Campion v. Board of Aldermen of New Haven
2006 Conn. LEXIS 186, 899 A.2d 542, 278 Conn. 500 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality's broad legislative authority, granted by a special act, to create and alter zoning districts is sufficient to enable an ordinance creating Planned Development Districts (PDDs), even if the enabling act does not explicitly mention this specific zoning tool.
Facts:
- The DelMonacos operated a catering facility, Anthony's Oceanview, Inc., on a 1.727-acre property in New Haven.
- Over several years, the Anthony DelMonaco Family Limited Partnership purchased several abutting properties, including a convalescent home and residential structures, bringing the total land area to approximately 4.04 acres.
- The DelMonaco partnership sought to expand its catering business by demolishing existing structures on the newly acquired land to build enlargements to the catering facility, a new parking facility, and a garden reception area.
- The partnership's proposed plan also included the construction of a new residence for the DelMonaco family on the consolidated property.
- The proposed expansion would increase the catering facility's capacity from 299 to 470 persons and add nearly 100 new parking spaces.
- The plan originated from a stipulated agreement to settle a prior legal dispute after the partnership was denied a special exception to use an adjacent parking lot for its catering business.
Procedural Posture:
- The DelMonaco partnership filed an application with the New Haven plan commission to create a planned development district.
- The plan commission approved the application with conditions and forwarded it to the New Haven board of aldermen.
- The board of aldermen, after public hearings and substantial modifications, approved the application, thereby creating the new zoning district.
- Susan C. Campion and other neighboring property owners (plaintiffs) appealed the board's decision to the Superior Court (trial court).
- The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal.
- The plaintiffs (appellants at this stage) were granted certification to appeal to the Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the city lacked enabling authority for the planned development district ordinance and that the ordinance's standards were too vague.
- The board of aldermen and the DelMonaco partnership (defendants/appellants) were granted certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a special legislative act granting a city broad authority to create, change, and alter zoning districts provide the necessary enabling authority for a city ordinance establishing a process for creating Planned Development Districts?
Opinions:
Majority - Borden, J.
Yes, a special legislative act granting a city broad authority to create and alter zoning districts provides the necessary enabling authority for an ordinance establishing Planned Development Districts. The 1925 Special Act grants the New Haven board of aldermen the power to 'divide the city of New Haven into districts' and to 'change or alter' them from time to time. This broad grant of legislative power is sufficient to authorize modern, flexible zoning tools like the Planned Development District established in § 65 of the city's ordinance, even though that specific term is not used in the 1925 act. The creation of a PDD is analogous to the creation of a 'floating zone,' which this court has previously upheld under similarly broad enabling language in Sheridan v. Planning Board. Such flexible zoning tools are necessary to meet the demands of modern land use and redevelopment, and their creation is a legislative act reviewed under the deferential standard of whether the change accords with a comprehensive plan and is reasonably related to police power purposes. The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague, as its standards, combined with established case law, provide sufficient guidance for this legislative function.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that municipalities with broad zoning authority under special acts can utilize modern, flexible zoning techniques not explicitly contemplated when the enabling acts were passed. It strongly affirms judicial deference to local legislative zoning decisions, so long as they align with a comprehensive plan and serve legitimate police power purposes. The case signals that courts will not confine municipalities to rigid, 'Euclidean' zoning models, instead allowing for innovative approaches like PDDs to address complex development and redevelopment challenges in urban areas. This precedent strengthens the hand of local governments in managing land use with flexible tools tailored to specific, large-scale projects.
