WHISPER WIND DEV. CORP. v. PLANNING ZONING COMM., 229 Conn. 176 (1994)

640 A.2d 100

WHISPER WIND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF MIDDLEFIELD ET AL.

(14849)Supreme Court of Connecticut

PETERS, C.J., CALLAHAN, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, Js.

Argued March 23, 1994

Decision released March 24, 1994[*]

[*] March 24, 1994, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.

Appeal from a decision by the named defendant denying the plaintiff’s application for a special permit to excavate and remove sand and gravel from certain of its real property, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex and tried to the court, Higgins, J.; judgment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to the Appellate Court, Freedman and Schaller, Js. with Dupont, C.J., dissenting, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Lori Welch-Rubin, with whom, on the brief, was Roger Sullivan, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Thomas F. Byrne, with whom was Steven E. Byrne, for the appellees (defendants).

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this land use appeal is whether the named defendant, the planning and zoning commission of the town of Middlefield, had the authority to deny the special permit application filed by the plaintiff, Whisper Wind Development Corporation, even though the plaintiff’s application complied with the technical requirements of the permit regulations. In Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning

Page 177

Zoning Commission, 32 Conn. App. 515, 630 A.2d 108 (1993), the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal. The Appellate Court agreed with the defendant’s contention that, in the case of a special permit, zoning regulations may authorize a planning and zoning commission to deny an application on the basis of enumerated general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare. Id., 519-22. We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal this question of regulatory authority.[1]

After examining the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive majority opinion of the Appellate Court. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained. Cf. Board of Education v. State Board of Education, 228 Conn. 433, 436, 636 A.2d 378 (1994); Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 211 Conn. 76, 78, 556 A.2d 1024 (1989); State v. Leonard, 210 Conn. 480, 481, 556 A.2d 611 (1989).

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

[1] We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: “Was the Appellate Court correct in concluding that the trial court properly determined that the plaintiff’s failure to meet the general health, safety and welfare requirements set forth in the town’s zoning regulations provided an adequate basis for the defendant’s denial of a special permit application, even though the plaintiff’s application complied with all of the technical requirements of the regulations applicable to special permits?” Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning Zoning Commission, 227 Conn. 929, 632 A.2d 706 (1993).

Page 178