Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2008

Home

_ ~.~c::'.:~.~-::::'i..0~::.:,....?-::'";~-;',~':.;~. ~:.~:.":"::::i.:.:;.::::. ~ ."-.:'"."::~:=..;.-~:':'_:;':';._-;..-:.:.-~:i::.i...:...'''- ;,o:.l..',-...=.:.-=-. .-"'-""......~,..............-~-_._--- ! \ \ I r \ . \ \ J \ I I. \ I l i i I \ \. i \ \ \ \ I , I I i 1 \ I i. \ \ I ! i October 25, 20081 Volume 2\ No. 20 (-j of the town's zoning regulations; and an application for a special use permit for two "flag lots." Section 45.2 of the town's zoning regulations allowed as a "spe- cial use" single family residential subdivisions' of more th?-n thirty lots if they were "in accordance with the zone requirements and sub- ject to [certain criteria]." Specifically, S 4.5.2 required an applicantto show that there were' adequate community facilitie~, roads, schools, services and utilities in the area to serve the proposed subdivision. The Commission approved the special use permit applications sub- ject to twenty-eight conditions. It also approved the, subdivision appli- cations subject to compliance w~th the special use per.mit conditions. Lord appealed from the Commission's decision. It claimed that six of the conditions imposed on its project were improperly based on special use permit criteria under S 4.5.2. Lord argued the conditions imposed by the commission were improper and S 4.5.2 was invalid because the appl~cation of zoning la~ to subdivision applications was not authorized by state law. Lord further argued that S 4.5.2 violated the uniformity requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. S 8-2(a), which re- quired "[a]ll zoning regulations be uniform for ~ach class or kind of buildings, structures, or use of land throughout each'diStriCt ...." The trial court found for the Corrimission.' It concluded that S 4.5.2 was valid and the Commission was authorized to subject the . subdivision application to a special permitting process. Lord appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded. The court concluded that the Commission did not have authority to enact S 4.5.2 of the town's zoning regulations, 'which required a spe~ial use permit to subdivide property into more than thirty lots. In reaching that conclusion, the court explained that Conn. Gen. Stat, S 8-2(a) allowed a zoning commission to enact special permit regulations that allowed certain uses within a zone by special permit. The court emphasized that S 8-2(a) only allowed special permit reg- ulation of distinct "~ses of land." The Commission had contended that the division of asingle parcel of land into more than thirty lots for single-family dwellings was a distinct use of the land. As such, the Commission had argued that it lawfully (under S 8-2(a)) could sub- ject such subdivisions to special permit regulations designed to ensure that they met certain outlined criteria, such as under S 4.5.2. The court disagreed. The court said it was iilegal to subject an otherwise () ( ) ....--' 7 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 87