Miklus v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Fairfield

• Decision Date: 05 January 1967
• Citation: 154 Conn. 399,225 A.2d 637
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Albert MIKLUS et al. v. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF FAIRFIELD et al.

Page 637

225 A.2d 637

154 Conn. 399

Albert MIKLUS et al. v. The ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF FAIRFIELD et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Jan. 5, 1967.

Irwin M. Hausman, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Milton H. Hausman, man, Bridgeport, for appellants (plaintiffs).

John J. Darcy, Fairfield, for appellee (named defendant).

Herbert, L. Cohen, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Stuart A. Epstein, Bridgeport for appellee (defendant Barbara H. Murdock).

Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.

HOUSE, Associate Justice.

The plaintiffs have appealed from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing their appeal from a decision of the zoning board of appeals of the town of Fairfield which granted the application of the defendant Barbara, H. Murdock for a special exception permitting the use of her property for a 120-bed hospital in a residential area of that town. It was admitted in the pleadings that the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the board's decision, and the court so found. The court decided the appeal solely on the record returned by the zoning board, and there is no other finding. Accordingly, to ascertain the legal conclusions on which the court based its judgment, we turn to the memorandum of decision. Gordon v. Zoning Board, 145 Conn. 597, 600, 145 A.2d 746; Treat v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 136, 140, 139 A.2d 601. In reviewing those conclusions, we must also necessarily review the facts in the record on which the conclusions are based in order to test the correctness of the conclusions. Kefauver v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 144, 146, 195 A.2d 422. That record is the one submitted to us pursuant to Practice Book § 647 as it may be supplemented by any relevant portions of the record before the board of appeals which are printed in the appendices to the briefs pursuant to Practice Book § 719.

The Fairfield zoning regulations, in § 3, division 1, paragraph 7, authorize the board of appeals to permit the use of premises for hospitals not for the insane or feeble-minded, subject to five prescribed conditions. ¹ Although the basic contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant board acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion vested in it, this allegation is predicated on three grounds urged in the Court of Common Pleas: (1) The reports of the town health officer and the fire marshal did not comply with the zoning regulations. (2) The regulations did not provide proper standards upon which the board of appeals could base a finding. (3) The proposed use would not actually be a hospital use within the meaning of the zoning regulations.

We will consider these three claims in the reverse order. The last, that the proposed use would not actually be for a hospital use, arises from certain indications in the record that the building was originally planned for the custodial care and treatment of the aged rather than for medical care. The application as presented to the board, however, was expressly for hospital uses, and the special exception was granted for that specific restricted use. The board is not required to anticipate that the applicant would later violate the zoning regulations by a use not authorized by the special exception for the hospital use, and should such a violation occur, the ready remedy is by proper legal action at that time.

With respect to the second claim, the court noted: 'The standards as laid down in the Regulations are very spare but are not necessarily vague.' It is also significant that before the adoption of § 3, division 1, paragraph 7, of the regulstions in August, 1960, hospitals were permitted uses without special exceptions in residential districts such as the zone here involved. Accordingly, the added requirement of a special exception for hospital use involved a new limitation on an existing permitted use rather than the creation of a newly permitted use subject to conditions. In any event, the regulations contain five specific requirements, quoted in the footnote, for a hospital use special exception. The first three of these are conditions precedent to the granting of a special exception, and the remaining two requirements pertain to the operation of the hospital once it is permitted. The court reasonably concluded that the regulations contained sufficiently definite, although limited, standards to guide the board in the exercise of its discretion to grant special exceptions for hospital uses and that the special exception here issued was 'subject to standards set forth in the regulations and to conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience and property values.' General Statutes § 8-2.

The remaining claim of the plaintiffs advanced in the trial court, assigned as error and pursued in their brief raises a question as to whether the communications from the health officer and fire marshal complied with the requirements of the zoning regulations. As to both communications, the plaintiffs contend that, as phrased, they do not constitute 'reports' within a strict dictionary meaning of that word but are statements of opinion and conclusions. The board was not required to apply such a highly technical and restricted meaning to the word and could reasonably and properly conclude that the representations from the respective officials were reports within the common meaning of that term and as used in the regulations. The letter to the board from the fire marshal represented that he found the location for the proposed new hospital adequate for the fire department with respect to water supply and pressures. That the communication from the health department was on stationery indicating that it was 'Town of Fairfield, Inter-Office Correspondence' from that department to the zoning board of appeals in no way disqualifies it as a report as that term is used in the regulations. Although its contents are somewhat lacking in specificity, the communication does indicate that the health department reviewed the preliminary plans and, as corrected, 'accepts the general plan of the 120 bed hospital for this site.' The board could reasonably conclude that the contents of these communications satisfied the report requirements of the regulations.

An additional...