Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning and Planning Commission of Town of Granby, HORT-LOC

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtSHAPIRO
Citation286 A.2d 299,161 Conn. 182
Parties, 2 ERC 1597 v. ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF GRANBY.
Docket NumberINC,HORT-LOC
Decision Date11 May 1971

Page 299

286 A.2d 299
161 Conn. 182, 2 ERC 1597
HORT-LOCK, INC.
v.
ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF GRANBY.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 11, 1971.

[161 Conn. 183]

Page 300

Bertlen F. Turner, Simsbury, for appellant (plaintiff).

Charles W. Page, Hartford, with whom was Ernest A. Inglis, Jr., Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before [161 Conn. 182] HOUSE, COTTER, THIM, RYAN and SHAPIRO, JJ.

[161 Conn. 183] SHAPIRO, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff, Holt-Lock, Inc., the owner of ninety-two acres of land in the town of Granby, made application to the defendant zoning and planning commission for a special permit under § 9.4 of the Granby zoning regulations to remove sand and gravel from approximately sixty acres of its land. A public hearing on the application was held on February 13, 1968, and the defendant commission denied the application on April 23, 1968. An appeal was taken from the commission's action to the Court of Common Pleas. The court heard evidence on the issue of aggrievement, on the issue of the disqualification of a commission member, and on the question of the defendant commission receiving evidence subsequent to its public hearing on the plaintiff's application. The court decided the remaining questions raised in the plaintiff's appeal solely on the record returned by the defendant commission. The court found the issue of aggrievement in the plaintiff's favor. The other issues were found for the defendant and the court dismissed the appeal. From the judgment rendered the plaintiff has appealed.

Various assignments of error, relating to claims that the court found certain facts without evidence [161 Conn. 184] and to a claimed erroneous ruling on evidence, which the plaintiff has not pursued in its brief are treated as abandoned. Martin v. Kavanewsky, 157 Conn. 514, 516, 255 A.2d 619; Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn. 521, 524, 245 A.2d 579.

The plaintiff claims error in the trial court's refusal to find certain facts which it claims are admitted or undisputed. The plaintiff cannot prevail on this issue since the additions it requests involve facts which are immaterial or are neither admitted nor undisputed. Practice Book § 628(a); Greenwich Contracting Co. v. Bonwit Construction Co., 156 Conn. 123, 128, 239 A.2d 519; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 158.

The second claim of the plaintiff is essentially that the court erred in concluding that the commission had not received evidence subsequent to the public hearing of February 13, 1968, that would render the commission's action illegal. The plaintiff by this claim of error seeks to have this court apply the following rule articulated in Parish of St. Andrew's Protestant Episcopal Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 155 Conn. 350, 358, 232 A.2d 916, 921: 'The board could not properly consider correspondence submitted after the public hearing without providing the necessary safeguards guaranteed to the applicants

Page 301

and the public. This means a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, to inspect documents presented and to offer evidence in explanation or rebuttal. Wadell v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 136 Conn. 1, 9, 68 A.2d 152. Not to do so would deny the applicants the right to be fully apprised of the facts upon which the board is asked to act. Parsons v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 140 Conn. 290, 293, 99 A.2d 149; Wunder v. Macomber, 34 Misc.2d 281, 290, 228 N.Y.S.2d 552; 2 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning,[161 Conn. 185] p. 44-2.' The correspondence which the plaintiff claims should bring into operation the above stated rule consists of a letter dated April 18, 1968, from the secretary of the Granby board of education and reports which were submitted at the request of the defendant commission by Technical Planning Associates subsequent to February 13, 1968. Under the facts of this case, as recited below, the rule does not apply.

The court's finding of facts, which must stand, and the evidence printed in the appendix to the defendant's brief, reveal that the letter of April 18, 1968, was neither accepted by the defendant commission nor considered by it. The findings of fact, which must stand, with respect to the reports from Technical Planning Associates are: (1) Technical Planning Associates were consultants to the defendant commission, not opponents of the plaintiff's application. (2) The material requested of Technical Planning Associates was not evidence for or against the application beyond what the commission had from its own knowledge or adduced at the public hearing on February 13, 1968. (3) The consideration of the reports was solely to aid the defendant commission in determining what conditions it might impose on the granting of the plaintiff's application if it did grant it.

We turn to the plaintiff's claim that the court erred in concluding that the denial of its application by the defendant commission did not amount to a confiscation of its property without due process of law. The court found the plaintiff's property was flood plain land. The plaintiff essentially argues in its brief that it has exhausted its administrative remedies and that the application to its property of the Granby zoning regulations dealing with flood [161 Conn. 186] plain land constitutes the taking of property without compensation and without due process of law in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the United States and in violation of § 11 of article first of the Connecticut constitution.

The plaintiff has prematurely raised the constitutional issue it here seeks to have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 3, 1972
    ...drugs. The remaining assignments were not briefed and are considered abandoned. Page 550 Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning & Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 184, 286 A.2d 299; Martin v. Kavanewsky, 157 Conn. 514, 516, 255 A.2d The defendant's first claim is that certain of the court's findings,......
  • Three Levels Corp. v. Conservation Comm'n of the Town of Redding, No. 34298.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • February 11, 2014
    ...outside the confines of the administrative hearing.” Id., at 570, 602 A.2d 613, citing Holt–Lock, Inc. v. Zoning & Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 184–85, 286 A.2d 299 (1971); McCrann v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 65, 77–78, 282 A.2d 900 (1971); Kyser v. Zoning Board of Ap......
  • State v. Clemente
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 2, 1974
    ...briefed and are considered abandoned. State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 55, 301 A.2d 547; Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning & Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 184, 286 A.2d There is no error. In this opinion HOUSE, C.J., and MacDONALD, J., concurred. COTTER, Associate Justice (dissenting). It is dif......
  • Grace Community Church v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Bethel, No. 303616
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • March 17, 1992
    ...v. Planning & Zoning Board, supra, 168 Conn. at 306, 362 A.2d 1375; Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning Page 1097 & Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 190, 286 A.2d 299 (1971); Spectrum of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 13 Conn.App. 159, 163, 535 A.2d 382, cert. denied, 207 Conn.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 3, 1972
    ...drugs. The remaining assignments were not briefed and are considered abandoned. Page 550 Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning & Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 184, 286 A.2d 299; Martin v. Kavanewsky, 157 Conn. 514, 516, 255 A.2d The defendant's first claim is that certain of the court's findings,......
  • Three Levels Corp. v. Conservation Comm'n of the Town of Redding, No. 34298.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • February 11, 2014
    ...outside the confines of the administrative hearing.” Id., at 570, 602 A.2d 613, citing Holt–Lock, Inc. v. Zoning & Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 184–85, 286 A.2d 299 (1971); McCrann v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 65, 77–78, 282 A.2d 900 (1971); Kyser v. Zoning Board of Ap......
  • State v. Clemente
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 2, 1974
    ...briefed and are considered abandoned. State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 55, 301 A.2d 547; Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning & Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 184, 286 A.2d There is no error. In this opinion HOUSE, C.J., and MacDONALD, J., concurred. COTTER, Associate Justice (dissenting). It is dif......
  • Grace Community Church v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Bethel, No. 303616
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • March 17, 1992
    ...v. Planning & Zoning Board, supra, 168 Conn. at 306, 362 A.2d 1375; Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning Page 1097 & Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 190, 286 A.2d 299 (1971); Spectrum of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 13 Conn.App. 159, 163, 535 A.2d 382, cert. denied, 207 Conn.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT