Raffia v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Enfield
| Decision Date | 12 March 1964 |
| Citation | 199 A.2d 333,151 Conn. 484 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | George RAFFIA et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF ENFIELD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Paul M. Palten, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Charles Alfano, Suffield, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Philip E. Tatoian, Thompsonville, with whom was Patrick J. Flaherty, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant Skomro); with him also was Anthony C. Ward, Windsor Lock, for the appellee (named defendant).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.
Zoning and planning in Enfield is governed by a special act of the General Assembly. 30 Spec.Laws, p. 186, No. 244. Section 1 of that act creates a zoning and planning commission which is authorized to exercise general zoning and planning powers within the town. Section 2 empowers the commission, inter alia, to divide the town into districts and regulate the use of land within the districts. Section 15 creates a board of appeals which is empowered by § 16(1) '[t]o hear and decide appeals from the doings of the zoning and planning commission where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement or decision made by the zoning and planning commission.' Section 18 permits an appeal from a decision of the board of appeals to the court. Thus, the special act does not follow the procedure permitted by §§ 8-9 and 8-10 of the General Statutes, which allows direct appeals to the court from decisions of the zoning commission. Unfortunately, the act appears to ignore the prior commendable legislative policy of effectuating uniformity and clarity amidst the confused pattern of general and special zoning legislation in Connecticut. Sullivan v. Town Council, 143 Conn. 280, 286, 121 A.2d 630. For an instance of litigation which such special legislation can produce, see Burke v. Board of Representatives, 148 Conn. 33, 166 A.2d 849.
Katarzyna Skomro, owner of a tract of land containing about twenty-six acres, applied to the zoning and planning commission to have the zoning restrictions applicable to her land changed from residence B to business A. Retail business is permitted in a business A zone. The commission, following a hearing, granted the application. The plaintiffs, claiming to be aggrieved, appealed from the decision of the commission to the board of appeals as § 17 of the special act permitted them to do. 30 Spec.Laws, p. 195, § 17. The board of appeals, following a public hearing, denied the appeal and sustained the action of the commission. The plaintiffs appealed from the decision of the board of appeals to the Court of Common Pleas, which rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, and the plaintiffs now appeal from that judgment.
The only assignment of error properly raised is the claim that the court erred in failing to conclude that the board of appeals had acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or illegally. The plaintiffs base this claim on the grounds that the change of zone amounted to spot zoning, that it would increase the traffic hazards, and that one of the reasons for the board's action was that the plaintiffs' land does not abut the Skomro land. The issue whether the plaintiffs are abutters is of no significance in view of the fact that they are conceded to be aggrieved parties. The claim that the change of zone amounted to spot zoning is a general one unsupported by any reason other than that a change of zone must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan. No express comprehensive zoning plan has been formally adopted in Enfield. The plan, therefore, must be found in the scheme of the zoning regulations themselves. Corsino v. Grover, 148 Conn. 299, 313, 170 A.2d 267. Section 2 of the special act authorizes the commission to make regulations 'in accordance with * * * [the] comprehensive plan in the light of the diverse character of the town * * * not only with reasonable consideration for the character of the community but also with reasonable consideration as to the character of any particular district within the town and its peculiar suitability for particular uses.' The land involved, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
STATE, BY ROCHESTER ASS'N, ETC. v. City of Rochester
...the usual presumption of validity attaching to zoning amendments as legislative acts applies. See, Raffia v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Enfield, 151 Conn. 484, 199 A.2d 333 (1964); Crall v. Leominster, 362 Mass. 95, 284 N.E.2d 610 (1972); 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning (2 ed.) §......
-
Pizzola v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Plainville
...an appeal from the zoning commission in Plainville may be taken within twenty days. What this court said in Raffia v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 484, 486, 199 A.2d 333, 334; is apt: 'Unfortunately, the act appears to ignore the prior commendable legislative policy of effectuating un......
-
Lavitt v. Pierre
...put for many years, negated any claim that a neighborhood shopping zone would permit an inappropriate use. See Raffia v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 151 Conn. 484, 487, 199 A.2d 333. The court has found not only that the zone was in a logical location for commercial activity but that the desig......
-
Lum Yip Kee, Ltd. v. City and County of Honolulu, 12663
...rests with the party attacking the ordinance. Mesolella v. Providence, 439 A.2d 1370, 1374 (R.I.1982); Raffia v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 151 Conn. 484, 486, 199 A.2d 333, 335 (1964); 1 American Law of Zoning 3d § 5.22, at 404 (1986). 14 This is in accordance with the principle discussed prev......