First Nat. Stores, Inc. v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of West Hartford

• Court: Connecticut Court of Common Pleas
• Writing for the Court: MIGNONE
• Citation: First Nat. Stores, Inc. v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of West Hartford, 222 A.2d 228, 26 Conn.Supp. 302 (Conn. Ct. Com. Pl. 1966)
• Decision Date: 03 March 1966
• Docket Number: 83573,Nos. 83292,84318,s. 83292
• Parties: FIRST NATIONAL STORES, INC. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD.

Page 228

222 A.2d 228

26 Conn.Supp. 302

FIRST NATIONAL STORES, INC. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF WEST HARTFORD.

Nos. 83292, 83573, 84318.

Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut, Hartford County.

March 3, 1966.

Ribicoff & Kotkin, Hartford, for plaintiff.

Timothy Covello, Asst. Corporation Counsel, for defendant.

MIGNONE, Judge.

The three consolidated actions involved herein were appeals from the assessment of damages made in favor of the plaintiff, First National Stores, Inc., by the defendant, the town plainning and zoning commission of the town of West Hartford. The appeals were taken pursuant to the provisions of chapter 13, §§ 7 and 8, of the charter of the town of West Hartford in connection with the proposed layout of Arapahoe Road Extension. a public highway, across land of plaintiff.

Pursuant to a duly convened public hearing held by the commission on November 13, 1961, damages were assessed in favor of First National Stores, Inc., in the amount of $34,485, in connection with the layout of the public highway in issue. This assessment was thereafter confirmed by the town council of West Hartford on November 28, 1961. Thereafter, on December 13, 1961, the plaintiff filed its appeals to this court from the assessment made, pursuant to § 8 of the charter of the defendant, and seeks a reassessment of the damages assessed as above set out.

The appeals in this court were referred to Hon. Raymond E. Baldwin, state referee, in accorance with the provisions of § 8 of said charter, to hear the evidence and report the facts to this court on the issue of a reassessment of the damages awarded and for the further purpose of reviewing, modifying, affirming or revoking the action of the commission. Thereafter, extensive hearings were held before said state referee. In November, 1964, the referee filed his report, setting forth his findings of facts and conclusions. In said report he found that the damages in favor of the plaintiff should be reassessed to $218,379 instead of the $34,485 awarded by the defendant commission. In March, 1965, the defendant moved to correct said report, and the said referee filed a corrected report in April, 1965, in which after making minor corrections, he reaffirmed the said reassessment of damages in the sum of $218,379. Thereafter, in May, 1965, the defendant filed exceptions to the referee's report as corrected and objections to the referee's report as corrected. The issue has now become crystalized in this court by the motion made by the plaintiff on October 26, 1965, for acceptance of the referee's report as corrected and for denial of the defendant's exceptions and objections, and praying for judgment in accordance with § 363 of the Practice Book.

The referee had before him a strongly contested issue of fact as to the basis upon which this assessment should be made. The position of the defendant commission was that the damages should be assessed solely upon the market value of the land actually taken, whereas the plaintiff argued that the referee was required to take into account the claim of very substantial damage sustained in terms of reduction in value of the remaining property.

By way of background as to the facts in issue, the state referee found and set out in his report the following: '(1) On November 13, 1961, the plaintiff owned a parcel of land with the buildings thereon located on the west side of South Main Street in West Hartford. (2) This land is bounded northerly, approximately 426 feet, on lands owned by others, and on a municipal parking area; easterly, approximately 400 feet, by South Main Street; southerly, approximately 300 feet, by land of others, and westerly, approximately 405 feet, by land of others. * * * (3) The main building on the land is used as a large chain store. This building was enlarged in 1962 by the addition of 5000 square feet of floor space to the south side of the store building and, in a separate and smaller addition, 2400 feet which presently houses a branch bank. * * * The construction of this addition began in January, 1962, and was completed in August, 1962. The plans for the addition were started immediately after the acquisition of additional land by the plaintiff in June, 1959. (4) The building structures are located on the more southerly portion of the land. There is a large area for parking customers' automobiles north of the building, with smaller areas for parking on the premises east, south and west of the building. This parking space will accommodate 254 parked cars. * * * (5) There is an entrance and exit to the premises to and from South Main Street. This entrance is located just north of the north wall of the store building. * * * (6) There is also an entrance and exit south of the building. This entrance extends along the southerly portion of the plaintiff's land, and furnishes a continuous passway which extends to the right-of-way, thus enabling cars to go from South Main Street over the plaintiff's land and right-of-way to LaSalle Road. * * * (7) The customers' entrance to and exit from the store is on the northeast corner of the store building. * * * (8) A parcel pick-up operated with a traveling belt system has been installed along the east side of the store. This is so arranged that a customer can make her purchases, receive an identification ticket for her parcels at the check-out point, leave the store, secure her automobile from the parking areas, and drive it to the parcel pick-up where her parcels will be placed in her car by one of the plaintiff's employees stationed there for that purpose. The average sales slip for a single customer is $6.20.'

The state referee further found that the plaintiff's store is located in a congested downtown shopping area of West Hartford, and that 'the commission had conceived the plan of creating a 'belt line' which would, through existing streets, and the opening up of the Arapahoe Road Extension, permit a circular flow of vehicular traffic in the downtown area of West Hartford.' In connection with this proposed 'belt line,' the commission proposed opening up a 50-foot right-of-way, to be known as 'Arapahoe Road Extension,' to be used as a public highway extending westerly from South Main Street to LaSalle Road across the southerly portion of the plaintiff's land and along the right-of-way which it now has to LaSalle Road. The referee in his report further found that this proposed highway 'would take a portion of the plaintiff's land, along its southerly border, approximately 290 feet long, 50 feet wide at its easterly end on South Main Street and 35 feet wide at its westerly end, and the entire right-of-way which the plaintiff now has from the southwesterly corner of its property to LaSalle Road.' The report further found that the proposed 'Arapahoe Road Extension' would eliminate the exit by which, as the situation now exists, traffic leaving the plaintiff's pickup lane enters South Main Street just north of the junction of the present passway and South Main Street.

Based on these essential findings of fact, the referee reached the following controlling conclusions, which are the subject of the defendant's main attack upon the report made by the referee: (1) The parcel pickup system is an essential and necessary feature of the merchandising program adopted in the plaintiff's store. (2) Under the revised traffic pattern required if said Arapahoe Road Extension is to become operative as part of this 'belt system,' a 'hazardous traffic congestion, difficult, if not impossible, to regulate successfully and safely,' would result. (3) If a parcel pickup lane is to be provided by the plaintiff for its customers it will be necessary to relocate this lane and place it on the north side of the plaintiff's store building. (4) Such a relocation will necessitate a complete interior rearrangement of the plaintiff's store in order to conform to the plaintiff's longestablished and effective practice of arranging merchandise for customers' self-service and for display purposes in the store in this highly competitive business and for receiving merchandise from suppliers off the premises. (5) These relocations and rearrangements are extensive and affect the entire building. They will require the expenditure by the plaintiff of $176,379, which is a reasonable sum. (6) The taking of land necessary for the Arapahoe Road Extension will eliminate twenty-one of the parking spaces now available for customers' parking south of the building. (7) The highest and best use of the plaintiff's property is for a chain store and shopping center:

 "The fair market value of the property before the
                 proposed taking was                                                  $456,000
                 (Land, 152,000 square feet at $3)
                 Buildings
                 Store (21,297 square feet at $18 less 10 percent for
                 depreciation and obsolescence)                                        345,012
                 Bank Addition                                                            x
                                                                                      ---------
                                                                                      $801,012"
                (8) "The fair market value of the property after taking is             414,000
                 (Land, 138,000 square feet at $3)
                 Store Building                                             $345,012
                 Less the cost of rearranging the store as nearly
                 as can be to its present operating efficiency               176,379   168,633
                                                                            --------
                 Bank Addition                                                            x
                                                                                      ---------
                                                                                      $582,633"
                

(9) As a result of the foregoing, 'the loss sustained by the plaintiff if the Arapahoe Road Extension as it affects the plaintiff's property is completed is $218,379.' (10) The damages should...