George LaCava & Sons, Inc. v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Rocky Hill

• Decision Date: 09 December 1966
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE LaCAVA AND SONS, INC. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF ROCKY HILL.

Page 198

225 A.2d 198

154 Conn. 309

GEORGE LaCAVA AND SONS, INC. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF ROCKY HILL.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Dec. 9, 1966.

Wallace R. Burke, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was James P. Connolly, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Robert F. Stengel, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.

ALCORN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff is the owner of eight acres of land located well toward the center of a very large area of Rocky Hill which is subject to what are designated as village residence zoning restrictions. These restrictions permit the use of land for single-family dwellings, farms, orchards, nurseries, agriculture, roadside stands for produce raised on the land, customary home occupations, places of worship, nonprofit schools and colleges, nursery schools, community or nonprofit club buildings, passenger transportation stations, or public utility substations. Rocky Hill Zoning Regs. §§ 3.11, 3.12 (1960). The plaintiff applied to the defendant for a change of these restrictions only so far as they affected its property. The change sought would permit the property to be devoted, in addition to the enumerated uses, to group dwellings or garden apartments. Ibid. The defendant denied the application for the reasons that (1) the change would amount to spot zoning, (2) it would constitute a potential traffic hazard and (3) a sufficient area of the town is already zoned for garden apartment use, in addition to which a number of garden apartments already exist or are in the planning or construction stage. The Court of Common Pleas rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from that decision, and the plaintiff has taken this appeal, claiming, among other things, that the court erred in failing to conclude that the defendant's action was arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of its discretion. Our conclusion as to this assignment of error is dispositive of the appeal.

The basic question before us is whether the reasons assigned by the defendant for its action are reasonably supported by the record and whether they are pertinent to the consideration which the defendant was required to apply under the zoning regulations. Zieky v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 265, 267, 196 A.2d 758. 'The object of zoning is to adopt measures to regulate property uses in conformance with a comprehensive plan in a manner to advance the public welfare.' Steiner, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 149 Conn. 74, 75, 175 A.2d 559, 560. The record discloses that the plaintiff had formerly planned to use the property for the construction of twenty-four single-family houses. The plaintiff's primary reason for seeking a change of zone was that it would be considerably less expensive to develop the property for garden apartments than for single-family dwellings. The expressed intention was to erect fifty to sixty garden apartment units, and the plaintiff urged the defendant to conclude that the land was an appropriate place for such a use. Some thirty residents of the vicinity appeared in opposition to the application, and a petition in opposition bearing fifty-seven signatures was also presented at the hearing.

From the evidence presented, it appears that the property, part of which is swampy, is on the southwest corner of Grimes Road and Elm Street. On the south is state-owned land occupied by the Veterans' Home and Hospital. On the west is a town park. All of the other land in the vicinity is devoted to single- family...