Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />June 25, 20091 Volume 31 No. 12 <br /> <br />"~'\.i <br /> <br />Improvements-Commission denies subdivision <br />application, citing insufficient water supply <br /> <br />Applicant maintains water supply is an issue beyond <br />commission's authority <br /> <br />Citation: King's Highway Associates v. Planning. and Zoning Com'n <br />of Town of North Haven, 114 Conn. App. 509, 969 A.2d 841 (2009) <br /> <br />CONNECTICUT (05/19/09)-King's Highway Associates, Valley <br />View Associates, and Michael K. Murphy (collectively, the "Associ- <br />. ates") together owned 15.88' acres of land (the "Land") in the town. <br />In 1998, the Associates proposed a nine lot subdivision for the Land, <br />which the town's planning and zoning commission (the "PZC") ap- <br />proved. After that approval expired, the Associates submitted two <br />more nine lot subdivision approvals, which the PZC denied. Thereaf- <br />ter, in November 2005, the Associates submitted an application pro- <br />posing to subdivide the Land into two lots. They proposed construc- <br />tion of a house on one of the lots ("Lot One"). <br />The PZC ultimately denied the Associates' proposed two-lot sub- <br />division. Among the reasons given by the PZC for the denial was that <br />before the subdivision could be approved, the Associates needed to <br />extend a water main to run the entire length of frontage of the Land <br />along an adjacent highway-totaling a distance of 960 feet. (Appar- <br />ently, the PZC believed that because the Associates had previously <br />proposed nine lots, the potential for resubdivision remained likely. <br />The PZC therefore sought public improvements for the entire Land, <br />not just Lot One, where development was being proposed under the <br />Associates' application.) <br />The Associates appealed the denial to the trial court. They claimed <br />that the PZC acted "illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of its discretion <br />by denying the application." Specifically, they argued that the PZC <br />exceeded its authority in requiring a water main run the length of <br />their Land.. <br />The trial court agreed with the Associates. It found that the re- <br />gional water authority was the agency that was designated to address <br />issues concerning water supply and water main extensions. It con- <br />cluded that the PZC, therefore, had no authority to consider the wa- <br />ter main extension or deny the Associates' application on that basis. <br />, The PZC appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />155 <br />