Friedman v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Rocky Hill

• Decision Date: 02 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 14389,14389
• Citation: 608 A.2d 1178,222 Conn. 262
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Aaron FRIEDMAN, et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF ROCKY HILL.

Page 1178

608 A.2d 1178

222 Conn. 262

Aaron FRIEDMAN, et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF ROCKY HILL.

No. 14389.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 18, 1992.

Decided June 2, 1992.

Lewis K. Wise, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Gordon T. Allen, Rocky Hill, for appellee (defendant).

COVELLO, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Rocky Hill planning and zoning commission denying the plaintiffs' application for site plan approval of a proposed office building within the town. The issue presented is whether the commission could require the submission of an offsite traffic study as part of the site plan approval process. We conclude that within the framework of the applicable Rocky Hill zoning regulations, a traffic study is an appropriate ancillary submission. We therefore affirm the decision of the trial court that so held.

On September 7, 1989, the plaintiffs, Aaron Friedman and Dennis Angel, applied to the defendant, the Rocky Hill planning and zoning commission (commission), for approval of a site plan to erect a three story office building at 2009 Silas Deane Highway, Rocky Hill. The parcel in question is located within a commercial zone in which an office building is a permitted use. The commission denied the application citing the proposal's failure to comply with a number of the Rocky Hill zoning regulations.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court. ¹ The court dismissed the appeal concluding that the plaintiffs' application had been incomplete in that it had not been accompanied by an appropriate, required traffic study. The Appellate Court granted certification to appeal placing in issue the question of whether the commission was precluded from weighing offsite traffic considerations and from requiring a traffic study as an incident to an application for a site plan approval. ² We thereafter transferred the matter to ourselves pursuant to Practice Book § 4023.

The plaintiffs first claim that the court erred in concluding that the commission could even consider offsite traffic issues in determining their site plan application. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that since an office building was a permitted use in the zone in question, our holdings in TLC Development, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 215 Conn. 527, 577 A.2d 288 (1990) (TLC), and Beit Havurah v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 177 Conn. 440, 418 A.2d 82 (1979) (Beit Havurah), precluded the commission's consideration of any offsite traffic matters. The plaintiffs contend that their failure to comply with the commission's regulations requiring submission of a traffic study was, therefore, irrelevant and could not serve as the basis for denying their application. We do not agree.

In TLC the Branford zoning regulations set forth a series of general objectives, one of which was entitled "Traffic and Pedestrian Access." TLC, supra, 215 Conn. at 530, 577 A.2d 288. The Branford regulations further provided that to assure the accomplishment of these general objectives, the "Commission ... may require such modifications of the proposed plans as it deems necessary...." (Emphasis added.) TLC, supra, at 530, 577 A.2d 288. We observed that the Branford zoning regulations make "it clear that the general objectives are to serve solely as the basis for requiring a modification of the proposed site plan" and concluded, therefore, that "offsite traffic considerations should not have served as the basis for denying the plaintiff's site plan application." (Emphasis added.) TLC, supra, at 532, 577 A.2d 288. Thus, in TLC, it was the language of the Branford zoning regulations itself that established the proposition that offsite traffic considerations only served the limited purpose of requiring a modification to the site plan and could not serve as the basis for denying the application altogether.

Our conclusion in TLC, that offsite traffic considerations might have only a limited role in the review of site plan applications, comported with an earlier instance in which we concluded that traffic studies had only a limited applicability in determining a general land use. In Beit Havurah, supra, an existing Jewish synagogue that lay within a zone that permitted churches, sought unrestricted overnight accommodations as a permitted accessory use. In dicta, we stated that "[t]he designation of a particular use of property as a permitted use [e.g., a church,] establishes a conclusive presumption that such use [e.g., church use,] does not adversely affect the district and precludes further inquiry into its effect on traffic, municipal services, property values, or the general harmony of the district." Beit Havurah, supra, 177 Conn. at 443, 418 A.2d 82. We hastened to add that, "[a]lthough property whose use constitutes a permitted use is not immune from regulation under the laws of nuisance or other applicable statutes such as those relating to public safety, no violation of any such laws has been alleged." Beit Havurah, supra, at 443, 418 A.2d 82.

Thus, TLC and Beit Havurah serve to illuminate two propositions with respect to the role of traffic considerations in weighing site plan applications. First, the language of a given zoning regulation may, by its textual content, limit the scope of the use of traffic considerations. Second, once a zoning authority establishes that a particular use within a zone is permitted, e.g., an office building or a church, a conclusive presumption arises that such a use in general, does not adversely affect the traffic within the zone. Neither of these tenets, however, precludes an examination into the special traffic consequences of a given site plan when the applicable zoning regulations permit it.

In the present instance, the erection of an office building within a commercial zone under the Rocky Hill zoning regulations was "permitted subject to Site Plan Approval in accordance with Section 9.4." Unlike the Branford regulations in TLC, § 9.46 is not entitled, "Criteria that may necessitate modification," but rather is entitled, "Criteria for Approval." (Emphasis added.) Section 9.46 contains an entire section dealing with traffic and specifically requires a traffic study addressing the impact of the proposed development upon the street system in the area. ³ As is appropriate in such regulations, § 9.46 does not deal with general matters such as the volume of traffic that might be generated by an office building, but rather with specific issues such as the placement of entrances and exits in order to minimally disturb arterial traffic and provisions to minimize the impact of traffic on nearby residential areas. It is reasonable to conclude that a commission regulation dealing with the placement of entrances and exits so as to minimize the disturbance of existing traffic flow, could require as a predicate, a traffic study concerning the existing streets so that both the applicant and the commission would know what volumes of traffic were likely to be disturbed by the proposed use.

General Statutes § 8-3(g) provides: "The zoning regulations may require...