Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011

Home

April 10, 2011 'Volume 51 No. 7 Zoning Bulletin "floating zone." Therefore, the PZC argued, since the zone did not apply to any specific parcel of land, Andrew was not aggrieved. The trial court agreed with the PZC. It held that Andrew was not ag- grieved by the Amendment's creation of the "floating zone" because "no particular area was affected by the text amendment." Finding he lacked standing to challenge the PZC's adoption of the Amendment establishing the new zoning district, the court dismissed Andrew's action. Andrew appealed. DECISION: Reversed in relevant part. The Appellate Court of Connecticut found that Andrew was a "statu- torily `aggrieved person"' with standing to challenge the Amendment. In so holding, the court first rejected the PZC's argument that the zone created by the Amendment was a "floating zone." "Floating zones," explained the court, were zones that did not apply to a specifi- cally described parcel of land. Those challenging the enactment of float- ing zone regulations ordinarily would not be aggrieved and have stand- ing because they could not show that they would likely be affected by the particular regulation. Here, however, found the court, the parcel of land subject to the new "overlay zone" did not float over the entire community. Rather, it had "distinct geographical boundaries". The B- PCD262 zone was specifically described as approximately 150 acres being bound by five specified roads. Thus, the court concluded that because the Amendment "sufficiently defined the specific, limited geo- graphic area to which the [Amendment] related ... the new zoning dis- trict [could] not be considered a floating zone." Having found that the Amendment created a defined, bounded zon- ing district, the court next concluded that Andrew was "statutorily ag- grieved under [Conn. Gen. Stat.] § 8-8(a) because his property f[ell] within the particular zone to which the text amendment pertained." Again, § 8-8(a)(1) allowed an appeal to be brought by an "aggrieved person," which included "any person owning land which abuts or is within a radius of one hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the board." The PZC had also argued that Andrew was not aggrieved because there had not been any change to the zoning map; and Andrew could "opt out of the amendment to the zoning map." The court rejected these arguments. It said whether the zoning map had been changed or further steps in the application process would be taken was immaterial to its de- termination that Andrew was statutorily aggrieved: The area (affected by the new overlay zone) was "no less bounded than if it were delineated on the zoning map." Additionally, even if Andrew could somehow opt out of the amendment to the zoning map, his land still would abut or be within a radius of 100 feet of any portion of the land involved. 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters