Graham Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Greenwich

• Decision Date: 02 June 1953
• Citation: 140 Conn. 1,97 A.2d 564
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GRAHAM CORP. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF TOWN OF GREENWICH et al. (three cases). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 564

97 A.2d 564

140 Conn. 1

GRAHAM CORP. v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF TOWN OF GREENWICH et al. (three cases).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 2, 1953.

William L. Beers, New Haven, with whom was Charles W. Pettengill, Greenwich, for appellant (plaintiff) in each case.

Kenneth F. Clark, Greenwich, for appellees (defendant Harvey et al.) in each case.

Harford W. Park, Jr., Greenwich, for appellee (defendant board) in each case.

Before BROWN, C. J., and BALDWIN, INGLIS, O'SULLIVAN and QUINLAN, JJ.

O'SULLIVAN, Associate Justice.

Of the three appeals before us, we shall discuss No. 3642, since it is determinative of the other two. It came by appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from a decision of the named defendant invalidating a foundation permit issued to the plaintiff by the building inspector of the town of Greenwich on the ground that an amendment of the zoning regulations had rendered the permit illegal. The original defendants consisted of the board of zoning appeals, to be called the board, and the town of Greenwich. Subsequently, six individuals who owned realty in the immediate vicinity of the land involved in this litigation were permitted to intervene as parties defendant. The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, and from the judgment rendered thereon the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The case was decided by the court on the record of proceedings had before the board. That record discloses the following general situation: The plaintiff is a domestic corporation, although all but two of its outstanding shares of stock are owned by a resident of Brooklyn, New York. In 1950 and 1951 the plaintiff bought three contiguous parcels of land in Greenwich. Greenwich then was, and still is, subject to zoning regulations, and the plaintiff's land is located in a so-called R-MF zone. Among the uses allowed in that classification were 'Multi-family dwellings to accommodate not more than 8 families' and 'Multi-family dwellings to accommodate more than 8 families when authorized as a special exception by the Board of Appeals.' Greenwich Bldg. Zone Regs. § 9. a. (2), (3) (1947, as amended).

On April 30, 1951, the plaintiff filed with the board an application for a special exception to build three multifamily dwellings on a part of its property. The board granted the exception in so far as to authorize the use of the property for a dwelling to house more than eight families, but it ruled that only a single building devoted to that purpose could, under the regulations, be erected upon the premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff applied to the building inspector for a foundation permit to begin the construction of what it maintained was a single unit for 195 families, as shown by modified plans attached to the application. The permit was refused on the ground that the structure was in fact three separate buildings--a ruling which the board later upheld. A further application to the inspector for a permit on revised plans was granted. On appeal to the board, the permit was invalidated for the reason that the proposed structure still consisted of three buildings.

On Saturday, October 27, 1951, upon further revision of the plans, the inspector issued another foundation permit. Two days later, the six individuals referred to above as intervenors appealed to the board from the inspector's decision. The hearing thereon was held on November 14, 1951. On this occasion, the board upheld the ruling that the proposed structure was a single building, but it revoked the permit because of an amendment to the zoning regulations approved by the town plan commission on November 7, 1951, and made effective one week later. By virtue of the provisions of this amendment of general application, dwellings which house over forty families are now forbidden in an R-MF zone.

The plaintiff expressly concedes in its brief that, under the accepted law of this state, there is no vested property right in a mere building permit. Torello v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 127 Conn. 307, 310, 16 A.2d 591; Osborn v. Town of Darien, 119 Conn. 182, 185, 175 A. 578; State v. Hillman, 110 Conn. 92, 103, 147 A. 294. 'The rule is well established that the possession of a permit to build, commencement of work (especially when the building is not substantially in course of construction), or the fact that...