Pierrepont v. Zoning Commission of Town of Ridgefield

• Citation: 154 Conn. 463,226 A.2d 659
• Parties: Mary A. S. PLERREPONT et al. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD et al.
• Decision Date: 25 January 1967
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Page 659

226 A.2d 659

154 Conn. 463

Mary A. S. PLERREPONT et al. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Jan. 25, 1967.

John E. Dowling, Ridgefield, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Romeo G. Petroni, Ridgefield, for appellee (defendant Tuccio), and, on the brief, Thomas W. Van Lenten, Danbury, for appellee (named defendant).

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

COTTER, Associate Justice.

The defendant zoning commission, after a public hearing, amended the Ridgefield zoning regulations to include a new residence R5-1 zone and granted a change of zone affecting approximately thirty-three acres from residence R-1 to the new residence R5-1. At the time of the change of zone, permitted uses in a residence R-1 zone included one-family and two-family residences on a minimum lot of one acre, resident professional offices, farming establishments, customary home occupations church facilities, parks and municipal buildings, and schools. ¹ Ridgefield Zoning Regs. § 5 (1961). The new residence R5-1 zone, in addition to the uses allowed in a residence R-1 zone, permits the construction of two-story garden-style apartment buildings, subject to special requirements such as setbacks, maximum land usage, floor area of the dwelling units, and parking facilities. The plaintiffs, who own property in the immediate vicinity, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, claiming that the action of the commission, on several specific grounds, was illegal, arbitrary and in abuse of the commission's discretion. A prospective developer, Jerry Tuccio, claiming to own a substantial portion of the rezoned property, was allowed to intervene as a party defendant. The present appeal has been taken by the plaintiffs from a judgment dismissing their appeal in the Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiffs have raised three claims on appeal. The first is that the commission's action in granting the change of zone was inconsistent with the town's comprehensive plan and was not shown to have been justified by any change in conditions. Zoning in Ridgefield is governed by chapter 124 of the General Statutes. As such, it is subject to the implicit requirement of General Statutes § 8-2 that any zone change must be in harmony with the comprehensive plan. Allin v. Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 129, 133, 186 A.2d 802. The comprehensive plan for Ridgefield consists of the zoning regulations themselves and the zoning map which has been established pursuant to those regulations. See Zandri v. Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 646, 649, 192 A.2d 876. The regulations, the zoning map and the record of the public hearing before the commission, a portion of which has been printed in the appendix to the plaintiffs' brief (see Practice Book § 719), reveal the following circumstances. The area in question is a largely undeveloped tract located near the main business center of town. It is bounded on the north by a business B-1 zone and on the east by a light industry B-2 zone, which is the town's least restrictive zoning classification. Several business establishments are situated in the general vicinity to the north and the east, across Grove Street, of the rezoned area. The property to the sough consists of two large parcels, one lying in the business B-1 zone and the other in a residence R-1 zone. The Elms Inn, which is a nonconforming business use, is located on the latter parcel. To the west lie Main Street, recognized by the commission, as an historical and aesthetic asset of the community, and, across Main Street, a residence R-1 zone in which are located the homes of the appealing plaintiffs. A tract of seven and one-half acres, rezoned by the commission in 1960 to allow garden-style apartments, is in the immediate vicinity, lying somewhat south and east of the property presently under consideration. This earlier action by the commission was also challenged and was affirmed. See Zandri v. Zoning Commission, supra. The entire area is within a short distance of the civic and commercial center of the town.

A number of closely prescribed restrictions have been incorporated into the new zone in an attempt to harmonize any proposed use of the land in question with the surrounding area. As enacted by the commission, the provisions relating to the new zone limit the land area on which buildings may be constructed to 25 percent of the total area involved and allow no more than ten apartment units per acre. In addition, a setback requirement of 250 feet from Main Street is designed to preserve the historical atmosphere of the Main Street area and serves as a buffer between the properties of the plaintiffs and any garden apartments which might be developed as a result of the zone change. In view of the foregoing facts, including the proximity of the rezoned area to properties zoned for commercial and apartment uses, and the restrictive provisions adopted by the commission to preserve the general tenor of the entire area, it cannot be said that the commission's action was in conflict with the town's comprehensive plan. ²

The plaintiffs also claim that there had not been any change in conditions affecting the area in question which could justify the action taken by the commission. In amending its zoning regulations, and in rezoning this particular property, the commission was acting as a legislative body. Metropolitan Homes, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 152 Conn. 7, 11, 202 A.2d 241; Woodford v. Zoning Commission, 147 Conn. 30, 32, 156 A.2d 470. When acting in such a capacity, it is subject to the general rule that it may modify its enactments whenver time and experience reasonably indicate the need for revision. Metropolitan Homes, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, supra. A substantial...