Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003

Home

Page 4 -- luly 10, 2003 Z.B. Wetlands -- Neighbor argues less harmful alternatives not considered Claims other proposals had to be made by applicant CON~'¢ECTICUT (05/20/03) -- Chestnut Wolcott LLC applied for a wetlands and watercourses pen~n_it in conjunction with a proposed residential subdivision, Chestnut proposed bu/lding 30 homes. Two would have lake frontage. Fi_f- teen acres in the development were protected wetlands and watercourses. Chest- nut proposed to build a common driveway over a man-made intenmttent wa- tercourse channel and insert a storm drainage system in a natural watercourse. The Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Commission approved the application. A neighbor/ng property owner sued, and the court ruled in. Chestnut's favor. The neighbor appealed, ~guing the commission fa/led to consider alterna- tives that would cause less env/ron_mental impact. DECISION: :-U'timed. The commission considered alternative development plans. The commission considered two pr/or appJScafions for the site, both of which proposed more numerous and more intrusive activities in the wetlands and watercourses. It was sufficient for a comm/ssion to consider as many alternatives as nec- essary until the balance between economic development and wetlands and watercourses protection was achieved. The applicant had to show a proposal was sound from an enginee .ring standpoint and also economically reasonable and socially beneficial. The review of multiple wetlands applications for a site constituted agency consideration of feasible and prudent alternatives. Citation: Ta~dlo v. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission of the Town of Wolcort, Supreme Court of Connecticut, No. SC ]6797 (2003). see also: Samperi v. [nland Wetlands Agenc3 628 A.2d I'286 (]993). see also: Murach v, Planning & Zoning Commission, 49] A.2d 1058 (1985). Review -- Court limits re*flew of legislative decisions Developer claims decision ia' an administrative act NffSSOU~I (05/20/03) -- THF Chesterfield No~th Development L.L.C. wanted to place freestanding monument signs at two of its new buildings. The signs were permitted by the city's general sign ordinance. The buildings were in a development author/zed by a special ordinance. Under the ordinance, THF Chesterfield was required to submit a site develop- ment concept plan during initial construction. THF Cheste~'ietd claimed ~t was entitled ~o erect the signs under the gen- eral sign ordinance. The city conceded the general ordinance would allow the signs, but argued the development was governed by the more restrictive spe- cial ordinance. Consequently, the city claimed THF Cheste~eld .~ad to seek