Joseph Tagliarini v. New Haven Board of Alderman et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

RE:  MOTION TO REARGUE

The court allowed reargument and having done so does not change its view that the appeal should be dismissed.

As to point (2) raised in its motion the plaintiff notes the Board failed to make a substantive review and could not leave that function to the Board's Legislative Committee.   Certainly a board exercising legislative powers, as any other legislature proposing to legislate, can rely on subcommittees to hear evidence and examine witnesses.   Then based on that examination can decide the issue presented without repeating the evidentiary process all over again.   The court in any event examined the hearing before the Board, disagreement was in fact voiced, also see footnote 4.

Points 3 and 4 present again the claim that the building was monolithic referring to the building's bulk;  the court dealt extensively with this issue and basically differs with the plaintiff as to the meaning of the surrounding community concept as it relates to the more formal “neighborhood” designation which was mentioned at the hearing on this motion.

As to point 5 and spot zoning the court referred to Fuller's observation that the concept has become obsolete and, in any event, the test to determine its existence really mirrors that set forth in Campion which is used to test a proposed PDD.

As to point 6 it is difficult to understand how the § 8–2m “betterment of the municipality” statement and Konigsberg's statement that the comprehensive plan is complied with if “the zoning authority acts with the intention of promoting the best interests of the entire community” really differ.   Even if Konigsberg had not been referred to by the court, the § 8–2m language seems to suggest the whole community's interest must be taken into account and a balancing test must be used even if some are not satisfied with the project in question.   Returning to Konigsberg it is true that, that case dealt with different zoning issues but it did make the broad statement quoted above which was introduced by the phrase “the comprehensive plan is complied with” if the “best interests of the entire community” is the aim of a zoning authority's action.   How is the “compliance” test different in a PDD situation as opposed to the zoning issues addressed before the Konigsberg court—why should it be?   In any event, the court stated difficulties it had with applying § 8–2m—in effect a PDD is a zone change which terminates the existence of the underlying zone which it replaces.

The court in light of the forgoing will not change its prior ruling dismissing the appeal.

Corradino, J.T.R.

Corradino, Thomas J., J.T.R.