Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

Z.B. May 10, 1999 Page 3 Ordinance -- Owner claims 'open space' regulation is unconstitutionally vague CONNECTICUT (3/2/99) -- Culbro Corp. owned land in Simsbury, Conn. It wanted to develop the property into an 89-1ot subdivision. The property had existing electric and water-company easements. Culbro applied to thc town for subdivision approval. The town zoning ordinance required applicants to dedicate for open space 20 percent of the land in a proposed subdivision. Culbro included in its open space the land covered by the utility easements, as well as drainage basins. The town denied Culbro's application, apparently because it lacked the necessary open space. The town planning commission then sought to amend its zoning ordinance to state that land set aside for drainage improvements and other easements "that limit full use of the property" couldn't be used to meet the open-space requirement. The town supported the commission's proposed amendment, arguing the drainage and easement areas didn't offer the town any of the benefits of open space because they had to be kept free 0f vegetation to provide .their functions. Culbro claimed the proposed amendment was too vague. The town water com- pany also opposed the amendment, stating open space was a desirable usc for land encumbered with water line easements. The town later adopted a slightly different amendment, which provided that land used in above-ground power transmissions and other access ease- ments and land set aside for "drainage structures" couldn't be included in open space calculations. Culbro sued the town, claiming the zoning amendment was unconstitu- tionally vague. DECISION: Judgment for Culbro. The zoning amendment wasn't enforceable because it was too vague. The ordinance provided no clear definition of "open space." It didn't de- fine what "other access easements" were, nor did it properly describe what types of"drainage structures" were excluded from the open-space requirement. Moreover, the town's reason for denying Culbro's application was vague and didn't give Culbro enough information to determine how its proposal failed to satisfy the existing zoning regulations. Citation: Culbro Corp. v. Town of Sirnsbury, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial Dist. of Hartford-New Britain, at Hartford, No. CV 960559508 (1999). see also: Beach v. Planning Zoning Commission, 103 A.2d 814: see also: Purtill v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Glastonbury; 153 A.2d 441. / LE;