Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

\ \. ('<) ""-~_/ Zoning Bulletin March 1 0, 20091 Volume 3 I No.5 mance with an approved general plan would later have to be submitted and approved by the Pzc. After conducting a voluntary public hearing on Evergreen Walk's proposed general plan of development, the PZC approved it (the "General Plan Approval" or "Approval"). The Approval was subject to numerous conditions, including waivers from the town's zoning regulations governing the number of access points to a site and set- back requirements. Later, during subsequent site plan proceedings, the PZC did not allow interested parties to address the regulatory waivers that were granted under the General Plan Approval. Eventually, a neighboring landowner, Wayne Gerlt, appealed from the PZC's General Plan Approval., Gerlt contended that the Approval . constituted a site plan approval because specific decisions were made during the review and approval process that could. not be revised dur- ing the subsequent site plan proceedings. Gerlt contended that since the General Plan Approval was approval of a site plan, the General Plan Approval had to comply with certain statutory procedures governing site plans. Those statutory procedures were designed to ensure that the development, as a whole, complied with applicable statutes and zon- ing regulations. Since the PZC'sGeneral Plan Approval did not comply with the statutory procedures governing site p!an approval, Gerlt ar- gued that the General Plan Approval was illegal. . The superior court dismissed Gerlt's appeal. It concluded that a gen- eral plan of development did not constitute a site plan and that the PZC's General Plan Approval was preliminary and nonbinding. Gerlt appealed. The appellate court transferred the proceeding to the state's Su- preme Court.. DECISION: Reversed and remanded With direction. The Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded that the PZC's Gen- eral Plan Approval was not a site plan. Therefore, it was not, as Gerlt had argued, null and void for failure to comply with certain statutory procedures. Rather, the court concluded that the Approval, as well. as the conditions (including the regulatory waivers) accompanying the Approval, were preliminary and nonbinding-not only as to the PZC and Evergreen Walk, but also as to Gerlt and all other interested par- ties. Since they were nonbinding, the court held that to the extent that the PZC determined that the decisions and conditions (i.e., the regula- tory waivers) that were the basis for its Approval could not be revisited during subsequent site plan proceedings, those determinations were in violation of the town's zoning regulations and state law governing site plan approvals~ and were therefore unlawful. . @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 5 107