## Facts

- Wilfred H. Langlois owned land on Main Street in East Hartford, part of which was zoned for A residence use.
- Langlois applied to the town council to rezone a small portion from A residence to A business to allow construction of a small retail building (about six to eight stores) aimed at serving nearby residents.
- Two small business districts already existed relatively near the property.
- A petition supporting the change was signed by fifty-one residents, though many signers had more convenient access to existing business districts than to the proposed site.
- Nearby owners, including an owner directly across the street, opposed the change.
- The town council granted the rezoning.
- Opposing property owners appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, arguing (1) the council lacked zoning power under controlling statutes and (2) the change was improper spot zoning inconsistent with a comprehensive plan.
- The Court of Common Pleas dismissed the appeal; the property owners then appealed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

## Issues

1. Whether East Hartford’s town council, designated by special legislation as the town’s “zoning authority,” could exercise zoning powers after a later general zoning statute referred to a “zoning commission.”
2. Whether rezoning a small portion of Langlois’s tract from residential to business was consistent with a comprehensive zoning plan or was invalid spot zoning chiefly benefiting a single owner and a limited group.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the town council had lawful authority to act as the zoning body despite the general statute’s use of the term “zoning commission.”
- The Court held that the particular zone change was invalid because it was not supported as part of a comprehensive plan and functioned as a preferential, localized adjustment.
- The Court reversed the judgment dismissing the appeal and set aside the rezoning.

## Legal Principles

- A special act designating a specific municipal body to exercise zoning power is not treated as repealed by implication by a later general statute using different terminology, absent clear legislative intent; courts interpret the enactments together to form a consistent body of law.
- Zoning amendments must be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and justified by community-wide public welfare considerations, not primarily by the convenience or economic benefit of a particular landowner or a small group.
- Rezoning a small tract to a different classification, without adequate comprehensive-plan justification and where nearby similar uses already exist, may constitute invalid spot zoning.

## Conclusion

The court harmonized general and special legislation to confirm the town council’s continuing zoning authority, but invalidated the rezoning because it was a small, localized change lacking support in a comprehensive plan and operating chiefly for private and limited local benefit.


Kuehne v. Town Council of Town of E. Hartford, 136 Conn. 452, 72 A.2d 474 (1950)