Opinion ID: 1899941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: special benefit

Text: The plaintiff next contends that there is no basis for the court's conclusion that the plaintiff's property was specially benefited by the defendant's parking facility. The thrust of the plaintiff's argument is that the plaintiff's gas station receives no direct and immediate benefit from the defendant's parking lot. A special assessment is a local assessment imposed ... upon a limited class of persons interested in a local improvement; who are assumed to be benefitted by the improvement to the extent of the assessment. Bridgeport v. N. York & N. Haven R. R. Co., 36 Conn. 255, 262-63 (1869). To be valid the benefit must be direct, immediate, appreciable and certain. Appeal of Cohen, 117 Conn. 75, 84, 166 A. 747 (1933); Naugatuck Railroad Co. v. Waterbury, 78 Conn. 193, 196-97, 61 A. 474 (1905). The assessment may not materially exceed the benefits conferred. Whitmore v. Hartford, 96 Conn. 511, 519, 114 A. 686 (1921); Naugatuck Railroad Co. v. Waterbury, supra. Whether a given property is specially benefited by a public improvement involves a question of fact. O'Rourke v. Stamford, 179 Conn. 342, 345, 426 A.2d 311 (1979); Dellaripa's Appeal, 88 Conn. 565, 571, 92 A. 116 (1914). The trial court concluded that the plaintiff's property was specially benefited both in its current use as a gas station and in its highest and best use (retail stores). With respect to the current use, there was sufficient evidence of special benefit to the gas station from the traffic generated by the existence of the parking facility to justify the imposition of the special levy. There was also evidence supporting the court's conclusion based on the property's highest and best use. The plaintiff's contention that only current use is applicable in special assessment cases is without merit. An examination of the cases on special assessments cited by the plaintiff discloses that they do not stand for the proposition advanced by the plaintiff. The cases which have limited consideration of benefit to current use have been those where the current use appeared to be permanent in character. Hartford v. West Middle District, 45 Conn. 462, 464 (1878) (school district); Bridgeport v. N. York & N. Haven R. R. Co., supra, 264 (railroad); Clapp v. Hartford, 35 Conn. 66, 80 (1868) (church). In N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. v. New Britain, 49 Conn. 40 (1881), the land, although purchased by the railroad for the purpose of storing freight cars and used exclusively for that purpose, was held subject to a special sewer assessment because the land was unrestricted, was unoccupied by buildings and was eligibly situated for mechanical and manufacturing purposes. Id., 44. So long as the land is not restricted or the current use is not permanent in character, there is no rule of law which precludes a special assessment based on potential use of the subject property. The `highest and best use' concept ... 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 levying a special assessment, a governmental unit is not required to limit its impact to current land use; it may also take into account the economic forces at work in the marketplace.