Farina v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Trumbull
| Decision Date | 09 January 1969 |
| Citation | 157 Conn. 420,254 A.2d 492 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frank FARINA et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF TRUMBULL et al. |
The appellees filed a motion for reargument which was denied.
Vincent M. Zanella, Jr., Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Aaron A. Levine, Bridgeport for appellee (named defendant); with him, on the brief, was Vincent P. Adley, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant Trumbull Housing Authority).
Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.
The housing authority for the town of Trumbull applied to the defendant zoning board of appeals for a special exception to erect a fifty-unit housing complex for elderly persons and a community recreation hall pursuant to article 2, § 1(B)(6), of the Trumbull zoning regulations (1959, as amended). The selected parcel of land is 8.4 acres in area and is in a residence A zone on Machalowski Road in Trumbull. Machalowski Road is a dead-end street with about eight houses on it and would be the sole means of ingress and egress for the proposed housing complex.
The board of appeals granted the special exception, and the plaintiffs, who own property and reside near the selected site, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. From the judgment dismissing the appeal, the plaintiffs have taken the present appeal.
The plaintiffs claim that the board of appeals acted arbitrarily and illegally in granting the special exception because one of the conditions imposed by the board was contrary to a requiremetn specified in the zoning regulations relating to housing projects for the elderly. We agree with this claim for reasons hereinafter stated.
As a prerequisite to granting a special exception, article 2, § 1(B), of the Trumbull zoning regulations requires the board of appeals to find 'that the existing public streets are suitable and adequate to handle any additional traffic generated by the proposed use.' In the instant case, the board of appeals found that the existing public streets had sufficient entablished right of way to be suitable and adequate to handle any additional traffic generated by the proposed use. The board noted, however, that some improvemetns to the right of way might be required but that they could and would be made. The board granted the special exception subject to the condition that Machalowski Road shall be widened at the direction of the town traffic commission so as to be suitable and adequate to handle the traffic generated by the housing project.
In granting the special exception, the board of appeals was acting in an administrative capacity, and its function was to determine whether the applicant's proposal satisfied the conditions set forth in the zoning regulations relating to housing for the elderly. See RK Development Corporation v. City of Norwalk, 156 Conn. 369, 375, 242 A.2d 781; J & M Realty Co. v. City of Norwalk, 156 Conn. 185, 190, 239 A.2d 534; Jeffery v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 451, 461, 232 A.2d 497; Abramson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 143 Conn. 211, 213, 120 A.2d 827. The conditions permitting the special exception must be found in the zoning regulations themselves. Summ v. Zoning Commission, of Town of Ridgefield, 150 Conn. 79, 87, 186 A.2d 160; Service Realty Corporation v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 141 Conn. 632, 636, 109 A.2d 256. The board of appeals could grant the special exception subject to certain conditions if the board had the authority to impose such conditions; Parish of St. Andrew's Protestant Episcopal Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 350, 354, 232 A.2d 916; and none of the conditions imposed by the board altered any requirement prescribed in the zoning regulations. Parish of St. Andrew's Protestant Episcopal Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 353, 232 A.2d 916; Huhta v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 694, 697, 202 A.2d 139; Fox v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 146 Conn. 70, 72, 147 A.2d 472; Abramson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra; Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning & Zoning Board of Appeals, 140 Conn. 527, 532, 102 A.2d 316.
It is apparent that the condition imposed by the board of appeals delegated to the town traffic commission the duty of determining the extent of the traffic increase owing to the proposed housing development and what corrective measures, if any, would be required in order to accommodate this increased traffic. This condition is clearly contrary to article 2, § 1(B), of the zoing regulations, which requires the board of appeals to determine whether the existing public streets are suitable and adequate to handle any additional traffic generated by the proposed housing development and what improvements, if any, would be necessary to provide for such increased traffic. As used in the regulations, the phrase 'existing public streets' has the connotation of an area which can be used by the public for the purposes of travel by ordinary means. The phrase does not connote the total width of a public right of way regardless of its suitability for accommondating vehicular traffic. We interpret the phrase 'existing public streets' to refer to the portion of a road which can be used by the public for vehicular traffic.
The board of appeals does not have the power to change one of the requirements of the zoning regulations by imposing a condition which is clearly contrary to a requirement of the regulations. The traffic commission can assist the board of appeals in its effort to determine how much additional traffic is expected to result from the housing project and what road improvements would be necessary to provide for the increased traffic. The board of appeals cannot, however, delegate the duty of making this determination to the town traffic commission. See Hawkes v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 207, 212, 240 A.2d 914. In order to secure the special exception, the housing authority must show the board of appeals how much additional traffic is expected as a result of the housing project and what road improvements, if any, would be necessary to handle this increased traffic.
The condition imposed by the board of appeals is invalid. This condition is an integral part of the board's determination, and it cannot be separated from the grant of the special exception since it indicates that the board did not make a finding that the existing public streets were suitable and adequate to handle any additional traffic generated by the proposed use. Parish of St. Andrew's Protestant Episcopal Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 155 Conn. 355, 232 A.2d 916. The improvement of public streets involves the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grace Community Church v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Bethel
...239, 246, 278 A.2d 766 (1971); (2) whether the standards in the relevant zoning regulations are satisfied; Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 157 Conn. 420, 422, 254 A.2d 492 (1969); and (3) whether conditions necessary to protect public health, safety, convenience and property values, as p......
-
Mackenzie v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Monroe
...does not comply with the applicable regulations, the commission cannot approve it” [citation omitted] ); Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 157 Conn. 420, 422, 254 A.2d 492 (1969) (“[i]n granting the special exception, the [agency] was acting in an administrative capacity, and its function ......
-
Jarvis Acres, Inc. v. Zoning Commission of Town of East Hartford
...Zoning Commission, 160 Conn. 295, 302, 278 A.2d 799; Stiles v. Town Council, 159 Conn. 212, 221, 268 A.2d 395; Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 157 Conn. 420, 424, 254 A.2d 492. 'In the absence of some reasonable assurance . . . that provision would be made for the requisite highway and t......
-
Murphy v. Zoning Com'n of Town of New Milford
...See A.P. & W. Holding Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Board, 167 Conn. 182, 184-85, 355 A.2d 91 (1974); Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 157 Conn. 420, 422, 254 A.2d 492 (1969). A special permit allows a property owner to use his property in a manner expressly permitted by the regulations; a p......