Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

October 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 19 Zoning Bulletin that their due process rights were violated because the "ultimate fate" of their Property was determined by the University in disciplinary proceedings against PiKA, in which the Landlords were not involved. The court rejected this claim, finding: (1) the Landlords were not precluded from participating in the University's proceedings; and (2) the Board had no right or obliga- tion to retry the University disciplinary proceeding against PiKA. See arso: Marta v. Sullivan, 248 A.2d 608 (Del. 1968). See also: Goldbergv. RehobothBeach, 565 A.2d 936 (Del. 1989). /'\ \ i Case Note: The Landlords had also contended, in the alternative, that their lease of the Property to a new fraternity within one year preserved their non-conforming use. The court disagreed. While in some instances the Code preserved a discontinued nonconforming use if that use was revived within one year, ~ 32-15 (b) expressly prov,ided a different rule for fraternities and sororities. It provided that "the use as a fraternity or sorority shall be terminated imme- diately" upon University suspension of a fraternity or sorority for a period of more than one yeai-. Thus, the nonconforming use of the Property as a fraternity house "expired immediately upon the Uni- versity's suspension of PiKA." The Landlords' subsequent lease of the Property to another fraternity within a year did not preserve (,') that non-conforming use. ' Construction of Regulations--'-':In granting subdivision application, planning commission applies density requirements to parent parcel Abutting property owners claim density calculations are to be based on curr~nt parcel Citation: Newman v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Avon, 293 Conn. 209, 2009 WL 2486810 (Conn. 2009) CONNECTICUT (08/25109)~Mary Markow and Eric R. Secor, Jr. own~d a four acre parcd of property (the "Property") in the town. They applied to the town's planning and zoning commission (the "Commis- sion") for permission to subdivide the Property into two lots, each com- , prised of two acres. The Property was zoned for reSidential use in zone RU-2A. The Property originally was part of a larger 34 acre parcel (the "parent parcel"), which had been previously subdivided. ThTe hCommissionl apprboveddMarkhowCand S.ec?r's, sUd' bdivis~on .applthica- ~) tion. e approva was ase on t e omnusslOn s etenrunatlOn at the subdivision complied with the town zoning regulation's' maximum 4 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 86 I I I I