Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

HENRY MORGENBESSER ET AL. v. AQUARION WATER COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT ET AL. (SC 17395)
Sullivan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Zarella, Js. Argued November 22, 2005--officially released January 24, 2006

Thomas J. Donlon, with whom was Edward V. O'Hanlan, for the appellant (defendant Cellco Partnership). Jay H. Sandak, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiffs,1 individual owners of property in the town of Greenwich (town), against the defendants, Aquarion Water Company of Connecticut (Aquarion) and Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon). The plaintiffs sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment and temporary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the installation of telecommunications antenna panels and related improvements on a property located in the town at 20 Bowman Drive (property). The trial court rendered summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their action for a declaratory judgment and the plaintiffs withdrew their remaining claims. Verizon appeals from the judgment,2 claiming that the trial court improperly interpreted the terms of a restrictive covenant governing the use of the property to prohibit the use of the property for this purpose. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. In February, 1952, King Merritt Acres, Inc., transferred the property, which was in a residential zone and was part of a subdivision known as King Merritt Acres, to the Greenwich Water Company. At the time of the transfer, the town's zoning regulations permitted certain nonresidential uses in res-

idential zones. Specifically, the regulations provided for ``[r]eservations for public water supply including land and improvements used for water supply purposes or purposes incidental or accessory thereto.'' Consistent with this regulation, the deed transferring the property contained a restrictive covenant limiting the use of the property to ``water supply purposes or purposes incidental or accessory thereto.''3 The Greenwich Water Company erected a water tower on the property that was 114 feet in height and 50 feet in diameter. After King Merritt Acres, Inc., transferred the property to the Greenwich Water Company, it conveyed the lots in the King Merit Acres subdivision currently owned by the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs' predecessors in title. In December, 2000, the Greenwich Water Company's successor in interest, the Connecticut-American Water Company, entered into a lease with Verizon authorizing Verizon to install a wireless telecommunications facility (facility) on the property. The proposed facility included ``[twelve] panel-type antennae attached to the railing of the water tower at approximately [sixty-five] feet above ground level . . . [twelve] antenna cables, leading from the antennae . . . a [twelve foot by twenty foot] equipment shelter less than [one] story in height located at the base of the water tower; and . . . [two] ground air conditioning condensers surrounded by a noise attenuation structure.'' On April 3, 2002, Verizon applied to the town planning and zoning commission (commission) for approval of the site plan for the proposed facility. On April 26, 2002, the Connecticut-American Water Company assigned the lease to Aquarion. On July 30, 2002, the commission approved Verizon's site plan application. Thereafter, the plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants alleging breach of the restrictive covenant and seeking, inter alia, temporary and permanent injunctions against the installation of the facility and a judgment declaring that the restrictive covenant prohibits the use of the property ``for anything other than for water supply purposes or purposes incidental or accessory thereto.'' The defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment claiming that the plain language of the restrictive covenant precluded the plaintiffs' interpretation that it allowed uses related to water supply only and that, therefore, the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment claiming that the restrictive covenant precluded the defendants from using the property for the proposed facility as a matter of law. The court granted the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment declaring that the property could be used for water supply and uses related to water supply only. Verizon appealed to the Appellate Court and we transferred the appeal to this court.

Thereafter, this court sua sponte raised the question of whether there was an appealable final judgment because the trial court had not ruled on the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. Verizon withdrew its appeal and the parties submitted to the trial court a joint motion for entry of judgment in which the plaintiffs withdrew all of the counts and causes of action in their complaint except for the request for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the motion and rendered judgment thereon, from which Verizon appealed. Verizon claims on appeal that the trial court improperly interpreted the language of the restrictive covenant to prohibit the installation of the proposed facility. We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we set forth the applicable standard of review. ``Practice Book

Download Morgenbesser v. Aquarion Water Co. of Connecticut.pdf

Connecticut Law