Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

(; o ( ... ~) Zoning Bulletin October 10, 20091 Voli,lme 3 I No. 19 density requirements. Section N(A)(S) of the zoning regulations estab- lished a maximum density for parcels in the RU-2A zone of 0.3 families per acre. Under ~ N(A)(6), the minimum lot area in the RU-2A zone was two acres. Relying on "historical practice," the Commission applied the maximum density requirement orO.3 families per acre to the 34 acre par- ent parcel. (The parent parcel was the parcel in existence at the time the town's subdivision and zoning regulations were adopted.) Under that ap- plication, the Conimission determined that the maximum number of lots that could be created from the parent parcel was 10.2 lots. Since eight lots had previously been created from the parent parcel, two more lots could be created. The Commission thus concluded that Markow and Sec- or's proposed two lot subdivision complied with the density requirement. William and Janet Newman owned property abutting the Property. The Newmans, among others, appealed the Commission's approval of Markow and Secor's subdivision application. The Newmans contended that, by using the "parent parcel," the Commission had miscalculated the density under ~ N(A)(5). The Newmans maintained that the Commission should have measured density based on the curr,ent four acre Property. The trial court agreed with the Newmans. It reversed approval of the application. Markow and Secor appealed. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that ~ N(A)(5) required the Coinmission to calculate maximum density based on the parent parcel. In reaching its conclusion, the court interpreted the language of rel- evant sections of the town's zoning regulations. The court found noth~ ing in regulations even suggested that the density requirement was to be calculated with regard to each proposed lot at the time that a subdivision application was filed with regard to that lot. However, the court found that the following language in the regulations supported a conclusion that calculation of maximum density was to be based on the parent par~ eel: Section N(A)(5) specifically provided that "[a]ny parcel developed for residential use [in the RU-2A zone] shall observe" a maximum den- sity of 0.3 families per acre. "Parcel" was defioedunder the town's sub- division regulations essentially as "a single tract of land." In 1957, the 34-acre parent parcel was a "parcel" under that definition. Moreover, S N(A)(5)'s phrase "parcel developed" indicated that the Commission was to base the density calculation on "a previously undeveloped par- cel." That density calculation obtained from when the parcel was first developed must then be utilized for any subsequent development of the parcel, said the court. Furthermore, the co1;lrt found that the Newman's interpretation of the density regulation rendered S N(A)(6)'s minimum lot size of two acres superfluous. Under the Newman's interpretation, the 0.3 family per acre @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 5 87