Source: https://connecticut.lexroll.com/a-p-w-holding-corp-v-planning-zoning-brd-167-conn-182-1974/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:56:58+00:00

Document:
THE A. P. W. HOLDING CORPORATION ET AL. v. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF MILFORD ET AL.
HOUSE, C.J., SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MACDONALD and BOGDANSKI, Js.
The defendant M sought amendments to a special permit for the construction of an automatic truck wash on two adjoining parcels of land he owned. The amendments could not be granted unless, as required by the Milford zoning regulations, the defendant planning and zoning board determined that they were necessitated by field conditions or were deemed to be in the public interest. The board did approve the amendments, and an appeal of that decision by the plaintiffs, abutting property owners, was dismissed by the trial court on the record returned by the board. The trial court made no finding. Since the board gave no reasons for its actions, and since neither the printed record nor the appendices to the briefs disclosed the facts on which the board made its determinations, the record on appeal failed to support the conclusions on which the trial court, in its memorandum of decision, predicated its dismissal. Under the circumstances, the appeal had to be sustained.
Appeal from the approval of petitions to amend special permits, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County and tried to the court, Collins, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiffs, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Error; judgment directed.
Richard H. Lynch, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Kenneth J. Damato, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph E. Meuser, for the appellee (defendant Howard C. Merk).
No appearance for the named defendant.
located at the intersection of Old Gate Lane and Woodmont Road in the city of Milford. The defendant Merk had constructed a motel on parcel 12, a use authorized by a special permit issued by the defendant planning and zoning board in 1967. On June 5, 1972, Merk applied to the defendant board for an amendment to this special permit, seeking to reduce the land area of parcel 12 from 2.75 acres to 1.78 acres. Thereafter, on July 17, 1972, Merk filed a second application “for an AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL PERMITS to establish or construct a Automatic Truck Wash . . . on property described as . . . Woodmont Road, . . . BLOCK # 810 Parcel # 8A 12.” The land area described in this second application was 1.81 acres, and included all of parcel 8A and that portion of land which Merk sought to have removed from parcel 12 in his June application. On September 26, 1972, the board held a public hearing, and thereafter voted to approve both amendments to the special permit.
The plaintiffs, abutting property owners, appealed from those actions to the Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed the appeal. After our grant of certification, the plaintiffs appealed to this court, assigning error in the conclusion of the court that the board did not act illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion. The remaining assignments of error have not been briefed and are treated as abandoned. First Hartford Realty Corporation v. Plan Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 535, 338 A.2d 490; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. 327.
Zoning Board, 155 Conn. 205, 207 n. 1, 230 A.2d 606. In adopting or amending regulations, the board acts in a legislative capacity pursuant to the delegated authority contained in title 8, chapter 124 of the General Statutes. First Hartford Realty Corporation v. Plan Zoning Commission, supra, 540; Weigel v. Planning Zoning Commission, 160 Conn. 239, 245, 278 A.2d 766; Beach v. Planning Zoning Commission, 141 Conn. 79, 84, 103 A.2d 814. Acting in that legislative capacity, the board has adopted zoning regulations including provisions for special permit applications.
administrative capacity. Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 157 Conn. 420, 422, 254 A.2d 492. The terms “special permit” and “special exception” have the same legal import and can be used interchangeably. Beckish v. Planning Zoning Commission, 162 Conn. 11, 15, 291 A.2d 208; Summ v. Zoning Commission, 150 Conn. 79, 87, 186 A.2d 160. A special permit allows a property owner to use his property in a manner expressly permitted by the local zoning regulations. Beckish v. Planning Zoning Commission, supra; WATR, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 158 Conn. 196, 200, 257 A.2d 818. The proposed use, however, must satisfy standards set forth in the zoning regulations themselves as well as the “conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience and property values.” General Statutes 8-2; Anastasi v. Zoning Commission, 163 Conn. 187, 190, 302 A.2d 258. Acting in this administrative capacity, the board’s function is to determine whether the applicant’s proposed use is expressly permitted under the regulations, and whether the standards set forth in the regulations and the statute are satisfied. WATR, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra; Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra.
In granting Merk’s applications for special permit amendments, the defendant board was acting in its administrative capacity, and its actions were governed by chapter IV 16.F of the zoning regulations. Wasicki v. Zoning Board, 163 Conn. 166, 171, 302 A.2d 276. The board was powerless to act unless it first found that the amendments were: (1) “necessitated by field conditions” or (2) “deemed to be in the public interest.” If one of those conditions was found to exist, the board then had to determine whether the proposed amendments satisfied all the standards set forth in chapter IV 16.B.1-4.
. . . which are printed in the appendices to the briefs pursuant to Practice Book 719.” Miklus v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 401.
The printed record fails to disclose evidence to support the court’s conclusions. Nowhere in the minutes of the board”s executive meeting was any determination made that the applications were “deemed to be in the public interest.” Nor was any determination made that the granting of the permits would increase revenue or employment in the community. It is true that one member of the board did state that, “All requirements of the zoning regulations, including the limitation on lot coverage, have been complied with.” That general statement is, at best, ambiguous, since the board said nothing regarding compliance with the standards required for special permits under chapter IV 16.B.1-4, a prerequisite for amendments under 16.F.
made its determinations, we are constrained to conclude that the record before us fails legally to support the trial court’s conclusions.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to sustain the appeal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.