2 Conn. App. 351 | Conn. App. Ct. | 1984
This is an appeal1 from a judgment rendered by the trial referee in an appeal from a statement of compensation filed by the defendant concerning the plaintiff's property.
The facts may be summarized as follows: On June 26, 1972, the planning and zoning commission of the town of Coventry denied the plaintiff's application for approval of a subdivision plan relating to the plaintiff's property. A similar application filed on June 21, 1973, was also denied by the commission. On October 5, 1981, the defendant filed, with the clerk of the Superior Court in Tolland, a statement of compensation in the amount of $30,000, for the parcel of land owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's parcel was approximately 15.1 acres and the taking of the land was for future expansion of the town's landfill. The clerk of the Superior Court issued a certificate of taking on October 29, 1981, and the defendant deposited the sum of $30,000 with the clerk. Upon motion by the plaintiff, the court ordered payment and the plaintiff received the $30,000 deposit.
Thereafter, the plaintiff, pursuant to General Statutes
The plaintiff' has appealed claiming that the referee's valuation of the plaintiff's property is not supported by the evidence and, further, that the referee erred in his rulings with reference to evidentiary offers regarding the condemned property.
We disagree with the plaintiff's first claim; there was sufficient evidence to support the award. The plaintiff's appraiser determined the value of the plaintiff's property to be $90,000, regardless of whether the property was to be used as a residential subdivision or as a future site for the landfill. It is within the province of the trier of fact to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded their evidence. Edgewood Construction Co. v. West Haven Redevelopment Agency,
In condemnation proceedings, the referee is charged with the duty of making an independent determination of the value of the property involved and its fair compensation. E E Realty Co. v. Commissioner of Transportation,
The plaintiff further contends that the referee erred in his rulings with reference to the evidentiary offers made by the plaintiff regarding the condemned property. The referee excluded as irrelevant certain evidence offered by the plaintiff. A review of the record and the briefs fails to indicate to this court that the evidence was improperly excluded. Questions of relevancy cannot be adjudicated by precise rules of law and must be left to be determined in each case according to reason and judicial experience. Johnson v. Healy,
In ruling the offered evidence irrelevant, the referee followed the rule repeatedly expressed by our Supreme Court, which has limited the evidence to those factors *355
in existence on the date of the taking. Stanley Works v. New Britain Redevelopment Agency,
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.