Kobyluck Bros., LLC v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Waterford
142 A.3d 1236
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Kobyluck Brothers owns a 37-acre industrial parcel in Waterford adjacent to a concrete plant operated by Kobyluck Construction; plaintiffs sought a special permit and site plan to build a building-materials manufacturing facility producing crushed stone/aggregate.
- The proposed operation required excavating ~350,000 cubic yards (including bedrock), crushing and screening it with industrial machinery, and removing finished aggregate from the site; once a permanent facility was built, plaintiffs would bring off‑site raw material to crush and ship off‑site product.
- Section 11.2.11 of the Waterford Zoning Regulations (pre‑2011 amendment) permitted “Manufacture of asphalt, cement, cinder block, or other building materials” in the I‑G district; the regulations did not define “manufacture,” “processing,” or “building materials.”
- The Planning & Zoning Commission denied the application, concluding the proposed rock‑crushing was “processing,” not “manufacturing.” The Superior Court affirmed, construing “manufacturing” narrowly and excluding rock crushing.
- The Appellate Court reviewed de novo, found § 11.2.11 ambiguous, considered internal context, dictionaries, treatises, statutory/regulatory definitions used in tax contexts, and case law, and concluded crushing and screening bedrock into aggregate constitutes "manufacture" under the zoning regulation.
- Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court’s conclusion that the proposed aggregate operations were a permitted manufacturing use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether crushing and screening bedrock into construction aggregate is "manufacture" under §11.2.11 | Kobyluck: crushing, screening, and sorting raw bedrock is an integrated series of operations that transforms raw material into a new product (manufacture) | Commission: rock crushing is "processing," not "manufacturing," and thus not covered by §11.2.11 | Held: The activities (excavation, crushing, screening/sorting) substantially transform raw material into a new product and fall within "manufacture." |
| Proper interpretive tools for undefined zoning terms | Kobyluck: may rely on dictionary, statutory/regulatory, and treatise definitions showing overlap of "process" within "manufacture" | Commission: relied on internal regulation usage and tax context authorities to restrict meaning | Held: Court may use dictionaries, treatises, and analogous statutory/regulatory definitions; internal context shows distinct terms but does not exclude crushing from manufacture. |
| Weight of tax‑exemption cases/definitions in interpreting zoning terms | Kobyluck: statutory/regulatory definitions (e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. §12‑81 and Regs. §12‑412) support that quarrying/crushing can be manufacturing | Commission: tax statutes are inapposite and should not control local zoning meaning | Held: Tax/regulatory definitions are persuasive (but not dispositive); because zoning ambiguities are construed in favor of landowners, those definitions support finding manufacture here. |
| Whether internal regulation provisions (other sections mentioning "processing" or listing crushing) exclude rock crushing from "manufacturing" | Commission: presence of §25.1.4(a) expressly labeling crushing as "processing" shows drafters intended to exclude crushing from §11.2.11 | Kobyluck: those provisions do not categorically exclude crushing when it is part of an integrated manufacturing operation | Held: Internal references show drafters distinguished terms but do not unambiguously exclude rock crushing where it effectuates a substantial transformation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anatra v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 307 Conn. 728 (Conn. 2013) (framework for treating ambiguous zoning language and interpretive approach)
- Hartford/Windsor Healthcare Props., LLC v. Hartford, 298 Conn. 191 (Conn. 2010) (definition of statutory ambiguity and interpretive principles)
- Fillion v. Hannon, 106 Conn. App. 745 (Conn. App. 2008) (look to common understanding and dictionaries when zoning definitions are absent)
- Connecticut Water Co. v. Barbato, 206 Conn. 337 (Conn. 1988) (use of regulatory definitions in tax/manufacturing context)
- American Sumatra Tobacco Corp. v. Tone, 127 Conn. 132 (Conn. 1940) (distinguishing manufacturing from natural/ordinary farming operations in an unemployment/tax context)
- Stoneco, Inc. v. Limbach, 53 Ohio St. 3d 170 (Ohio 1990) (holding crushing/screening limestone into aggregate constitutes manufacturing in tax context)