Greenfield Development Co. of Fairfield v. Wood
| Citation | 172 Conn. 446,374 A.2d 1084 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 22 February 1977 |
| Parties | GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF FAIRFIELD v. A. Earl WOOD, Commissioner of Transportation. |
Angelo J. Smeraldi, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellant (defendant).
Albert L. Coles, Bridgeport, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ. BOGDANSKI, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal by the commissioner of transportation from a reassessment of damages for the partial taking of the plaintiff's land for the improvement of route 7 in the town of Brookfield. The plaintiff applied to the Superior Court for a review of the statement of compensation filed by the commissioner in the amount of $28,000. The matter was referred to the Hon. James P. Doherty, a state referee, who, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, held a hearing and reassessed damages in the amount of $93,000. From that judgment the commissioner has appealed, assigning error in the refusal of the court to find material facts and in the conclusions reached. The error directed at the refusal to find material facts has not been briefed and is considered abandoned. Pappas v. Pappas, 164 Conn. 242, 243, 320 A.2d 809.
On June 22, 1973, the commissioner took 7.15 acres of the plaintiff's land, along with an easement to drain and a right to grade. Before the taking, the plaintiff's property consisted of 44.785 acres and was located in two zones. The westerly portion, where the plaintiff's property abutted route 7, 4.205 acres in area, was zoned commercial. That land was not affected by the taking. The remainder of the subject property, 40.58 acres in area, east of the commercially zoned parcel and abutting route 133, was zoned industrial. The 7.15 acres taken consisted of two parcels, both of which were unimproved. One of the parcels taken consisted of 2.80 acres, of which two-tenths of an acre was part of the Still River riverbed. The second parcel was 4.35 acres in area, of which 1.3 acres were a part of the Still River riverbed.
The subject property was encumbered with a Connecticut Light and Power Company line easement which ran in a northerly direction across the property and was 125 feet in width. That easement encumbered 2.2 acres of which 1.6 acres were located in the taking area. A second easement abutted the first easement along its westerly boundary. It gave the power company access across the property to transport materials, cut brush and service its powerline easement. No part of that easement was within the taking area. No structures could be erected on the land burdened by those easements, but the property could be used for parking, storage, and certain other purposes.
The subject property before the taking was primarily rolling farmland, cultivated with corn and hay when in season. The land taken was located principally in the area of Still River, which flows in a northerly direction, and was generally wet, swampy, and wooded land, approximately five to seven feet below the level of the other property.
In assessing damages, the trial court found that the average per-acre value of the property before the taking was $12,000 for a total value of $537,420. It then found that the remaining 35.63 acres retained their value of $12,000 per acre for a total value of $427,560. At $12,000 per acre, the 7.15 acres taken were valued at $85,800, which together with $7200 in severance damages resulted in the reassessment at $93,060, called $93,000.
The defendant presses two claims: (1) that the court erred in ascribing to the land taken an average per-acre value, when that land, compared with the entire tract, was inferior in quality and encumbered with an easement, and (2) that the court's conclusion that the acreage taken was equal in value to the remainder of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.R. Assoc of Norwalk v. Comm'r of Transp.
...v. Burns, 35 Conn. App. 9, 18, 644 A.2d 940, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 912, 648 A.2d 157 (1994); see also Greenfield Development Co. v. Wood, 172 Conn. 446, 451, 374 A.2d 1084 (1977); Gasparri v. Dept. of Transportation, 37 Conn. App. 126, 655 A.2d 268 11. Request to Admit No. 2 states: "Prio......
- State v. Smith, s. 3842
-
Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. v. City of Bridgeport, 19288.
...the experts and the recognized appraisal methods which they employed as [it] finds applicable...." Greenfield Development Co. of Fairfield v. Wood, 172 Conn. 446, 451, 374 A.2d 1084 (1977). Ultimately, "[o]n appeal, the scope of our review is limited because it is a question of fact for the......
-
Ratner v. Willametz
...elements going to establish value, and then employs the most appropriate method of determining valuation." Greenfield Development Co. v. Wood, 172 Conn. 446, 451, 374 A.2d 1084 (1977). The trial court has broad discretion in reaching such conclusion, and his determination is reviewable only......