St. Joseph's High Sch., Inc. v. Planning
| Decision Date | 19 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | AC 38816 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ST. JOSEPH'S HIGH SCHOOL, INC., ET AL. v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TRUMBULL |
Lavine, Sheldon and Pellegrino, Js.
The plaintiffs appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant planning and zoning commission denying their application for a special permit to install lighting on certain real property on which the plaintiff school was situated. The school sought a special permit, pursuant to the applicable town zoning regulation (Article II, § 1.2.4.4), to authorize the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate the school's primary athletic field. After the trial court granted the motion to intervene filed by the defendant adjacent landowners, it rendered judgment sustaining the appeal in part, concluding that the plaintiffs' application met the technical requirements of § 1.2.4.4 (a) through (d) of the zoning regulations, and that it satisfied each of the known and definite standards therein. With respect to § 1.2.4.4 (e) of the regulations, which provides that "[a]ll requirements of Article XV Special Permit/Special Exception shall be satisfied," the court found that because Article XV contained no definite standards with which a prospective applicant must comply, it could not serve as the sole basis for denying a special permit application when all of the known and definite standards in the regulation in question have been satisfied. The court thus remanded the matter to the commission with direction to approve the special permit as requested, subject to such conditions that would be necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience and property values. Subsequently, the intervening defendants, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held:
1. The trial court applied an improper legal standard in reviewing the commission's decision on the special permit application and determining that the general standards contained in Article XV of the zoning regulations could not serve as the sole basis for denying the special permit application; a planning and zoning commission may deny a special permit application on the basis of general standards set forth in the zoning regulations, even when all technical requirements of the regulations have been met, and, contrary to the plaintiffs' claim, this court's decision in MacKenzie v. Planning & Zoning Commission (146 Conn. App. 406) did not alter the ample body of appellate precedent regarding the ability of a commission to append conditions to a special permit approval, or its ability to predicate its decision on compliance with general standards set forth in the zoning regulations.
2. The trial court improperly sustained the plaintiffs' appeal in part from the commission's denial of their special permit application, as substantial evidence existed in the record on which the commission, in its discretion, could have relied in concluding that the school did not meet its burden of demonstrating compliance with the general standards of Article XV of the zoning regulations: on the basis of the testimony and evidence in the record, the commission reasonably could have concluded, in its discretion, that the school failed to demonstrate that the proposed use would not adversely affect neighboring residential properties due to nighttime noise emissions, in contravention of the regulations, that the school's proposal lacked buffers that would adequately shield neighboring residential properties from noise and light emissions, as required by the regulations, and that the school did not establish that its proposed use adequately avoided nonresidential traffic through residential streets, that pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and from and in the vicinity of the use would not be hazardous or inconvenient to, or detrimental to the character of, the abutting residential neighborhood, that, with respect to access and parking, the design of the proposed use adequately protected the residential character of surrounding residential neighborhoods or residential zones, or that the proposed use would not exacerbate special problems of police protection inherent in the proposed use; moreover, in exercising its discretion over whether the general standards of Article XV sufficiently were met, the commission could have concluded, on the record before it, that the school did not establish that the proposed use would not adversely affect neighboring property values, the character of the adjacent neighborhood, or the quality of life of its residents.
Procedural History
Appeal from the decision by the defendant denying the plaintiffs' application for a special permit to install certain lighting, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, where the court, Bellis, J., granted the motion filed by Jeffrey W. Strouse et al. to intervene as defendants; thereafter, the matter was tried to the court, Radcliffe, J.; judgment sustaining the appeal in part, from which the defendant Jeffrey W. Strouse et al., on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed.
Joel Z. Green, with whom, on the brief, was Linda Pesce Laske, for the appellants (defendant Jeffrey W. Strouse et al.).
Michael C. Jankovsky, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial