## Facts

- A developer sought approval under New Haven Zoning Ordinance § 65 to create a planned development district (PDD) by consolidating parcels, demolishing a nonconforming convalescent home, enlarging an existing catering facility, expanding parking, and constructing a residential dwelling.
- The City Plan Commission approved the PDD application and recommended conditions.
- The Board of Aldermen approved the application and created the PDD.
- Abutting property owners appealed to the Superior Court, which dismissed the zoning appeal.
- The Appellate Court reversed, concluding the PDD was an unauthorized zoning district under New Haven’s 1925 special act and that § 65 lacked uniform standards.
- The Board of Aldermen and the developer obtained review in the Connecticut Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether New Haven’s 1925 special act granted authority to adopt § 65 and create planned development districts.
2. Whether § 65 provides sufficiently specific, reviewable standards consistent with comprehensive-plan and uniformity requirements, or instead grants the Board of Aldermen unlimited discretion.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and reinstated the trial court’s judgment dismissing the zoning appeal.
- The court held that the 1925 special act’s broad delegation authorized creation of new zoning districts, including PDDs under § 65.
- The court held that § 65 contains adequate substantive criteria and does not confer unfettered discretion; a PDD is a valid legislative rezoning technique comparable to a floating zone.

## Legal Principles

- A broad statutory or special-act grant of municipal zoning power may authorize flexible zoning mechanisms, including creation of new districts, when consistent with the enabling legislation.
- A planned development district adopted through legislative action may be treated as a zoning map amendment (similar to a floating zone), not an ad hoc variance or ultra vires device, if tied to the municipality’s comprehensive plan.
- Zoning uniformity and comprehensive-plan requirements are satisfied when the ordinance supplies articulated standards (e.g., compatibility with surrounding uses and public welfare criteria) that meaningfully constrain discretion and permit judicial review.

## Conclusion

The court upheld New Haven’s PDD ordinance and the Board’s approval of the developer’s PDD, concluding the city had enabling authority under the 1925 special act and that § 65 provided sufficiently definite standards to satisfy comprehensive-plan and uniformity requirements.


Campion v. Board of Aldermen of New Haven, 278 Conn. 500, 899 A.2d 542 (2006)