Opinion
No. 567945
December 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this vigorously contested zoning appeal the Plaintiffs submitted an application on May 28, 2003, for a site plan approval to place a motel project on approximately 3.7 acres along Route 156 in Old Lyme. [Return of Record (ROR) 21]. Three separate matters were contained in the application: 1. A site plan review; 2. A special exception application; and 3. A Coastal Area Management Act Application. After due notice and three public hearings, the Commission, on November 10, 2003, voted to deny all aspects of the application. The Plaintiff filed this appeal of the Commission's actions on December 2, 2003. An answer and return of record was filed by the Commission and the issues were thus joined. The trial on this matter was heard by the court on November 23, 2004. The court finds, on the basis of the evidence, that the plaintiffs are aggrieved. A neighbor was permitted to intervene in the proceedings but later withdrew. No irregularities in the procedure is claimed by either party.
II. STANDARD OF LAW
A. "The burden of proof to demonstrate that the board acted improperly is upon the plaintiffs." Adolphson v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Fairfield, 205 Conn. 703, 707 (1988), quoting Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 179 Conn. 650, 654 (1980), internal citations omitted.
B. "Upon appeal, the trial court reviews the record before the board to determine whether it has acted fairly or with proper motives or upon valid reasons" Whittaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 179 Conn. 650, 654 (1980) quoting Willard v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 152 Conn. 247, 248-49 (1964); Courts are not to substitute their judgment for that of the board. Koproski v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 162 Conn. 635, 623, (1972).
C. Where a Special Permit or Special Exception or Site Plan is involved the Commission is taking an administrative action. Sec 33.3, Fuller, Land Use Law and Practice. In the case where a Commission denies an application and gives reasons for its action the question on appeal is whether the evidence in the record reasonably supports the decision. Goldberg v. Zoning Commission of Town of Simsbury, 173 Conn. 23, 27, (1977).
II. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS
The plaintiffs' brief of May 14, 2004 advances several claims, but the court will examine the record to determine if any one of the grounds stated by the Commission is supported by the evidence in the Record.
THE SITE PLAN
The lack of the appropriate number of parking spaces was one of the reasons given for the Commission's denial of the site plan application. While it may be said that the parking regulations themselves were not as clear in their application to the permitted use of a motel as one might prefer, there was no dispute that they did call for one space per "room" and that the plaintiffs did not provide one space per "room" (leaving out the employee spaces for this purpose). The plaintiffs place some reliance on the fact that there may have been some ambivalence by some during discussions as to the number of spaces required for the motel units, but the clear fact is that the regulations did say "rooms" and the Commission is justified in applying that language until and unless it is changed.
Thus, substantial evidence in the record reasonably supports this reason for the Commission's denial of the Site Plan and it is not necessary to discuss the remaining claims in that regard.
THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION CT Page 18530
The plaintiffs applied for a special exception under the provisions of Section 34.4 of the Zoning Regulations. The zoning commission in such a situation is limited by the standards actually set forth in the regulations. It can not deny the application if the applicant complies with the standards set forth. DeMaria v. Enfield Planning Zoning Commission, 159 Conn. 534 (1970). In this case the reasons given for the denial as argued by the Plaintiffs in their brief did not rely on the standards given, but rather on the intended use (which was a use permitted by the zoning regulations in the district where the land was located). Under such circumstances the denial cannot be upheld by the court.
COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT APPLICATION
It appears that the reason given for the decision of the Commission on this aspect of the application was that "the plans are not in compliance with the Zoning Regulations." The commission found it therefore had "insufficient information" to rule on the application. There is no indication as to what is meant by the explanation given, nor can one be found by the court. As the plaintiffs point out in their brief and as acknowledged in the Commission's reasoning, the application was reviewed by the Office of Long Island Sound Programs of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) which responded to the Commission. The suggestion made in the first response was incorporated by a revision in the Plan by the plaintiffs' engineer. Thereafter the DEP found the project satisfactory. Under these circumstances the Commission's denial can not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above the Plaintiffs' appeal is sustained as to the Special Exception and Coastal Management Area Act Application and dismissed with respect to the Site Plan Application.
Robert C. Leuba, JTR