 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
POTTER v. BOARD OF SELECTMEN5/21/1974
The plaintiff, Jackson S. Potter, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from the denial by the defendant, the board of selectmen of the town of New Milford, of his application for a
license to maintain and operate a mobile home park. From the judgment dismissing the appeal, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The record discloses the following undisputed facts: At all times pertinent to this appeal the town of New Milford had no zoning regulations in effect. Pursuant to General Statutes 7-148, the town had enacted an ordinance regulating the licensing and operation of mobile home parks. The ordinance as adopted contains separate provisions for the granting of a license for a mobile home park and for the operation of a mobile home park once a license has been granted. On June 24, 1970, the plaintiff applied to the defendant board for a license to operate a mobile home park on 76.172 acres of land located at the intersection of route 67 and Taylor Road in New Milford. The application was submitted pursuant to 4 of the mobile home parks ordinance. That section specifies the requirements for license applications,
requiring among other things a plot plan showing the "location of sanitary provisions." To fulfill that requirement, the plaintiff's plot plan showed a large, irregularly shaped lot in which was inscribed the legend "Area for Private Sewerage Treatment Plant. 141,000 sq. ft." Section 4 of the ordinance also requires the applicant to submit other information, all of which the plaintiff supplied.
On August 5, 1970, a public hearing was held on the plaintiff's application. Thereafter, the board advised the plaintiff that his application had been disapproved for the following reasons: (1) a substantial part of the proposed site was "low and wet and subject to periodic flooding"; (2) another substantial part contained steep grades, and would be subject to erosion and silting upon excavation; (3) the proposal was a source of potential contamination to a brook flowing through the land, and (4) the plot plan did not show the location of sanitary provisions that would conform to the requirements of the ordinance.
The Court of Common Pleas concluded that the board did not act arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion in finding that the plaintiff's application did not comply with the mobile home park ordinance. The court also concluded that the board's power to determine what would be in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare "was not unreasonably abused."
In exercising its power to approve or disapprove the plaintiff's application, as distinguished from its power to adopt regulations, the board acted in an administrative rather than a legislative capacity. J & M Realty Co. v. Norwalk, 156 Conn. 185, 190, 239 A.2d 534. If the application satisfied the requirements
of the ordinance which regulates the issuance of mobile home park licenses, the board had no choice but to approve it. Bossert Corporation v. Norwalk, 157 Conn. 279, 284, 253 A.2d 39; RK Development Corporation v. Norwalk, 156 Conn. 369, 375, 242 A.2d 781. The plaintiff contends that he implied fully with the requirements of 4 of the ordinance and that the board, therefore, had no discretion to deny his application. We agree with the plaintiff's claim.
The board's first three reasons for denying the license application did not constitute proper grounds for refusal because they were unrelated to the provisions of 4 of the ordinance. RK Development Corporation v. Norwalk, supra, 375-76. The board argues that those reasons were based on the provisions of 7 (a) of the ordinance. Section 7 sets forth the
Page 1 2 Connecticut Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|