Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin By October 27, 1998, five years after the approval of the subdivision plan, the proposed public improvements had not been completed. The town recorded a notice of expiration of the subdivision plan on the land records. EHBS, along with other parties that had acquired interests in subdivi- sion lots on the property after the subdivision plan approval, demanded that the town call the performance bond to construct the proposed pub- lic improvements, in accordance with Connecticut law, Conn. Gen., Stat. ~ 8-26c. EHBS and the other parties argued that the various transfers of interests ill subdivision lots constituted conveyances under ~ 8-26c, and therefore the town Was required to call the bond. Under Connecticut law, Conn. Gen. Stat. ~ 8-26c, failure to come plete all improvements related toa subdivision within five years of the approval of the subdivision plan resulted in automatic expiration of the approval of the subdivi~ion plan, provided the town recorded a notice of expiration of the subdivision plan ,on the land records. Further under the law, if "lots have been conveyed" during those five years, the town was required to call the bond to the eJCtent necessary to complete the bonded improvements and utilities required to serve those lots. The town and RLI filed an action in court. They asked the court to declare that the town hadno obligation under ~ 8-26c to call the perfor- mance bond. EHBS counterclaimed. It asked the court to order the town to rescind its notice of expiration of the subdivision and to call the bond. The parties filed motions for summary judgment with the court. They asked the court to find that there were no material issues of fact, and to decide the matter on law alone in their favor. The court found for the town and RLI, concluding that the mortgages were nbt "conveyances" under ~ 8-26c. EHBS appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. " On appeal, the court concluded that the transaction through which EHBSacquired its mortgage interests in the subdivision lot did not con- stitute a conveyance under ~ 8-26c, and therefore the town was not obli- gated under the statute to call the performance bond. In so concluding, the court found that the statute's requirement that mu- nicipalities call a bond if "lots have been conveyed during such five-year pe- riod'" after approval of a subdivision plan did not refer to conveyances gen- erally; it specifically contemplated the conveyance of lots. The court found its conclusion was supported by two other references to "lots" in ~ 8-26c. One of those references established that the town's duty to call the bond was limited to the extent necessary to complete the improvements "required 6 I '\" ~ ~"" ,. 98 r\ \, '/ ", c....' .. ._,1' .::--" [" l..' ',../