Builders Service Corporation Inc. et al. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of East Hampton (CT)

Housing Affordability Institute’s Legal Precedents outlines influential, precedent-setting court decisions at the state and federal levels and illustrates their impact on housing and development.

STATE LEGAL PRECEDENTS

Builders Service Corporation Inc. et al. v. Planning and Zoning Commissions of East Hampton, 208 Conn. 267 (Conn. 1988), is a State Supreme Court Precedent in the State of Connecticut requiring a rational basis for local planning and zoning policies.

The case saw Builders Service Corporation Inc. and the Homebuilders Association of Connecticut challenge the City of East Hampton’s minimum floor area requirements as unconstitutional and a violation of the state’s land planning act.

The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling on an 8-2 vote.

Precedent

Builders Services Corp. v. East Hampton established that a rational basis is required on matters of “health, safety, and general welfare” under the state’s planning and zoning laws. By utilizing varying requirements in the city’s different zones, the city’s own practices illustrated their policies lacked a clear link to occupancy or zoning goals.

In the majority 8-2 opinion, the Court wrote:

“Even the trial court realistically recognized that ‘minimum floor area requirements bear a direct relationship to the cost of a house. The larger the house, the more likely its cost will be greater. Living in a more spacious home will be more expensive due to higher taxes, mortgage payments, and expenses for heat, maintenance and insurance.’ When a minimum floor requirement has no rational relation to public health and has not been shown to conserve the value of buildings, the conclusion that the requirements are a form of economic discrimination, even if unintended, causes grave concern.” 

Builders Service Corporation, Inc., Et Al. v. Planning And Zoning Commission of East Hampton, 208 Conn. 267 (1988)

mpact On Housing

In ruling the square footage minimum regulation unconstitutional under the state’s zoning enabling act, the Court established that a rational basis is required. Notably, insinuating that these requirements appeared to have a role in socioeconomic exclusion, the Connecticut Supreme Court became one of the first state courts to highlight the exclusionary aspect of policies aimed at protecting unspecific “health, safety, and general welfare” concerns.

Further Reading: Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365 (1926)