Plaintiff, an owner of a home near Yale, appealed a New Haven Board of Aldermen (hereinafter “Board”) decision approving an application by Yale for a zoning amendment allowing the creation of a Planned Development District (PPD) asserting that the decision to create the PPD was “arbitrary and illegal substantively.” In an unreported decision, the Superior Court of Connecticut found that the Board acted within its limits and met all of the requirements to pass the PPD application.
Yale submitted its PPD application in October 2009 and the Board held hearings on the matter on January 28 and February 11, 2010. The public was allowed to submit evidence either in protest or support of the application at the two hearings. The Board heard testimony both for and against the application, which if passed would allow Yale to build a large new building in the middle of a residential area. After listening to both arguments, the Board approved the application by a vote of 25-1.
The Superior Court of Connecticut acknowledged that they would not interfere with local legislative decisions unless an abuse of discretion or action contrary to law occurred, meaning that the zone change must be in accord with a comprehensive plan and it must be reasonably related to the normal police power purposes enumerated in the city’s enabling legislation. The court concluded that the Board acted in the best interests of the entire community and therefore met the first prong of the test since there was a comprehensive plan. The second prong was also met since the PPD zone change was related to the normal police power purposes found in the city’s enabling legislation. The court found that by granting the application, the Board was improving economic development, there was a positive environmental impact, and surrounding property values were not negatively impacted. Since both prongs of the test were met the court concluded that the Board did not act arbitrarily or illegally.
Tagliarini v New Haven Board of Alderman, 2011 WL 1887330 (CT. Sup. 4/26/2011)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://lawoftheland.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/som_decision.pdf
(thanks to Dwight Merriam, Esq. of Robinson & Cole in Hartford, CT)
For interesting background see: http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2010/oct/08/pdd-approval-process-challenged/?print
