Opinion
No. CV 01 0077060 S
July 24, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I.
STATEMENT OF APPEAL
The plaintiff, Gideon Associates (Gideon), appeals the decision of the defendant, the Coventry Planning and Zoning Commission (the commission), amending the town's zoning regulations by increasing both the minimum area footage of a residential lot from forty thousand square feet to eighty thousand square feet and the minimum lot frontage from one hundred and fifty feet to two hundred and twenty-five feet. Gideon brings this appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8.
II. BACKGROUND
Gideon is the owner of 50 acres of land located on the west side of Hop River Road in Coventry, Connecticut. (Appeal, ¶ 1.) A review of the record reveals the following facts. On August 13, 2001, the commission held a public hearing concerning its proposal to increase the regulations of the minimum residential lot size from forty thousand square feet (RU-40 zone) to eighty thousand square feet (RU-80 zone). (Return of Record [ROR], Items 1 and 27.) The public hearing was continued to August 27, 2001, in order to allow the commission to review additional information before it made its determination. (ROR, Item, 2.) The commission's proposal was met with a mix of support and opposition from the people of Coventry; (ROR, Item 4, pp. 3-4); and the commission received letters from people who were in favor of the proposal as well as people who were opposed to it. (ROR, Items 4, 25, 31, 32, 33.) On September 20, 2001, the commission unanimously approved its proposal to amend its zoning regulations as pertained to certain properties located in the town of Coventry in order to increase the minimum residential lot size from a RU-40 zone to a RU-80. (ROR, Item, 13.) The commission's CT Page 8453-km amendment affected more than 65% of the land located within the town of Coventry. (ROR, Item 27.) Notice of the commission's decision was published on October 3, 2001. (Appeal, ¶ 3.)
Gideon now appeals from the commission's decision to amend the town's zoning regulations to rezone certain land, including Gideon's land, from an RU-40 zone to a RU-80 zone.
III JURISDICTION
General Statutes § 8-8 governs an appeal from the decisions of a municipal planning or zoning commission to the Superior Court. "A statutory right to appeal may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance with the statutory provisions by which it is created." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cardoza v. Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 78, 82, 557 A.2d 545 (1989).
A. Aggrievement
"[P]leading and proof of aggrievement are prerequisites to a trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of an administrative appeal . . . It is [therefore] fundamental that, in order to have standing to bring an administrative appeal, a person must be aggrieved." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 409, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). "In the case of a decision by a zoning commission, planning commission, combined planning and zoning commission or zoning board of appeals, `aggrieved person' includes any person owning land that abuts or is within a radius of one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the board." General Statutes § 8-8 (a) (1).
On May 12, 2003, Thomas G. Welles, Jr., a partner who works for Gideon, testified that Gideon owns land located in the area that was affected by the commission's decision. Welles submitted a certified copy of a quitclaim deed demonstrating that Gideon is the owner of property located in Coventry that was affected by the commission's decision. (Plaintiff's Exhibit A.) Accordingly, the court finds that Gideon is statutorily aggrieved pursuant to § 8-8 (a) (1). CT Page 8453-kn
B. Timeliness and Service of Process
"[A]ny person aggrieved by any decision of a board . . . may take an appeal to the superior court for the judicial district in which the municipality is located. The appeal shall be commenced by service of process in accordance with subsections (f) and (g) of this section within fifteen days from the date that notice of the decision was published as required by the general statutes. The appeal shall be returned to court in the same manner and within the same period of time as prescribed for civil actions brought to that court." General Statutes § 8-8 (b). "Service of legal process for an appeal under this section shall be directed to a proper officer and shall be made by leaving a true and attested copy of the process with, or at the usual place of abode of, the chairman or clerk of the board, and by leaving a true and attested copy with the clerk of the municipality." General Statutes § 8-8 (f).
On October 3, 2001, notice of the commission's decision was published in the Willimantic Chronicle. On October 18, 2001, Gideon's appeal was commenced by service of process upon Darby Pollansky, the chairperson of the Coventry Planning and Zoning Commission and upon Cheryl McIntyre, the assistant town clerk for the town of Coventry. The court finds that Gideon timely commenced this appeal upon the proper parties.
In the marshal's service of process, Darby Pollansky is listed as the clerk of the Coventry Zoning and Planning Commission. The court notes that Pollansky is actually the chairperson of the commission and was correctly served pursuant to § 8-8 (f). (Citation, p. 1.)
IV. SCOPE OF REVIEW
"[T]he commission, acting in a legislative capacity, [has] broad authority to adopt amendments . . . In such circumstances, it is not the function of the court to retry the case. Conclusions reached by the commission must be upheld by the trial court if they are reasonably supported by the record. The credibility of the witnesses and the determination of issues of fact are matters solely within the province of the agency. The question is not whether the trial court would have reached the same conclusion but whether the record before the agency supports the decision reached . . . Acting in such legislative capacity, the local board is flee to amend its regulations whenever time, experience, and responsible planning for contemporary or future conditions reasonably indicate the need for a change . . . The discretion of a legislative body, because of its constituted role as formulator of public policy, is much broader than that of an administrative board, which serves a quasi-judicial function . . . This legislative discretion is wide and liberal, and must not be disturbed by the courts unless the party aggrieved by that decision establishes that the commission acted arbitrarily or illegally." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks CT Page 8453-ko omitted.) Harris v. Zoning Commission, supra, 259 Conn. 416.
"Zoning must be sufficiently flexible to meet the demands of increased population and evolutionary changes in such fields as architecture, transportation, and redevelopment . . . The responsibility for meeting these demands rests, under our law, with the reasoned discretion of each municipality acting through its duly authorized zoning commission. Courts will not interfere with these local legislative decisions unless the action taken is clearly contrary to law or in abuse of discretion . . . [T]he test of the action of the commission is twofold: (1) The zone change must be in accord with a comprehensive plan . . . and (2) it must be reasonably related to the normal police power purposes enumerated in § 8-2 . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 417.
"Where a zoning agency has stated its reasons for its actions, the court should determine only whether the assigned grounds are reasonably supported by the record and whether they are pertinent to the considerations which the authority was required to apply under the zoning regulations . . . The [decision] must be sustained if even one of the stated reasons is sufficient to support it . . . [This] applies where the agency has rendered a formal, official, collective statement of reasons for its action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bloom v. Zoning Board of Anneals, 233 Conn. 198, 208, 658 A.2d 559 (1995).
V. DISCUSSION
The commission passed an amendment that rezoned a significant portion of land from a RU-40 zone to a RU-80 zone within the town of Coventry that included the property of Gideon. Generally, Gideon appeals the commission's decision on the grounds that the commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and abused its discretion in various ways. Specifically, Gideon sets forth several arguments in support of its appeal. First, that the commission enacted the zone change as a form of growth control based on the mistaken belief that the town's population would grow to about 35,000 in the future. Second, the commission considered information that was presented outside the public hearings. Third, that the commission based its decision on the "Natural Resource Inventory" which was a draft that had not been approved by the commission and ignored a map submitted to the commission that was in accordance with the plan of conservation and development. Gideon further argues that the maps relied on by the commission do not support the zone change. Fourth, Gideon contends that the commission did not rely on the plan of CT Page 8453-kp conservation and development but only referenced it when it officially stated its reasons in support of its decision. Gideon maintains that many of the objectives stated in the plan of conservation and development upon which the commission relied in making its decision are not supported by the record. Furthermore, Gideon argues that the commission, pursuant to § 8-2, may consider property values as a factor when promulgating amendments, however, the commission failed to consider what the real impact would be on the property values by enacting the RU-80 amendment. It is Gideon's contention that the commission acted on misinformation concerning the population growth in Coventry during the coming years and that the new amendment would actually make housing less affordable. Finally, Gideon argues that the amendment will have an adverse effect on the property values of large landowners.
Gideon alleges that the commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and abused its discretion in the following ways: (1) the reasons that the commission relied on in support of its amendment were not proper pursuant to General Statutes § 8-2; (2) the amendment was made without regard to such factors as soil types, slopes of land, terrain or infrastructure capacity as required under § 8-2; (3) the amendment does not conserve the value of the land located throughout Coventry as required under § 8-2; (4) the amendment was made without regard to certain provisions located in the town of Coventry's plan of conservation and development; (5) the amendment was made without regard to the appropriate provisions under the state plan as set forth pursuant to § 8-2; (6) CT Page 8453-la the commission changed the applicable regulations even though no evidence existed showing that substantial change of conditions in the rate of housing development had occurred in Coventry; (7) the commission erroneously considered information that was not presented in the public hearings when it approved the amendment and (8) the commission failed to consider how the amendment would affect the grand list value of property located in Coventry or the loss of tax revenue that would result from the amendment. (Appeal, ¶ 5.) Gideon, however, fails to brief several of the above mentioned grounds and, therefore, they are deemed abandoned. See Willow Springs Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Seventh BRT Development Corp., 245 Conn. 1, 38, 717 A.2d 77 (1998) (issues that have not been adequately briefed may be deemed abandoned).
The commission counters that it acted within its delegated powers pursuant to § 8-2 when it enacted the zone change. The commission further argues that it "followed its duty to consider the Plan of Conservation and Development, citing many of the Plan's policies that the Commission hoped to promote." (Commission's Brief, p. 9.) The commission contends that it had been considering the zoning change for over four years and that there is no evidence that the commission engaged in any improper ex parte contact with others after the commencement of the public hearings. (Commission's Brief, p. 9.)
The commission approved the zone change application because it found that it conformed to Coventry's plan of conservation and development. (ROR, Item 6.) Specifically, the commission found that its approval was reflected in the "Natural Resource Inventory Mapping" and that it conformed to such goals and objectives as general planning, community character, protection of the community's environment, aesthetic and historical aspects, conservation and preservation of open spaces and recognition of housing demands. The commission stated the following as its reasons for the approval of the amendment: "Reasons for approval of this application are reflected in the Natural Resource Inventory Mapping, and the Plan of Conservation and Development. The following Natural Resource Inventory Maps are specifically noted: Map 3 Coventry, Connecticut: Drainage Basins. Indicating most importantly Wangumbaug Lake, Hop River, Rufus Brook, Theims Brook, Hemlock Brook, Ash Brook, Olson's Brook, Skungamaug River, Coventry Brook, Reed Brook, Winding Brook, and the Willimantic River; Map 4 Coventry Connecticut: Connecticut Wetlands: Most soils in the area rezoned are indicated as poorly and/or very poorly drained; Map 7 Coventry, Connecticut: Forest Land Use; Map 8 Coventry, Connecticut Agricultural Land Use. Pasture and crop land and bare soil and non-agricultural soil are indicated on this map; Map 10 Coventry, Connecticut: Farmland Soils; Prime farmland, water, and CT Page 8453-kq statewide important farmland soil are indicated on this map; Map 13 Coventry, Connecticut: Maximum Slope by Soils Classification. This map indicates maximum slope by soils; Map 14 Coventry, Connecticut: National Diversity Data Base: Natural and cultural features of the Town.
"This proposal conforms to the Town's Plan and Development in the following sections:
Section II — Goals and Objectives
A. General Planning
Objective 2 — Acknowledge that continued growth and change is inevitable but expect that growth to be permitted would be well-controlled and should be adequately accommodated by various Town facilities and services. The objective of the Plan is to manage and guide, rather than arrest, future growth.
Objective 4 — Incorporate into municipal regulations the most modern and progressive means of protecting the physical, social, historic and aesthetic well-being of existing and future neighborhoods.
Objective 10 — Establish a procedure whereby all changes to the zoning regulations and map shall be consistent with the Town's Plan and Conservation and Development.
B. Community Character
Objective 1 — Create and maintain a positive image of the community as a rural historic visitors' destination and a nice place to call home.
Objective 2 — Preserve and enhance the water quality of all the Town's water bodies, especially Lake Wangumbaug which is a major factor in the quality of life of Coventry.
Objective 4 — Provide for positive and permanent reservation of ample conservation and open space lands.
D. Environmental/Aesthetics/Historical
Objective 2 — protect the Town's historically and architecturally significant structures and sites, and areas of unique natural beauty through acquisition, land development controls, and other preservation techniques. CT Page 8453-kr
E. Conservation and Open Space
Objective 1 — Protect and conserve: prime and statewide important farmland soils, productive woodland soils and large, unfragmented forest blocks, notable wildlife and fisheries habitat, streambelts composed of watercourses, inland wetlands and other associated riparian habitat components, and scenic views and vistas, all through a range of preservation techniques, as identified in the Interim Report issued by the Task Force on Open Space Issues.
These are clearly defined in the natural resource maps.
Objective 4 — Protect environmentally sensitive lands from inappropriate development, in a manner cognizant of private property rights.
F. Housing
Objective 7 — Recognize, as one segment of The Town's housing demand, the desire for large single-family lots." (ROR, Item 6, pp. 6-8.)
Accordingly, because the commission stated its reasons for the passage of the amendment this court is limited to a review of the record in order to determine whether the commission's decision is reasonably supported by the evidence contained in the record.
"[T]he commission, acting in a legislative capacity, [has] broad authority to adopt amendments." Harris v. Zoning Commission, supra, 259 Conn. 416. "[R]egulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and in adopting such regulations the commission shall consider the plan of conservation and development prepared under section 8-23." General Statutes 8-2. "Zone changes are governed by a two part test: (1) The zone change must be in accord with a comprehensive plan, General Statutes § 8-2 . . . and (2) it must be reasonably related to the normal police power purposes enumerated in § 8-2 . . . A comprehensive plan has been defined as a general plan to control and direct the use and development of property in a municipality or a large part thereof by dividing it into districts according to the present and potential use of the properties . . . The requirement of a comprehensive plan is generally satisfied when the zoning authority acts with the intention of promoting the best interests of the entire community." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Heithaus v. Planning Zoning Commission, 258 Conn. 205, 217-18, 779 A.2d 750 CT Page 8453-ks (2001).
"When the zoning commission makes a change of zone, it is required to give reasons for its action. The zone change must be upheld if any of the reasons given for it by the commission are valid, reasonably supported by the record and pertinent to the considerations which the commission is required to apply under the zoning regulations." R. Fuller, 9A Connecticut Practice Series: Land Use and Practice (2d Ed. 1999) § 33.2, p. 155. Furthermore, "[i]f the administrative record supports the commission's reasons for the change in the regulations, the trial court must then determine if the reasons are valid as being rationally related to the legitimate purpose of zoning." Id., § 33.3, p. 34. "General Statutes § 8-2 sets forth what the commission must consider in enacting zoning regulations. The essential question, in any case, is whether any one of several reasons which may be given for the change is reasonably supported . . . If that reason supports the action of the commission the plaintiff must fail in his appeal . . . We examine the reason assigned by the commission in the light of the requirements of § 8-2." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Kavanewsky v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 160 Conn. 397, 402, 279 A.2d 567 (1971).
A. Whether the Record Supports a Finding that the Zone Change Conforms to the General Planning Goal as Stated in the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development
The commission specifically identified three general planning goal objectives as set forth in the plan of conservation and development in support of its decision concerning the zone change. First, the commission determined that the zone change would "manage and guide, rather than attest, future growth" in the town of Coventry. (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.) Secondly, the commission decided that the zone change would protect the "physical, social, historic and aesthetic well-being of existing and future neighborhoods." (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.) Finally, the commission determined that the zone change would help "establish a procedure whereby all changes to the zoning regulations and map shall be consistent with the [plan]." (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.)
The record reveals the following with respect to the commission's position that the zone change would manage and maintain the population growth of Coventry. During the public hearing, the town planner, Eric Trott, explained the purpose of the zone change as follows: "The approach with the RU-80 is in itself not a solution to growth management problems or rural character protection. It's, I refer to it as one spoke in a wheel of growth management and rural character protection . . . But, CT Page 8453-kt application of the recommendation of the Plan of Conservation and Development, here this is what the Commission is considering here. The elements with the plan that they created in 1997 to create a logic to do changes like this." (ROR, Item 1, pp. 39-40.) Commission chairperson, Darby Pollansky, further stated that it was not the intent of the commission to arrest growth but to manage it. "[T]he intent here isn't to stop development or the influx of people into the town. This is just to manage the rural character." (ROR, Item 1, pp. 64-65.) Furthermore, during the continuation of the public hearing, Trott again stated that the zone change was a technique used for growth management. Specifically, he stated "that two acre zoning is one method, one spoke, as I was referencing at the first meeting, one spoke within a wheel of growth management." (ROR, Item 2, p. 20.)
Gideon argues that the commission relied on misinformation in support of its decision. Specifically, it maintains that the commission was acting under the mistaken belief that the town of Coventry would expand to 30,000 people within the next ten years. The record, however, indicates that the commission did not rely on that information in reaching its decision. Pollansky, at the continuation of the public hearing, stated that RU-80 was not proposed based on this information. Specifically, Pollansky asserted that "[w]e didn't say oh, 35,000 people, we're gonna come up with RU-80. The Commission based the reason for proposing this on Natural Resource Inventory and Plan of Conservation and Development." (ROR, Item 2, p. 31.) In fact, Trott warned that the figure should be "taken with a grain of salt" and that it was an educated guess made back in the late 1980s. (ROR, Item 2, p. 32.)
Thus the record reflects that the commission promulgated the zone change so as to maintain and manage the growth of Coventry as proposed under the general planning goal specified in the plan of conservation and development. The commission several times referenced the plan of conservation and development and how the zone change was supported by the plan and its specific objectives. Duly considering the plan of conservation and development, specifically the second objective outlined in the general planning goal section, the commission determined that the zone change would help "manage and guide, rather than arrest, future growth" within the town. (ROR, Item 53, p. 7.)
In addition, the commission's decision is reasonably related to its police powers pursuant to § 8-2. Specifically, § 8-2 provides that "[s]uch regulations shall . . . prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population . . ." The record reveals that the commission was attempting to both manage and maintain, but not paralyze, the population growth in Coventry. Therefore, the record does CT Page 8453-ku show that the commission was intent on managing the population in Coventry, which it is permitted to do under § 8-2.
B. Whether the Record Supports a Finding that the Zone Change Conforms to the Community Character Goal as Specified Under the Town's Plan of Conservation and Development
In further support of its decision, the commission specified that the zone change complies with the community character goal as stated in the plan of conservation and development. Specifically the commission identified three objectives within the plan of conservation and development that it believed supported its decision. First, that the zone change was a way to "[c]reate and maintain a positive image of the community as a rural historic visitor's destination and [a] nice place to call home." (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.) Secondly, the zone change would "[p]reserve and enhance the water quality of all the Town's water bodies, especially, Lake Wangumbaug that is a major factor in the quality of life of Coventry." (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.) Finally, the zone change would "[p]rovide for positive and permanent reservation of ample conservation and open space lands." (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.)
In the plan of conservation and development, the community goal is defined as the following: "Preserve and maintain the essential rural character of Coventry as change and growth occur in the future years." (ROR, Item 53, p. 8.)
The Court will first address Gideon's argument that the commission's reason of maintaining the town's rural character was not included in the commission's official decision. A review of the objectives that specifically were cited in support of the commission's decision indicates that maintaining the town's rural character was a reason for the approval of the zone change. In particular, the first objective enumerated under the community character goal, as stated in the plan of conservation and development, provides that the purpose of the zone change was to "maintain . . . a rural historic visitor's destination . . ." (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.) Furthermore, within the plan of conservation and development, the goal under the community character, § II, B, is outlined as preserving the "rural character of Coventry." (ROR, Item 53, p. 8.) See also footnote 3. Therefore, when the commission discusses the purpose of the zone change in favor of maintaining the rural character of the town it is in reference to this specific objective as enunciated under both the town's plan of conservation and development and the commission's official decision.
Gideon further argues that a reason concerned with the maintenance of the rural character of Coventry does not comply with the requirements of § 8-2 and cites Kavanewsky v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 160 Conn. 397, in support of its argument that this court should sustain its appeal and reverse the commission's decision. The facts articulated in Kavanewsky are distinguishable from the present case. In Kavanewsky, the zoning board of appeals (board) quickly enacted a zone change from one acre to two acres in response to an application submitted by a developer. The board stated its reasons were to keep the community rural and to protect the community from "undesirable businesses." Id., 403. The Supreme Court found that this reason was not in compliance with § 8-2. Id.
In the present case, the commission had been considering the zone change for over three years. (ROR, Item 1, p. 6.) Further, the record reveals that the commission had considered the town's plan of conservation and development and the statutory requirements enunciated under § 8-2. Kavanewsky is distinguishable to the appeal presently before this court.
The record supports the commission's decision that the objectives as stated above support the zone change. There are many references by the commissioners concerning the protection of the town's rural character. In the minutes from the commission's meeting, dated June 25, 2001, the commission proposed RU-80 and stated that it "believe[d] that the current one-acre lot size requirement in the RU-40 zone is not adequate to CT Page 8453-kv protect the Town's rural character. In proposing the amendment, the Commission considered the following among other items: Plan of Conservation and Development . . ." (ROR, Item 9, p. 2.) In a memorandum written by Trott, dated August 13, 2001, he emphasized that "the Commission believes that one acre zoning is not adequately protecting the rural character of the town." (ROR, Item 27.)
During the public hearing, Pollansky stated that the purpose of the zone change was to "manage the rural character" of the town. (ROR, Item 1, p. 65.) Furthermore, Pollansky explained that the reasoning behind the amendment was that the commission was "trying to do what our Plan of Conservation and Development has been written to do and that was based on input from everybody, all boards, commissions, public, whatever anybody had to say and that was proposed and put together as a document that said mainly that we would like to maintain the rural character of this Town." (ROR, Item 1, p. 24.)
At the continuation of the public hearing, an alternate commission member, Patrick Shaw, maintained that the commission, by proposing the zone change, was "doing the right thing for the Town which is keeping it rural." (ROR, Item 2, p. 7.) Again, during the continuation of the public hearing, Pollansky stated that the commission was trying to "maintain and manage the rural character this Town wants to [sic] . . . wants to be." (ROR, Item, 2, p. 5.) Finally, Pollansky asserted that the commission was "trying to . . . maintain a certain character according to our Plan of Conservation and Development which is to remain rural." (ROR, Item 2, p. 11.)
In addition, during the public hearing, there was discussion by the commissioners about preserving open space within the town by utilizing a zone change. Trott stated that the zone change would be a tool, or as Trott characterized the zone change "one spoke in a wheel of growth management" and that it would help the town in purchasing the open space located throughout the town. (ROR, Item 1, p. 39.) Specifically, Trott indicated that the zone change would aid the town in preserving open space because the "[t]own is taking steps to purchase open space properties, another spoke in the wheel. Having flexible and creative zoning techniques to allow for a better process or a quicker process . . . as opposed to traditional zoning." (ROR, Item 1, p. 39.)
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the record reasonably supports the commission's determination that the zone change would protect the community character by maintaining its image as a rural community and preserving the open space within the town as specified in the plan of conservation and development. The Court also concludes that the CT Page 8453-kw commission's decision is reasonably related to its police powers under General Statutes § 8-2. Specifically, § 8-2 provides that "[s]uch regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration as to the character of the district . . ." The record reveals that the commission was motivated to enact the zone change, in part, to preserve the community character of the town. Accordingly, the Court finds that the record reflects that the commission enacted the zone change in order to protect the character of its community, which it is empowered to do based on its police powers pursuant to § 8-2.
C. Whether the Record Supports a Finding that the Zone Change Conforms to the Environmental, Aesthetics and Historical Goals as Specified Under the Plan of Conservation and Development
The commission identified one particular objective under the environmental, aesthetics and historical goals, as stated within the plan of conservation and development, in support of the zone change. Specifically, the commission found that the zone change conformed to the town's goal of "protect[ing] the Town's historically and architecturally significant structures and sites, and areas of unique natural beauty through acquisition, land development controls, and other preservation techniques." (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.)
The record reflects that the town planner spoke to the commission on the subject of a zone change as a tool or a technique in order to protect the town. Trott commented on the purpose behind the zone change when he stated that by having "flexible and creative zoning techniques to allow for better process [in purchasing open space property] or a quicker process . . . as opposed to traditional zoning . . . and techniques that may not be functional . . . The elements within the plan . . . create a logic to do changes like this." (ROR, Item 1, pp. 39-40.) Trott further explained that the zone change was just one method in what he referred to as the "wheel of growth management" and that the town is actively seeking to purchase open space property. (ROR, Item 2, p. 20.) Specifically, Trott stated that "[t]he Town actually [has] an active application with DEP to purchase an open space property . . . The issue is, that two acre zoning is one method . . . one spoke within a wheel of growth management." (ROR, Item 2, p. 20.)
Thus the record reasonably supports the commission's reason that this zone change would protect the town's structures through the use of different techniques, as stated under the plan of conservation and development, and that the zone change would be a valuable tool in protecting the significant structures and natural resources located within the town. Furthermore, the commission was acting within its police powers CT Page 8453-kx pursuant to § 8-2. Section 8-2 provides in relevant part: "[s]uch regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration as to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such municipality." Pursuant to § 8-2, the commission's stated motivation was to use the zone change as a tool that would allow the town to use its land that it saw fit.
D. Whether the Record Supports a Finding that the Zone Change Conforms to the Conservation and Open Space Goals as Stated Under the Plan of Conservation and Development
The commission, in its official decision, cited two objectives in the conservation and open space goals section, set forth within the plan of conservation and development, as support for the zone change. Specifically, the commission first determined that the zone change would "[p]rotect and conserve" natural resources that were identified in the referenced maps. (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.) The commission further decided that the zone change would effectively "[p]rotect environmentally sensitive lands from inappropriate development . . ." (ROR, Item 6, p. 7.)
The record contains numerous references to the preservation of Coventry's natural resources through the process of enacting the zone change. At the continuation of the public hearing, Pollansky stated in support of the zone change that the commission "tried to apply the zone change in the areas where we feel are the best areas to preserve that type of character based upon natural resources, and the Plan of Conservation and Development." (ROR, Item 2, p. 12.) Pollansky further declared that the commission "tried to address areas that had the largest natural resource inventory along with following our Plan of Conservation and Development and [came] up with the best application of that kind of zone change . . . [The commission] felt that [it] would try to address the most sensitive areas. We have the Nathan Hale Forest, we have lots of agricultural properties, there's rivers, there's more . . . in those areas." (ROR, Item 2, pp. 12-13.) Finally, Pollansky commented that the "reason for proposing this [zone change] [was based] on [the] . . . Plan of Conservation and Development. And this is a technique in maintaining and managing those resources . . ." (ROR, Item 2, p. 31.)
Moreover, a review of the record reveals that the commission further relied on the plan of conservation and development concerning the protection of the town's natural resources to support the zone change. The staff notes, dated May 21, 2001, indicate that the zone change is supported by the plan of conservation and development, "which provides CT Page 8453-ky direction and support for increased lot zoning as well as a protection of Town's natural and cultural resources." (ROR, Item 47, p. 1.) Furthermore, staff comments, dated September 20, 2001, indicate that an "upside" of the zone change would "[p]otentially allow for better protection of existing vegetation on lot . . ." (ROR, Item 16, p. 2.) In addition, further staff notes, dated August 13, 2002, stated that "there are significant resources existing in the proposed RU-80 area that can be served to be protected." (ROR, Item 27, p. 2.)
Accordingly, the record reasonably supports the commission's conclusion that the zone change would protect the town's natural resources as specified by the plan. In addition, the commission's decision was reasonably related to its police powers under § 8-2. Notably, § 8-2 provides that such "regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration for their impact on agriculture." In enacting the zone change, the commission was concerned with protecting the town's natural resources, specifically, the areas of land that were identified as "sensitive." Thus the record reveals that the commission did consider the impact of the zone change on the agricultural aspects of the town and that the commission ultimately determined that the zone change would provide a source of protection to the town's natural resources.
E. Whether the Record Supports a Finding that the Zone Change Conforms to the Housing Goal as Specified Under the Plan of Conservation and Development
The commission, under the "housing goal" contained within the plan of conservation and development, assigned one objective that it believed supported the zone change. Specifically, the commission determined that the zone change would "[r]ecognize, as one segment of the Town's housing demand, the desire for large single-family lots." (ROR, Item 6, p. 8.) A review of the record reveals that the commission addressed this reason at the continuation of the public hearing when Pollanksy remarked that "part of the thought process in creating [a] two acre zone is that [you're] going to attract people who appreciate larger lots. And whether that means a $300,000 house or not, [it's] more along the lines of that type of thought process and those type of people. And that type of people are going to think along the lines of maintaining a rural character rather than trying to attract a bedroom community of people who want to have smaller lots and lots of houses. That's the type of mentality [we're] trying to accomplish." (ROR, Item 2, p. 12.) Furthermore, the staff comments, dated September 20, 2001, represented that two "upsides" to the zone change would be that it "[p]rovided continued balance of housing/lot opportunities throughout the Town" and that it "[r]educed [the] number of lots generated per subdivision." (ROR, Item 16, p. 2.) CT Page 8453-lz
For these reasons the Court concludes that the record reasonably supports the commission's determination that the zone change conforms with the plan of conservation and development and advances its goal of the development of large single family houses. Specifically, the record reveals that the commission believed that the zone change would encourage the development of these large single family homes and cultivate the mentality of maintaining Coventry's rural character as provided by the plan of conservation and development.
Furthermore, the record reveals that the commission was acting within the scope of its police powers pursuant to § 8-2. Specifically, under § 8-2, the commission may pass such regulations that would "encourage the development of housing opportunities . . ." The record reveals that the commission determined that the zone change would encourage specific housing opportunities within the town of the Coventry.
VI. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that the record reasonably supports the commission's decision that the zone change was in conformance with the town's plan of conservation and development and that the commission's decision was reasonably related to its police powers, pursuant to § 8-2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
Klaczak, JTR