Young v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Wallingford
| Decision Date | 04 December 1963 |
| Citation | 196 A.2d 427,151 Conn. 235 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles B. YOUNG et al. v. TOWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the TOWN OF WALLINGFORD (two cases). Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Robert L. Fay, Wallingford, with whom were Joseph N. Manfreda and Robert P. Billings, Wallingford, for appellants (plaintiffs in each case).
Theodore Lendler, Wallingford, with whom was Charles J. Wood, Jr., Wallingford, for appellee (defendant in each case).
Before KING, C. J., and MURPHY, SHEA, ALCORN and COMLEY, JJ.
Following a public hearing held in June, 1959, the defendant planning and zoning commission, hereafter referred to as the commission, voted seven changes of zone embracing a substantial area in Wallingford. The forty-six plaintiffs, claiming to be aggrieved by the change in classification of the zone which included their properties, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. While the appeal was pending, and before it was heard, forty-five of these plaintiffs and two additional persons petitioned the commission for a rehearing on the change of zone, stating, inter alia, that it would 'perhaps make unnecessary the continuance of the appeal to the Court of Common Pleas.' The commission held a hearing on the petition and denied it. The petitioning plaintiffs thereupon appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The two appeals were heard together, the court rendered judgments dismissing both appeals, and the plaintiffs bring the cases before us on appeal from those judgments.
In the court below, the plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence in addition to the contents of the record returned by the commission, and the court has made a limited finding, confined, as it should be, to the ruling on the plaintiffs' offer of that evidence. Isdale v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 141 Conn. 509, 512, 107 A.2d 267; Kuehne v. Town Council of Town of East Hartford, 136 Conn. 452, 457, 72 A.2d 474. This finding is attacked by the assignment of errors but is not subject to correction in any respect which will benefit the plaintiffs. From the finding, it appears that the plaintiffs offered in evidence the minutes of a meeting of the Wallingford board of finance, a letter from the chairman of that board to the first selectman of Wallingford, the minutes of a meeting of the selectmen and the minutes of a meeting of the commission in 1958. These documents were offered as tending to show reasons for the 1959 change in zone other than those set forth in the records of the commission. The commission objected, and the court excluded the documents.
The plaintiffs claim that the court erred in excluding the exhibits; that no change of circumstances existed to justify the change of zone made as a result of the first hearing in June, 1959, but a change of circumstances arose thereafter which required the commission to reverse that action at the second hearing in August, 1960; and that the commission acted arbitrarily, illegally and in abuse of its discretion in the action which it took in each instance.
The basic facts are as follows: The borough of Wallingford, which formerly existed within the limits of the town of Wallingford, had adopted zoning regulations in 1939. The remainder of the town was subject to no zoning regulations until 1953. On January 1, 1958, by special act of the General Assembly, the town and borough of Wallingford were consolidated and the borough was abolished. 28 Spec.Laws 39, art. 1, § 1. As a part of the consolidation, the town planning commission was designated as the Wallingford planning and zoning commission, with all the powers and duties of both a planning and a zoning commission, to supersede any zoning commission in the town. 28 Spec.Laws 56, art. 8, § 1. To meet the situation created by the consolidation, planning and zoning regulations, based, essentially, on the former town and borough regulations, were adopted by the commission, effective November 7, 1958. They divided the town into seven residence districts, three rural districts, one limited-business district, five commercial districts and two industrial districts. Wallingford Zoning Regs. § 2.1 (1958). The plaintiffs' properties are in a rural district designated under these regulations as RU-40. The town planning commission had, however, been studying a general plan for Wallingford for several years, taking into account population trends and the physical characteristics and suitable uses of the land in the various areas of the town. On its own initiative, the defendant commission held a hearing on June 11, 1959, to consider changing the 1958 zoning regulations for eight areas of the town. The areas involved represented the major portions of the land outside of what might be called the central business section. Included in the eight areas which were the subject of the hearing was the one in which the plaintiff's properties are located. The proposal considered at the hearing was to change the classification for the area which included the plaintiffs' properties from RU-40 to RU-80. The only differences between the restrictions in rural district RU-80 and rural district RU-40 were that the RU-40 restriction required a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 150 feet and a minimum lot area per family unit of 30,000 square feet, whereas, the RU-80 restrictions required a minimum lot area of 80,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 200 feet and a minimum lot area per family unit of 50,000 square feet. Wallingford Zoning Regs. § 5 (1958). At the hearing, the recommendations of town planning consultants and the opinions of property owners and various experts were offered at length. Following the hearing, the commission unanimously voted to rezone all but one of the areas considered, and the area embracing the plaintiffs' properties was rezoned from RU-40 to RU-80. The commission gave as reasons for the change in the area which included the plaintiffs' properties that both the Wallingford water system and the New Haven Water Company owned substantial portions of the land; other portions were used by Y.M.C.A. and Boys' Club Camps and a Rod and Gun Club; part of the land was included in a state forest; the area is rural and contains no public water and sewer services; the prevailing soil conditions impede drainage; and the comprehensive plan for the locality contemplates a desirable population density of one family for each two acres.
The plaintiffs' claim is that the reasons stated by the commission are not, in fact, the real reasons for the change in zone, but that the real reason is to prevent an increase in the property tax rate by limiting the number of families permitted in the area and thereby controlling the need for additional school facilities. It is their further claim that two members of the commission had a fixed bias in favor of this objective, which the evidence excluded by the court would tend to establish.
The plaintiffs contend that, because of the preconceived opinion of two members of the commission, the hearing was a sham, and consequently the commissions's action was arbitrary. Of course, if the plaintiffs could sustain the burden, which rested on them, of proving that the commission had made up its mind, in advance, to approve the proposed zone changes regardless of anything which transpired at the public hearing, the purpose of the hearing would have been thwarted and the commission's action thereafter would be illegal. Pecora v. Zoning Commission of Town of Trumbull, 145 Conn. 435, 444, 144 A.2d 48; Couch v. Zoning Commission of Town of Washington, 141 Conn. 349, 357, 106 A.2d 173.
The plaintiffs make no complaint of the fairness of the public hearing before the commission, nor do they claim to have been denied the opportunity of introducing all of the evidence they wished to offer at that hearing. Since there was a complete stenographic record of the proceedings before the commission, the offer of additional evidence in the trial court called for a determination, in the exercise of the court's legal discretion, as to whether that evidence was necessary for the equitable disposition of the appeal. General Statutes § 8-8; Nielson v. Zoning Commission of Waterbury, 149 Conn. 410, 413, 180 A.2d 754. U...
To continue reading
Request your trial