" Id. "The financial enrichment of a property owner is not one of the controlling purposes of zoning." State National Bank v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 99, 102, 239 A.2d 528 (1968). The local zoning board "is endowed with a liberal discretion, and its actions are subject to review by the courts only to determine whether they were unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal."
This is a companion line of attack to that of the claim of restraint of trade. It hardly needs restating that, under Connecticut zoning law, it is not the highest and best use of the property which controls. State National Bank v. Planning Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 99, 102. The plaintiff's brief in support of its claim sets forth general legal principles which, in the abstract, are correct. And, as the reference to Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, points out, "[t]he general rule at least is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking."
Perkins v. Bd. of Supervisors of Madison Cnty., 636 N.W.2d 58, 67 (Iowa 2001) ("Zoning is the division of land into distinct districts and the regulation of certain uses and developments within those districts."); Square Lake Hills Condo. Ass'n v. Bloomfield Township., 471 N.W.2d 321, 326 (Mich. 1991) ("A zoning ordinance is defined as an ordinance which regulates the use of land and buildings according to districts, areas, or locations."); City of New Orleans v. Elms, 566 So. 2d 626, 628 (La. 1990) ("The essence of zoning is territorial division in keeping with the character of the lands and structures and their peculiar suitability for particular uses, and the uniformity of use within the division."); State Nat'l Bank of Conn. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Town of Trumbull, 239 A.2d 528, 530 (Conn. 1968) ("Zoning is defined as a general plan to control and direct the use and development of property in a municipality or a large part of it by dividing it into districts according to the present and potential use of the properties.") (cleaned up); Eves v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Lower Gwynedd Twp., 164 A.2d 7, 9 (Pa. 1960) ("Zoning is the legislative division of a community into areas in each of which only certain designated uses of land are permitted so that the community may develop in an orderly manner in accordance with a comprehensive plan."); Bogert v. Washington Township, 135 A.2d 1, 3 (N.J. 1957) ("The essence of zoning is a territorial division in consonance with the character of the lands and structures and their peculiar suitability for particular uses, and uniformity of use within the division.")
"); Square Lake Hills Condo. Ass'n v. Bloomfield Township. , 437 Mich. 310, 471 N.W.2d 321, 326 (1991) ("A zoning ordinance is defined as an ordinance which regulates the use of land and buildings according to districts, areas, or locations."); City of New Orleans v. Elms , 566 So. 2d 626, 628 (La. 1990) ("The essence of zoning is territorial division in keeping with the character of the lands and structures and their peculiar suitability for particular uses, and the uniformity of use within the division."); State Nat'l Bank of Conn. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Town of Trumbull , 156 Conn. 99, 239 A.2d 528, 530 (1968) ("Zoning is defined as a general plan to control and direct the use and development of property in a municipality or a large part of it by dividing it into districts according to the present and potential use of the properties.") (cleaned up); Eves v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Lower Gwynedd Twp. , 401 Pa. 211, 164 A.2d 7, 9 (1960) ("Zoning is the legislative division of a community into areas in each of which only certain designated uses of land are permitted so that the community may develop in an orderly manner in accordance with a comprehensive plan."); Bogert v. Washington Township , 25 N.J. 57, 135 A.2d 1, 3 (1957) ("The essence of zoning is a territorial division in consonance with the character of the lands and structures and their peculiar suitability for particular uses, and uniformity of use within the division."). That court heard the same arguments raised here: that the ordinance did not zone because it was not comprehensive, and that it did zone because it carved out sm
The highest and best use concept, chiefly employed as a starting point in estimating the value of real estate by appraisers, has to do with the use which will most likely produce the highest market value, greatest financial return, or the most profit from the use of a particular piece of real estate. State National Bank v. Planning Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 99, 101, 239 A.2d 528 (1968)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
See also Whitney Center, Inc. v. Hamden, 4 Conn. App. 426, 428, 494 A.2d 624 (1985) ("[a]n assessment of land at its fair value, of necessity, regardless of the method of valuation, takes into account the highest and best value of the land"). As we said in State National Bank v. Planning Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 99, 101, 239 A.2d 528 (1968), "[t]he `highest and best use' concept, chiefly employed as a starting point in estimating the value of real estate by appraisers, has to do with the use which will most likely produce the highest market value, greatest financial return, or the most profit from the use of a particular piece of real estate." See footnote 12.
The `highest and best use' concept, chiefly employed as a starting point in estimating the value of real estate by appraisers, has to do with the use which will most likely produce the highest market value, greatest financial return, or the most profit from the use of a particular piece of real estate." State National Bank v. Planning Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 99, 101, 239 A.2d 528 (1968). "In determining its highest and best use the trial referee must consider whether there was a reasonable probability that in the reasonably near future the subject property will be subdivided.
See DeForest Hotchkiss Co. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 152 Conn. 262, 271-72, 205 A.2d 774 (1964). This ordinarily involves a showing that, on the particular facts of the case, the regulation "`practically destroys [the property's] value for any permitted use to which it can reasonably be put . . . .'" Primerica v. Planning Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 85, 98, 558 A.2d 646 (1989), quoting State National Bank v. Planning Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 99, 106, 239 A.2d 528 (1968). Although generally we would remand to the trial court any issue that it did not resolve, we see no reason to do so in this case.
The plaintiff maintains also that the single occupancy limitation is confiscatory, because the application of this restriction to this property "practically destroys its value for any permitted use to which it can reasonably be put . . . ." State National Bank v. Planning Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 99, 106, 239 A.2d 528 (1968). The maximum possible enrichment of a particular landowner, however, is not a controlling purpose of zoning.
The Court would further hold that to deny the application of the owners would be confiscatory, and obviously that is legally impermissible." The plaintiff challenges this statement and in support of his argument he relies primarily on State National Bank v. Planning Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 99, 239 A.2d 528 (1968). State National Bank is distinguishable, however, because the State National Bank's application was to the planning and zoning commission of the town of Trumbull, while the Brunettos' application was to the zoning board of appeals.