De Meo v. Zoning Commission of City of Bridgeport

Decision Date24 January 1961
Citation167 A.2d 454,148 Conn. 68
PartiesRalph J. DE MOE et al. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF CITY OF BRIDGEPORT et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Milton E. J. Reinhard, Jr., Bridgeport, with whom were John J. Relihan, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, Hugh C. Curran, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant Telson Studios, Inc.).

Raymond W. Beckwith, Bridgeport, for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.

MELLITZ, Associate Justice.

The defendant Telson Studios, Inc., applied to the defendant zoning commission of the city of Bridgeport for a change of zone, from residence A to garden apartment, of a tract of land located in the north end of Bridgeport. The commission held a public hearing, after due notice and after it had examined the premises and the surrounding area. All interested parties were heard. The plaintiffs, neighboring residents and property owners, presented objections to the application. The commission voted unanimously to grant the application and assigned eight reasons for its action, in accordance with the requirement that a zoning commission shall state on its records its reasons why a change of zone is made. General Statutes, § 8-3; Bridgeport Zoning Regs., c. 21, § 1. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, attacking the commission's action on a number of grounds, among them, primarily, that it constituted spot zoning and did not conform to the policies expressed in the master plan of land use of the city. The court sustained these contentions and rendered judgment sustaining the appeal. Telson Studios, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the defendant, has appealed from that judgment.

The history of zoning in Bridgeport is detailed in Levinsky v. Zoning Commission, 144 Conn. 117, 123, 127 A.2d 822, and need not be repeated here. The comprehensive plan for the use and development of property in Bridgeport is found in the scheme of the zoning regulations which were adopted by its zoning commission. Ibid.; Couch v. Zoning Commission, 141 Conn. 349, 355, 106 A.2d 173. The zoning regulations governing the present case, and the zoning map which accompanied them, were adopted in 1949 and divided the city into a number of zones. Chapter 3 of the regulations provides for residence AA and residence A zones, and chapter 4 provides for residence B and residence BB zones. In chapter 5, the standards for a garden apartment zone are set forth, and a garden apartment development is defined. The buildings in a garden apartment development may not occupy more than 25 per cent of the land, and the remainder of the land, except for portions devoted to parking, must be appropriately landscaped. The height of buildings is limited to two and one-half stories, and the minimum front yard, side yard, and rear yard requirements, as well as the use limitations, are those applicable to a residence A zone. Although the standards for garden apartments are prescribed, no specific areas have been designated on the zoning map as garden apartment zones. In § 9 of chapter 5 of the regulations, it is provided that no land shall be placed in a garden apartment zone except upon petition of the owner; that a development on land so zoned must be in accordance with the layout, plans and specifications for buildings and plan for landscaping which, after their presentation at the hearing on the petition, receive the approval of the commission; that the commission may impose conditions and limitations on the location of parking areas, on front, side and rear yards to be provided in excess of the minimum requirements, and on the distances between buildings; and that when a development is once approved, it shall not thereafter be altered or changed except with the approval of the commission after a public hearing. Thus, the commission retains control over the building of garden apartments and the location of garden apartment zones in the city.

In each case, a garden apartment zone, if it is to be created, must be carved out of another, existing zone and necessitates a change of zone to permit its establishment. The reason for this policy and the purpose sought to be achieved is set forth in § 8 of chapter 5 of the regulations, which is entitled 'Declaration of Necessity' and reads as follows: 'In the adoption of this regulation, it is contemplated that Garden Apartment Zones will, if established under this chapter, be located in the better residential areas of the City, and it is recognized that the apartment development of such areas may have a detrimental effect upon surrounding residential properties and a retarding influence upon the normal development of such surrounding properties unless such apartment development is carefully supervised and regulated. It is, in consequence, hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that it is necessary, in the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare and in the accomplishment of the purposes set forth in Chapter 1 of these regulations, that the limitations contained in this chapter be adopted and that the Zoning Commission retain the control over the development of land in Garden Apartment Zones which is provided in the following section [§ 9 of Chapter 5].'

How best the purposes of zoning can be accomplished in any municipality is primarily in the discretion of its zoning authority, and that discretion is a broad one. Bartram v. Zoning Commission, 136 Conn. 89, 96, 68 A.2d 308. The view of the zoning commission in Bridgeport, reflected in its plan of zoning, is that a need exists in the community for apartments of the type described as garden apartments, and that to attract developers, as well as tenants for such accommodations, the facilities must be located in the better residential areas of the city, that is, in residence AA or residence A zones. The commission must have recognized also that the construction of such housing must be privately financed and, to be undertaken, must yield a fair return on the investment. It was apparently felt that potential tenants of such apartments would look for the equivalent of the living accommodations found in houses in the better residential areas and that to attract such tenants, a developer would seek to locate in such an area. The commission recognized, however, that there could be a detrimental effect on surrounding properties, so that it was essential for the commission to retain a tight control over each development, to consider each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Morningside Ass'n v. Planning and Zoning Bd. of City of Milford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1972
    ...of harmony with the comprehensive plan for zoning adopted to serve the needs of the community as a whole.' 3 DeMeo v. Zoning Commission, 148 Conn. 68, 73, 74, 167 A.2d 454, 457; see Loh v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 32, 38, 282 A.2d 894; Malafronte v. Planning & Zoning Board, ......
  • Lurie v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Westport
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1971
    ...it is acting within its prescribed legislative powers. Summ v. Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 79, 89, 186 A.2d 160; De Meo v. Zoning Commission, 148 Conn. 68, 75, 167 A.2d 454; Tarasovic v. Zoning Commission, * * * (147 Conn. 65, 71, 157 A.2d 103). The courts allow zoning authorities this dis......
  • Stiles v. Town Council of Town of West Hartford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1970
    ...it is acting within its prescribed legislative powers. Summ v. Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 79, 89, 186 A.2d 160; DeMeo v. Zoning Commission,148 Conn. 68, 75, 167 A.2d 454; Tarasovic v. Zoning Commission, supra, 147 Conn. 71, 157 A.2d 103. The courts allow zoning authorities this discretion......
  • Sheridan v. Planning Bd. of City of Stamford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1969
    ...a new zone out of an existing one. Hawkes v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 207, 209, 240 A.2d 914; DeMeo v. Zoning Commission, 148 Conn. 68, 73, 167 A.2d 454. This legislative function meets the need for flexibility in modern zoning ordinances since the exact location of the new ......
  • 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