St. Joseph's High Sch., Inc. v. Planning
Decision Date | 19 September 2017 |
Docket Number | (AC 38816). |
Citation | 170 A.3d 73,176 Conn.App. 570 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | ST. JOSEPH'S HIGH SCHOOL, INC., et al. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF TRUMBULL |
Joel Z. Green, with whom, on the brief, was Linda Pesce Laske, Bridgeport, for the appellants (defendant Jeffrey W. Strouse et al.).
Michael C. Jankovsky, Fairfield, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Lavine, Sheldon and Pellegrino, Js.
The intervening defendants Jeffrey W. Strouse, Barbara M. Strouse, Mukesh H. Shah, Vibhavary M. Shah, Jai R. Singh, Sonali Singh, Dennis J. McEniry, and Joanne McEniry appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining in part the appeal of the plaintiffs, St. Joseph's High School, Inc. (school), and the Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. (diocese), from the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumbull (commission) denying the school's request for a special permit pursuant to Article II, § 1.2.4.4, of the Trumbull Zoning Regulations (regulations).1 On appeal, the defendants contend that the court improperly concluded that the commission could not deny that request on the basis of noncompliance with general standards contained in the regulations. They further submit that substantial evidence in the record supports the commission's decision. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.2
At all relevant times, the diocese owned a parcel of land located in the AA residential zone and known as 2320 Huntington Turnpike in Trumbull (property). For more than half a century, the school has operated a private secondary school on the property. Although currently 53.95 acres in size, the property originally was significantly larger. Approximately two decades ago, the diocese sold a sizeable portion of the property to developers, on which neighboring residential homes were constructed. The current owners of those adjacent properties are among those affected by the proposed special permit use at issue in this appeal.
Article II, § 1.2.4, of the regulations enumerates various special permit uses in the AA residential zone. Among such uses, as provided in § 1.2.4.4, are "[c]hurches and other places of worship, including parish houses and Sunday School buildings; non-profit primary and secondary schools; and buildings housing personnel affiliated with said churches and schools."
Pursuant to Article XVI, § 3, of the regulations, the commission is authorized "after public notice and a hearing, to amend, change, or repeal these Regulations ...." At the behest of the school, the commission, in August, 2014, exercised that authority by amending § 1.2.4.4 to permit the installation of lighting on athletic fields for nonprofit secondary schools.3 Since it became effective on September 10, 2014, that amendment has provided, in relevant part: 4
The commission, in enacting that amendment, formally complied with all applicable procedural requirements. See General Statutes § 8–3 ; Trumbull Zoning Regs., art. XVI, § 3.
In accordance with § 1.2.4.4, as amended, the school filed an application for a special permit5 to permit the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate the school's primary athletic field. In that application, the school stated, in relevant part, that "[t]he fields and lights are well-buffered with mature landscaping and there will be no negative impact on the adjoining neighborhood."
On September 17, 2014, the commission held a public hearing on the application. Attorney Raymond Rizio appeared on behalf of the school and detailed how the proposal complied with the technical requirements of § 1.2.4.4. He first noted that the light poles would be ten feet shorter than the maximum height permitted under § 1.2.4.4 (a), and would be at least 325 feet away from abutting residential property lines, in compliance with § 1.2.4.4 (b). Rizio also stated that the abutting residential properties were "very well ... buffered with heavily wooded property."
Consistent with § 1.2.4.4 (c), the school submitted a photometric plan to the commission. It also presented expert testimony on the impact of the proposed lighting by Mark Reynolds of Techline Sports Lighting, who indicated that, although there would be "some light spillage" around the athletic field, "when you get 100 feet away from that field, it's going to be pretty much down to nothing." Rizio similarly remarked that (Footnote added.) The school's proposal also included the installation of an automated control system.
Rizio then noted certain general standards of Article XV that govern special permit applications, stating: Rizio also addressed the appropriateness of the proposed use, stating that
After reminding the commission that it previously had approved the use of athletic fields on the property, Rizio submitted that the proposal presently before the commission was "a completely harmonious accessory use [that] complements the current use of the athletic fields." With respect to traffic considerations and the impact on residential properties, Rizio stated that "the intensity of the operations involved" with respect to 7
Rizio acknowledged that, in granting a special permit, the commission has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on the proposed use. See General Statutes § 8–2 (a) ( ); Carpenter v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 176 Conn. 581, 594, 409 A.2d 1029 (1979) ( ). He then articulated nine "voluntary conditions" that the school believed were appropriate restrictions on the special permit use in question.8 Rizio concluded by noting that the school was proposing those conditions to "make sure we conform not only with the literal interpretation [of § 1.2.4.4], but [also] the spirit of the regulation."9
During the public comment portion of the hearing, the commission heard both support for and opposition to the school's proposal.10 The commission also received written correspondence from seventeen additional members of the public, all of whom opposed the proposal. The common thread running through the comments of those who spoke in opposition was a fervent belief that permitting major sporting events on the property at nighttime would adversely affect property values, public safety, the residential character of their neighborhood, and the use and enjoyment of their properties.
When public comment concluded, the school responded to certain concerns raised therein. It volunteered two additional conditions of approval pertaining to its proposed special permit use. First, it agreed not to play any music when the proposed lights were utilized. Second, the school agreed that use of "the press box and the public announcement [system] at [night] games would only occur during boys' varsity football and boys' varsity lacrosse ...." As to traffic concerns, Rizio noted that He thus submitted that "[w]hether you have a Saturday football game or a Friday night football game, both games" would have the same impact on the neighborhood in terms of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Arguing that the school had "satisfied all of the items required to achieve a special permit" under § 1.2.4.4, Rizio asked the commission to grant the application, subject to the conditions that the school had proposed.
The commission then closed the public hearing and began its deliberations on the school's application. Commissioner Fred Garrity spoke first, remarking that he was "hard-pressed to find things that the applicant did not do...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Hartford v. CBV Parking Hartford, LLC
...applied the proper legal standard is subject to plenary review on appeal. See, e.g., St. Joseph's High School, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 176 Conn. App. 570, 586–87, 170 A.3d 73 (2017) ; Norwich v. Styx Investors in Norwich, LLC , 92 Conn. App. 801, 808, 887 A.2d 910 (2006). We ......
-
Parker v. Zoning Comm'n of the Town of Wash.
...[are] authorized to impose conditions as a prerequisite to certain uses of lands"); St. Joseph's High School, Inc . v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 176 Conn. App. 570, 576, 170 A.3d 73 (2017) ("in granting a special permit, the commission has the authority to place reasonable restrictions......
-
One Elmcroft Stamford, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Stamford
...approval. Because that claim involves a question of law, our review is plenary. See St. Joseph's High School, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 176 Conn. App. 570, 586–87, 170 A.3d 73 (2017). Before considering the specific claims advanced by the plaintiff, additional context is necess......
-
Priore v. Haig
...Irwin v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 244 Conn. 619, 626, 711 A.2d 675 (1998) ; see also St. Joseph's High School, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 176 Conn. App. 570, 594, 170 A.3d 73 (2017) ("[a] zoning commission can exercise its discretion during the review of the proposed speci......