Putnam Park Apartments, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission

Citations

• 193 Conn. App. 42

Syllabus

The plaintiffs appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Greenwich approving the applications of the defendant N Co. for a special permit and a site plan to construct a new building on property owned by C and leased to N Co., which abuts the plaintiffs' properties. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiffs, on granting of certification, appealed to this court. They claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly agreed with the commission's interpretation of a certain building zone regulation (§ 6-94 [b] [1]) to allow the commission to permit a building closer than 100 feet from the plaintiffs' property lines if, after considering the proposed use and its specific location, the commission found that the closer distance would not produce any adverse impacts on the abutting properties. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that § 6-94 (b) (1) allows the commission to locate a building closer than 100 feet from their property lines only if that closer location affirmatively will protect the plaintiffs from whatever adverse impacts they would endure if the building were located 100 feet or more from their property lines. Held: 1. The trial court properly determined that the commission's construction of § 6-94 (b) (1) of the regulations was proper; the plain language of the regulation requires the commission to consider the particular use and specific location of charitable institutions applying for a permit to construct a building less than 100 feet from a neighboring property line, the requirement in the regulation that the permit may not be issued unless the lesser distance would protect the property owners from adverse impacts requires the commission to find by substantial evidence that there will be no adverse impacts on adjacent properties due to the building being closer than 100 feet, and the plaintiffs' construction implied a decision-making process no