Laserfiche WebLink
<br />June 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 12 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that: (1) the PZC <br />lacked authority to require extension of the water main to supply <br />the property; and (2) even assuming the PZC had the authority, it <br />could not require the Associates to extend the water main under the <br />- circumstances. <br />In reaching its holding, the court looked at the plain language and <br />legislative intent of the governing regulations. The town's subdivision <br />regulations required all subdivision plans to "make proper provision <br />of water supply." In the case of subdivisions served by public water <br />supply, all necessary mains were to be installed "as approved by the <br />municipal department and the corporation having jurisdiction." The <br />regional water authority's regulations specified that: an extension of a <br />water main to service property was "under the sole control and juris- <br />diction of the [water] [a]uthority." <br />The court concluded that "the subdivision regulations ma[d]e clear <br />that the means of supplying water to the land [fell] within the pur- <br />view of the water authority." Here, the public water supply reached <br />the southern portion of Lot One. Since any extension of that water <br />supply was clearly under the sole authority of the regional water au- <br />thority, to require the Associates to extend the water main beyond <br />that basic requirement exceeded the town's subdivision regulations <br />and thus, the PZC's authority. <br />In any case, added the court, even if the PZC had authority over <br />extension Of the water main, they could not require the Associates to <br />extend it under the circumstances. The existing public water supply <br />reached the southern portion of the Associates' proposed Lot One, <br />which was the area and lot on: which development was proposed. Re- <br />quiring the Associates to construct a water main on land where. no <br />development was planned (i.e., the entire length of the frontage of the <br />Land, including the second lot) "would place an unjustified burden <br />on the [Associates'] right to make lise of their land." <br /> <br />Case Note: The court also addressed and affirmed other claims <br />made by the Associates against the PZc. <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />.6 <br /> <br />,;. <br /> <br />156 <br />