, 288, 99 A.2d 112, 38 A.L.R.2d 1136. Where such a rational relation exists and the power is reasonably exercised, the public interest is supreme and pr......
-
Port Clinton Associates v. Board of Selectmen of Town of Clinton
...82 S.Ct. 987, 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962); Nectow v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 188, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928); cf. Corthouts v. Newington, 140 Conn. 284, 99 A.2d 112 (1953). We conclude, however, that Port Clinton was nevertheless required to satisfy the "finality" requirement in the sense ......
-
State v. Schaffel
...141 Conn. 288, 294, 106 A.2d 152, 45 A.L.R.2d 1234, appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 880, 75 S.Ct. 125, 99 L.Ed. 693; Corthouts v. Town of Newington, 140 Conn. 284, 288, 99 A.2d 112. Realization of public health is not the only goal to be achieved by the ordinance; public safety and general welfa......
-
Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Groton
...the application of land use regulations by invalidating the applicable ordinance or amendment thereto. See, e.g., Corthouts v. Newington, 140 Conn. 284, 290, 99 A.2d 112 (1953) (invalidating amendment to zoning ordinance "so far as it affect[ed] the plaintiff's property"); cf. Strain v. Mim......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...Roney v. Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, 1956, 138 Cal. App. 2d 740, 292 P.2d 529; Corthouts v. Town of Newington, 1953, 140 Conn. 284, 99 A.2d 112, 114, 38 A.L.R.2d 1136, 1139-1140. Whether such a zoning regulation is valid depends, of course, upon the facts of the particular ......