Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 3 The Court's Decision: Judgment of trial court in favor of the Commis- sion affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut concluded that the Commis- sion did have the authority to deny Jackson's subdivision application based only on § 1.11. In so concluding, the court held that the criteria set forth in § 1.11 was valid and adequate because it was "reasonably precise" to guide the Commission in determining whether the Land was suitable for subdivision. The court explained that subdivision regulations "must contain known and fixed standards applying to all cases of a like nature." The court noted that it would be "impossible to establish one standard which would adequately cover all future cases." Therefore, standards provid- ed in subdivision regulations may be general but must be "reasonably sufficient to identify the criteria to be evaluated in their enforcement in order to meet the many variables involved." In other words, standards provided in a subdivision regulation would be an adequate basis for a commission's ruling on an application if the standards (or criteria) were: "reasonably precise as the subject matter requires and [we]re reasonably adequate and sufficient to guide the commission and to enable those af- fected to know their rights and obligations." Here, the court found that § 1.11 was intended to "ensure that prop- er provisions be made for flooding, drainage and soil erosion, the extent of which depend on the topographic character of the land sought to be developed." Section 1.11 set forth criteria for determining unsuitable land for subdivision as land that is: "wet, rocky, steep and of adverse topography." The court found: those criteria were "objective and de- tailed"; and that it would be "impossible or impractical to draft more precise standards that apply to such land" given the many variables. Al- though § 1.11 left some discretion to the Commission, the court found it necessary under the circumstances since "the situation of topography prevents no fixed or more detailed criteria to apply." The court determined that the criteria contained in § 1.11 was "as reasonably precise as the subject matter requires and [we]re reasonably adequate and sufficient to guide the [C]ommission and to enable those affected to know their rights and obligations." Accordingly, the court concluded that failure to comply with § 1.11 was a sufficient basis for the denial of Jackson's subdivision application. See also: Forest Const. Co. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Bethany, 155 Conn. 669, 236 A.2d 917 (1967). See also: Blakeman v. Planning Commission of City of Shelton, 152 Conn. 303, 206 A.2d 425 (1965). Case Note: The court also concluded that the Commission's decision to deny Jackson's application based on § 1.11 was supported by the evidence. The evidence was that there would be substantial amounts © 2010 Thomson Reuters 9 57