Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2010

Home

February 10, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 3 Zoning Bulletin § 3.5.7) the approval of a PD "which would completely vitiate the maxi- mum density requirements set forth in [§ 4.5]." If the county "had in- tended such a result," § 4.5 would have permitted a higher density to be approved without restricting it to a "highest allowed density of 1 unit per 5 acres." See also: Mid -State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 476 S.E.2d 690 (1996). Validity of Zoning Regulation —Commission denies subdivision application based on unsuitability of land Applicant argues regulation governing unsuitability of land is too broad, giving Commission "unbridled authority" Citation: Jackson, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Avon, 118 Conn. App. 202, 982 A.2d 1099 (2009) CONNECTICUT (12/01/09)—This case addressed whether a general subdivision regulation providing criteria for determining unsuitable land was too broad so as to give the planning and zoning commission "un- bridled authority" in approving or denying subdivision applications. The Background/Facts: Jackson, Inc. sought to subdivide a 155 acre parcel of land (the "Land") in the town. It filed an application with the town's planning and zoning commission (the "Commission"). The ap- plication proposed 97 building lots on the Land. The Land "consisted of large areas of wetlands, steep slopes and rocky ledges." Jackson's application "complied with all of the specific provisions" in the zoning and subdivision regulations (the "Regulations"). Howev- erthe Commission denied Jackson's application on the ground that it did not comply with a general provision of the Regulations. Section 1.11 of the Regulations set forth criteria for determining land unsuitable for subdivision. That criteria included land that was: wet, rocky steep and of "adverse topography." In denying Jackson's application, the Commis- sion concluded that the topography of the Land was unsuitable for the subdivision proposed. Jackson appealed. It maintained that the Commission could not deny its application solely based on § 1.11, a general provision of the Regula- tions, when Jackson had complied with all of the specific provisions of the Regulations. As part of that claim, Jackson argued that § 1.11 was "so broad and vague that its application yield[ed] unbridled authority to the [C]ommission." The trial court ruled in favor of the Commission. It determined that the Commission did have the authority to deny Jackson's subdivision ap- plication based only on § 1.11. Jackson appealed. 8 0 2010 Thomson Reuters 56