Kovalik v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of New Fairfield
| Decision Date | 25 October 1967 |
| Citation | 155 Conn. 497,234 A.2d 838 |
| Parties | Anne M. KOVALIK, Administratrix (ESTATE of John CAMPO), et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF NEW FAIRFIELD. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Albert H. Hornig, Danbury, for appellant (named plaintiff).
William W. Sullivan, Danbury, for appellee (defendant).
Before ALCORN, Acting C.J., HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ., and COVELLO, Superior Court Judge.
This appeal presents a single issue: Did the trial court commit error in deciding that the action of the defendant commission in raising the minimum required lot size in a New Fairfield residential zone from one to two acres was legal and valid, or was it invalid, as the named plaintiff contends, because of the disqualification of the chairman of the defendant commission who participated in the decision?
The facts are simple and not in dispute. The defendant commission upgraded slightly over one-half of the total area of the town of New Fairfield to require a minimum lot of two acres instead of one acre. The chairman of the commission owns 697 acres in the area, which is about 8 percent of the land in the upgraded zone. The named plaintiff appeared at the public hearing held prior to the adoption of the revised regulation and expressly requested that the chairman of the commission disqualify himself from acting on the proposed revision because of his ownership of a substantial amount of land which would be affected by the proposed zoning change. The chairman refused to disqualify himself and participated in the decision of the commission. The finding that the named plaintiff is an aggrieved person has not been contested.
This court has had repeated occasion to reaffirm the principle that public policy requires that members of zoning boards and commissions cannot be permitted to place themselves in a position in which personal interest may conflict with public duty. See Josephson v. Planning Board, 151 Conn. 489, 493, 199 A.2d 690, 10 A.L.R.3d 687; Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 476, 480, 199 A.2d 162; Daly v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 495, 499, 191 A.2d 250; Mills v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 144 Conn. 493, 498, 134 A.2d 250; Low v. Madison, 135 Conn. 1, 9, 60 A.2d 774; see also Stocker v. Waterbury, 154 Conn. 446, 453, 226 A.2d 514. As we stated in Low v. Madison, supra, 135 Conn. 8, 60 A.2d 777, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murach v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of City of New London
...151 Conn. 476, 199 A.2d 162 (1964); Josephson v. Planning Board, 151 Conn. 489, 199 A.2d 690 (1964); Kovalik v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 497, 234 A.2d 838 (1967); Practice Book § 3060D. "[W]here the legal conclusions of the court are challenged, we must determine whether they......
-
Petrowski v. Norwich Free Academy
...585, 592, 271 A.2d 319 (1970); Anderson v. Zoning Commission, 157 Conn. 285, 290, 253 A.2d 16 (1968); Kovalik v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 497, 498-99, 234 A.2d 838 (1967); Josephson v. Planning Board, 151 Conn. 489, 493, 199 A.2d 690 (1964). The holdings of such cases support......
-
Petrowski v. Norwich Free Academy
...a real conflict of interests, the action of the board on which he participated is rendered invalid. See Kovalik v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 497, 499, 234 A.2d 838 (1967). Whether an interest justifies disqualification is necessarily a factual question and depends upon the cir......
-
Katz v. Brandon
...of public authority. RK Development Corporation v. City of Norwalk, 156 Conn. 369, 374, 242 A.2d 781; Kovalik v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 497, 498, 234 A.2d 838; Josephson v. Planning Board of City of Stamford, 151 Conn. 489, 493, 199 A.2d 690, 10 A.L.R.3d Daly v. Town Plan &......