Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Wallingford
Connecticut Supreme Court
225 Conn. 731, 626 A.2d 705 (1993)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
The City of Meriden (Meriden) (plaintiff) owned a 138-acre tract of land in the Town of Wallingford (Wallingford). The tract was mostly used for sewage lagoons to accommodate overflow from a sewage-treatment plant located in Meriden, and a small portion of the tract was used for solid-waste disposal. In 1958, Wallingford adopted zoning regulations that placed the tract in a rural district. Under the zoning regulations, sewage-treatment facilities and garbage dumps were not permitted uses in rural districts, but nonconforming uses could be continued. In 1983, Wallingford adopted zoning regulations establishing an aquifer-protection district where solid-waste disposal was prohibited. The tract owned by Meriden was included in this district. In 1988, Meriden leased part of its tract for use as a disposal site for ash, residue, and other solid wastes. Meridien’s tract was a suspected source of contamination of the water supply. Meriden applied to the Wallingford planning-and-zoning commission (the commission) (defendant) to delete the regulation prohibiting solid-waste disposal in an aquifer-protection district. The commission voted to retain the regulation to comply with the town plan of development and to protect the drinking-water supply. The zoning-enforcement officer subsequently informed Meriden that the use of its tract for solid-waste disposal was a nonconforming use that had been unlawfully expanded. Meriden appealed this decision to the Wallingford zoning board of appeals (the board). The board sustained the decision. Meriden appealed the decision of the board to the Connecticut Superior Court. The trial court found in favor of Meriden, finding that the commission’s decision not to delete the solid-waste prohibition was not reasonably supported by the record. The commission petitioned for appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Katz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.