Senior v. Zoning Commission of Town of New Canaan

• Decision Date: 23 June 1959
• Citation: 153 A.2d 415,146 Conn. 531
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: John L. SENIOR, Jr. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF TOWN OF NEW CANAAN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 415

153 A.2d 415

146 Conn. 531

John L. SENIOR, Jr. v. ZONING COMMISSION OF TOWN OF NEW CANAAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 23, 1959.

J. Kenneth Bradley, Bridgeport, with whom was Norwick R. G. Goodspeed, Bridgeport, for appellant (defendant).

Raymond T. Benedict, Stamford, with whom were Francis J. McNamara, Jr., Stamford, and, on the brief, Morgan P. Ames and John F. Spindler, Stamford, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ., and SHEA and ALCORN, Superior Court Judges.

KING, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff owns a tract of 436 acres in New Canaan in a residence zone. The lots in the tract were required to have a minimum area of two acres. The zone, consisting of over 4000 acres, embraces the entire northerly portion of the town. The land is heavily wooded, hilly, and at present comprises only a little over 600 separate parcels. Six per cent of the zone is occupied by reservoirs supplying water to nearby municipalities. It is a semirural area of natural beauty and has neither water nor sewer services. Effective December 1, 1956, the defendant amended the zoning regulations by upgrading the zone so as to require a minimum lot area of four acres. The plaintiff claims to have contemplated a real estate development of two-acre lots. His basic contention on the appeal to this court is that the action of the commission in upgrading the area was unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. He succeeded in persuading the court below to reverse the action of the commission.

Since there has been no intervening amendatory legislation, for convenience references will be made to the General Statutes, Revision of 1958. Pursuant to the requirement of § 8-3, the statute authorizing zone changes, the commission stated 'upon its records the reason why such change is made.' In this case several reasons were given. There is nothing in the proposed upgrading which appears inconsistent with the provisions of § 8-2 setting forth the considerations which the commission must have before it in enacting zoning regulations. ¹ The burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the action of the commission amounted to an illegal abuse of its power. Culinary Institute of America, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 143 Conn. 257, 261, 121 A.2d 637. As far as appears, the commission considered each of the reasons given sufficient to warrant its action. It follows that as far as the reasons themselves are concerned, if any one of them would support the action of the commission, the plaintiff must fail in his appeal.

The upgrading of a zone in a residential semi-rural area is a type of regulation generally upheld. DeMars v. Zoning Commission, 142 Conn. 580, 583, 115 A.2d 653; 58 Am.Jur. 974, § 52; 1 Yokley, Zoning Law & Practice (2d Ed.) § 170 & 1958 Sup.; Rhyne, Municipal Law, p. 839. Cases on this point are collected in an annotation at 141 A.L.R. 693. As pointed out in 1 Yokley, cited above, at page 421, for zoning regulations establishing minimum areas of lots, especially in residential zones, to be valid, they 'must be reasonable and must be considered in the light of the facts of each particular case. There must necessarily be involved the surrounding topography of the area, the proximity to urban centers, the general character of the existing homes in the area, and the absence or presence of commercial and industrial developments.' DeMars v. Zoning Commission, supra, 142 Conn. 582, 115 A.2d 653, also involving the action of a zoning commission in increasing the minimum dimensions of lots, is to the same effect. Even if the plaintiff proved himself correct in his opinion that he could obtain a larger return from the sale of two-acre lots than from the sale of four-acre lots, the action of the commission is not thereby invalidated. Simon v. Needham, 311 Mass. 560, 565, 42 N.E.2d 516, 141 A.L.R. 688. The maximum possible enrichment of developers is not a controlling purpose of zoning. The plaintiff stated to the commission that the town of New Canaan, as of the 1950 census, had the highest per capita income of any town, village or city in the United States. This fact, given the commission by the plaintiff, was certainly a proper fact for it to consider in deciding whether the establishment of a superior residential district would be the most appropriate use of this unspoiled area. Village Builders, Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 218, 220, 140 A.2d 477. As...