Gorman Const. Co., Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Avon
Decision Date | 19 July 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 12057,12057 |
Citation | 35 Conn.App. 191,644 A.2d 964 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | GORMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF AVON. |
Michael A. Zizka, with whom were Robert C. Hunt, Jr., and, on the brief, Bonnie L. Amendola, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
J. Noxon Howard, New Britain, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before LANDAU, HEIMAN and SCHALLER, JJ.
The defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of Avon (commission) appeals from the judgment of the trial court. That judgment sustained the appeal of the plaintiff, Gorman Construction Company, Inc. (Gorman), from the commission's decision approving a subdivision application with conditions.
The commission claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in its construction and application of § 5.11.01 of the Avon subdivision regulations, (2) improperly placed on the commission the burden of proving that it was entitled to apply the express terms of its subdivision regulations, and (3) improperly struck the commission's condition requiring public water service to the approved subdivision, while leaving the approval in force and effect in all other respects.
The facts are not in dispute. In June, 1990, Gorman, a developer, applied to the commission for approval of a residential subdivision. To assure that any proposed subdivision will be capable of providing an adequate water supply, for both household use and fire protection, § 5.11.01 of the Avon subdivision regulations requires public water supply for any subdivision within a specified distance, set out in subparagraph ii, of an existing water service. 1 The section also provides that the commission may permit service of one or more lots with water from private wells if the commission determines that it would not be reasonably feasible to serve the lots with existing public water supply due to the elevation of the lots. The commission approved the subdivision subject to several conditions, one of which required "that the development be served by public water in a manner similar to Option F in the letter from the Avon Water Company dated August 23, 1990." Option F contained in the water company's letter provides for the "[i]nstallation of booster pump station by Avon Water Company for domestic needs only with provision for pumper truck supplement for fire flows during a fire."
The commission, using the formula in the regulation, multiplied the number of lots by the constant (fifty feet), which yielded 1900 feet as the distance from a public water supply within which connection was required. An existing service line of the Avon Water Company is approximately 1600 feet from Gorman's subdivision, bringing the subdivision within the purview of § 5.11.01.
Even though the service line of the Avon Water Company is within 1600 feet of the subdivision, it does not have the right to service the subdivision. The Connecticut Water Company's franchise area includes the subdivision, but its facility for providing service is approximately 4500 feet away from the subdivision area. This distance is well outside the 1900 foot limit calculated according to the regulation's formula. The commission recognized that the Avon Water Company would need to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Connecticut Water Company in order to service Gorman's subdivision. In fact, the commission had before it a letter from the Connecticut Water Company to the town planner of Avon that stated: "The [Connecticut Water Company] would be willing to discuss the possibility of an arrangement with the Avon Water Company or the development of a community system to provide proper water service including fire protection for phase 4 and 5 of the ... subdivision although we feel the cost of both of these alternatives would most likely exceed the costs of the extension of our system." The commission had also received comments from both the town's fire marshall and fire chief expressing their concerns as to the Gorman subdivision needing an adequate water supply to protect life and property from fire. Both officials considered the commission's approval of an earlier phase of Gorman's subdivision without requiring public water to have been a mistake. 2 The commission approved the Gorman subdivision but imposed several conditions. On September 26, 1990, Gorman appealed from the commission's decision to the Superior Court. On August 27, 1992, the trial court sustained Gorman's appeal and ordered that the approval of the subdivision remain in effect but without the condition imposed by the commission that Gorman provide public water. After this court's granting of certification, the commission filed this appeal.
The commission first claims that the trial court abused its discretion in its construction and application of the regulation and improperly placed the burden of proof on the agency.
The limited scope of review in subdivision appeals is well established. R.B. Kent & Son, Inc. v. Planning Commission, 21 Conn.App. 370, 373, 573 A.2d 760 (1990). The commission is entrusted with the function of interpreting and applying its zoning regulations. Toffolon v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 558, 560, 236 A.2d 96 (1967); Krawski v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 21 Conn.App. 667, 670-71, 575 A.2d 1036, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 814, 576 A.2d 543 (1990). Baron v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 22 Conn.App. 255, 257, 576 A.2d 589 (1990). It is an appellate court function to determine whether the judgment of the trial court was clearly erroneous or contrary to the law; appellate review excludes the retrial of the facts. Fuller v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 21 Conn.App. 340, 344, 573 A.2d 1222 (1990). The Appellate Court does not determine whether the trier of facts could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached. It looks both at the conclusion reached and the method by which it was reached to determine whether that conclusion is correct and factually supported. Pandolphe's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Manchester, 181 Conn. 217, 221-22, 435 A.2d 24 (1980).
The commission conditionally approved Gorman's subdivision application. In accordance with regulation § 5.11.01., which requires public water for any subdivision within a specified distance of existing public water service, the commission permitted the subdivision as long as the development was served by public water supply with the "installation of [a] booster pump by Avon Water Company...." On appeal, the trial court agreed with Gorman that the regulation did not apply because a requirement that a measurement based on a connection with a public water supply outside of the franchise area was not an appropriate application of the regulation. The trial court found The trial court also found that the record "on which the commission heavily relies in support of its position falls short of an indication that any ... trade adjustment [of the service area boundary lines between the Connecticut Water Company and the Avon Water Company] is a reasonable probability."
Carpenter v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 176 Conn. 581, 592, 409 A.2d 1029 (1979).
We agree with the decision of the trial court. First, the finding of the trial court that the regulation does not apply will not be disturbed by this court unless the subordinate facts do not support the finding. Walls v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 176 Conn. 475, 476, 408 A.2d 252 (1979). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pelliccione v. Planning & Zoning Commission
...It is within the province of the commission to interpret and apply its zoning regulations. Gorman Construction Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 35 Conn. App. 191, 195, 644 A.2d 964 (1994). "The evidence, however, to support any such reason must be substantial .... This so-called substan......
-
Samperi v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of City of West Haven
...commission is entrusted with the function of interpreting and applying its ... regulations"; Gorman Construction Co. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 35 Conn.App. 191, 195, 644 A.2d 964 (1994), citing Toffolon v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 558, 560, 236 A.2d 96 (1967); and for a cou......
-
Sammartino v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Andover
... ... See Handsome, ... Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 317 Conn. 515, ... them." ... [ 7 ] In Gorman Construction Co. v. Planning ... & Zoning ... of the town of Avon requiring public water " capable of ... ...
-
Sullivan v. Nameaug Walk-In Medical Center, P.C.
... ... Walk-In Medical Care Centers of New England, Inc. (New [35 Conn.App. 187] England), who assigned ... , 520 A.2d 173 (1987); Jo-Mark Sand & Gravel Co. v. Pantanella, 139 Conn. 598, 600, 96 A.2d 217 ... ...
-
Developments in Connecticut Zoning Case Law from 1992 Through 1995
...2. Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 227 Conn. 71, 629 A.2d 1089 (1993). 3. Id. at 86. 4. 31 Conn. App. 380, 625 A.2d 236 (1993). 5. 35 Conn. App. 191, 644 A.2d 964 (1994). 6. 222 Conn. 380, 610 A.2d 620 (1992). 7. Id. at 387-389. 8. Property Group, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 226......