Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

i: I j: . Zoning Bulletin August 25,2009/ Volume 3/ No. 16 11 I lj I division regulations required the construction of.sidewalks on the subdi- I (~ '-. ".- vision side of an existing abutting town road. Buttermilk refused to include the sidewalk in its application. The PZC denied its application. Buttermilk then appealed the PZC's denial to court. Butterniilk argued that the PZC did not have the authority under state law to compel Butter- milk to include the sidewalk in its proposed subdivision. Specifically, But- termilk pointed to Conn. Gen. Stat. S 8-25, which authorized munlcipali- ties "to adopt regulations concerning the subdivision of land." Section 8-25 said that municipal subdivision regulations "shall provide:" "that the land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it cim be used for building purposes without danger to health or the public safety;" and "that the pro- posed streets are in harmony with existing or proposed thorough fares. . .. especially in regard to safe intersections with such thoroughfares. . . ." . Buttermilk acknowledged that S 8-25 granted the PZC "the author- ity to compel a developer to make off-site improvements to an existing road when that"road intersect[ed] with a new road proposed by the de- veloper/' However, Buttermilk maintained. th~t "in the absence of such an intersection, the language of S 8-25 limit[ed] the authority of a plan- nihg commission to regulate subdivisions to 'the land to be subdivided." (J The PZC's authority did not extend to property "off-~ite" of the subdivi- sion. Here, Buttermilk contended that because the shoulder of the Road where the sidewalk was to be located fell outside the boundaries of the proposed subdivision, it was "off-site." Therefore, Buttermilk argued, the PZC did not have the authority under state law to compel Buttermilk to include the sidewalk in its proposed subdivision. The PZC conceded that the location of the sidewalk would be "off- site." Nevertheless, it maintained that the language of S 8-25 and public policy considerations of safety gave it the authority to require off-site im- .. provements .such as the sidewalk. The trial court agreed with the pzc. It interpreted S 8-25 as provid- ing general authority for the PZC to enact regulations "to protect the I health and safety of the public." And, it found thatS 5.04 of the town's ! subdivision regulations requiring sidewalks on the subdivision side of an i existing abutting town road was "reasonably related to the maintenance I I of the public health and safety." In so finding, the trial court dismissed I Buttermilk's appeal. I Buttermilk appealed. ,. DE~ISION: Reversed and remanded. U Agreeing with Buttermilk's arguments, the Supreme Court of Con- necticut held that Conn. Gen. Stat. S 8-25 did not grant municipalities the authority to require off-site sidewalks on existing roads "under the guise of'a general power to regt,llate public health and safety." @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 ---.-------- --. _n___ __ ____..__~_u__ ________.. ___ .. 49