Hills v. Zoning Commission of Town of Newington
| Decision Date | 24 March 1953 |
| Citation | 96 A.2d 212,139 Conn. 603 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HILLS et al. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF TOWN OF NEWINGTON et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Valentine J. Sacco, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Ralph C. Dixon, Hartford, with whom was C. Duane Blinn, Hartford, for appellee (named defendant).
Henry S. Robinson, Jr., Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Pomeroy Day, Hartford, for appellee (defendant Fafnir Bearing Co.).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
The question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding that the zoning commission of the town of Newington acted legally in extending an industrial zone into an area previously zoned as residential. On May 23, 1951, Francis B. Holt and the Fafnir Bearing Company applied to the zoning commission for an extension of an industrial 2 zone the easterly boundary of which was a line parallel with and 600 feet easterly of the right of way of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company. The extension requested was easterly to a line which, at the north portion of the tract to be rezoned, was 335 feet westerly of Willard Avenue, and at the southern portion of the tract was 680 feet westerly of the avenue. After a hearing, the commission unanimously voted to extend the industrial zone in accordance with the application. The reason as recorded was: 'It is a reasonable use of the land, one which would cause no undue hardship on anyone but rather, would be beneficial to property owners and, it is the best possible use of the land to promote the general welfare of the Town of Newington.' Upon appeal by the plaintiffs, who are property owners in Newington, the Court of Common Pleas rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, and from that judgment this appeal has been taken.
From the summary of the proceedings before the commission filed in court and from the finding of the trial court, which is not subject to correction, it appears that the following facts were before the commission: The area involved consists of 57.3 acres, all owned by or under option to the applicants. The applicants also own the strip of land 335 feet wide which lies between the north portion of the area and Willard Avenue. The land in question lies next north of property of the Veterans' administration used as the site of a veterans' hospital. Willard Avenue is a main artery connecting West Hartford with the Wilbur Cross Highway and is heavily traveled.
The right of way of the railroad company crosses Willard Avenue at an acute angle to the westerly side of the street at a point some distance to the north of the property in question. From there the right of way extends southwesterly to the town line. When zoning regulations were first adopted in Newington in 1930, the land on both sides of the right of way commencing at a point 600 feet west of Willard Avenue and extending southwesterly with one small break to the town line was zoned as industrial 2, i. e., heavy industrial. For a considerable portion of the distance, the industrial 2 zone extended only 600 feet to each side of the right of way. Since 1930 this zone has been extended to include a small additional area to the west near the land in question and a somewhat larger area to the east at a point a considerable distance to the south. The only other location zoned as industrial 2 is a small tract along the railroad right of way northeast of Willard Avenue.
The industrial zone from the town line northerly to the point 600 feet westerly of Willard Avenue contains 571 acres, of which only 288 acres are high and usable land. In recent years difficulty has been encountered in bringing industry to Newington both because access to the industrial zone by highway was restricted and because the usable land within the zone was so narrow. As a consequence, only a relatively small portion of the zone is actually occupied for manufacturing. Since 1930, it has become evident that the needs of modern industry are best met by large sites which can accommodate one-story buildings rather than the former multistoried structures and which provide adequate space for parking and recreation. Such sites should have easy access to traffic arteries.
The fifty-seven acres involved, although zoned for residence, are presently devoted to dairy farming. The tract is crossed by a series of formations of rock and hardpan which would make the laying of water mains and the providing of sewage disposal facilities for private housing very expensive. In recent years there has been a marked increased in residential building on streets running off Willard Avenue in the general vicinity. With the retention in the residence zone of the buffer strip at least 335 feet wide along Willard Avenue, however, the proposed rezoning of the back land will not result in a depreciation in the value of the residential property on the east side of Willard Avenue and the streets leading therefrom.
The Fafnir Bearing Company is a well-established concern with a manufacturing plant in New Britain. It owns about thirty-five acres of land adjoining the railroad and within the area previously zoned industrial 2. It desires to develop that and the adjoining fifty-seven acres which comprise the land involved in this proceeding. Most of its land lying within the existing industrial zone will be occupied by switch tracks and a parking area. To the east of these tracks and about in the center of the fifty-seven-acre piece, a factory building will be erected, attractive in appearance and, for the most part, one story in height. The estimated cost of the improvements is between two and three million dollars. Such an industrial development would yield more to the town in taxes than a housing development on the same tract and at the same time would not entail the expenditure for schools which a housing development would. The development planned will reasonably require the thirty-five acres which were in the industrial zone and the fifty-seven acres in question.
Approximately 450 townspeople attended the public hearing held by the zoning commission and, of these, approximately 400 expressed themselves as being in favor of the proposal to change the zone.
The principle contention of the plaintiffs is that the zoning commission acted illegally and arbitrarily (1) because its action was not in pursuance of a comprehensive plan and (2) because there had been no change in conditions since the original establishment of the various zones which warranted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Zoning Comm'n of the Town of Wash.
...regularity ...." Murach v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 196 Conn. 192, 205, 491 A.2d 1058 (1985) ; see also Hills v. Zoning Commission , 139 Conn. 603, 608, 96 A.2d 212 (1953) (zoning commission action entitled to "every reasonable presumption of validity"); Levine v. Zoning Board of Appe......
-
Fonfara v. Reapportionment Com'n
...(1986); Balch Pontiac-Buick, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 165 Conn. 559, 568, 345 A.2d 520 (1973); Hills v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 603, 608, 96 A.2d 212 (1953); the burden on such a claim rests upon the person asserting it." Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 20......
-
Huck v. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency of Town of Greenwich
...(1986); Balch Pontiac-Buick, Inc. v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 165 Conn. 559, 568, 345 A.2d 520 (1973); Hills v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 603, 608, 96 A.2d 212 (1953); the burden on such a claim rests upon the person asserting it. See, e.g., Obeda v. Board of Selectmen, supra; Whi......
-
Konigsberg v. Bd. of Aldermen of New Haven
...if it is in accord with the comprehensive plan and the general welfare, is proper." (Citation omitted.) Hills v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 603, 609, 96 A.2d 212 (1953). Although we recognize that not "every extension of an existing district is, ipso facto, a compliance with a comprehensi......
-
Accommodating Change: Departures From (and Within) the Zoning Ordinance
...“spot zoning” the change from residence to business to establish an ice-cream bar with 51 stools); Hills v. Zoning Comm’n of Newington, 139 Conn. 603, 96 A.2d 212 (1953) (rejecting a challenge to the extension of the industrial zone, the court agreed with the zoning commission that the “cha......