Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 16 <br />that will help municipalities to design and implement the most ef- <br />fective strategies to bring them into compliance with LMIHA." <br />However, the court further noted the necessity for there to be "a <br />statutory framework that provides specific guidance with respect <br />to the calculation, imposition, and use of such fees --in -lieu in or- <br />der to ensure that the fees -in -lieu are reasonable and rationally re- <br />lated to local needs, as is the case with development impact fees <br />and open space fees." <br />Public and Low - Income Housing —Town Denies <br />Affordable Housing Site Plan Application <br />Town cites safety concerns, but applicant says those <br />concerns do not outweigh affordable housing need <br />Citation: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning Com'n of Town of <br />Stratford, 130 Conn. App. 36, 2011 WL 2622396 (2011) <br />CONNECTICUT (07/12/11)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a town zoning commission's safety concerns were sufficient so <br />as to outweigh the need for affordable housing in town and deny a de- <br />veloper's application to construct affordable housing units. <br />The Background/Facts: AvalonBay Communities, Inc. ("AvalonBay") <br />sought to construct an affordable housing development in the town <br />of Stratford, Connecticut (the "Town"). AvalonBay submitted to the <br />Town's zoning commission (the "Commission") applications seeking ap- <br />proval to construct the affordable housing development. Ultimately, the <br />Commission voted to deny AvalonBay's site plan application based on <br />the following public health and safety concerns: "(1) failure to provide <br />adequate, safe and timely emergency access; (2) probable destruction of <br />wetland and watercourse resources; and (3) reasonable likelihood of un- <br />reasonable pollution of the waters of the state." <br />AvalonBay appealed to superior court. It argued that the reasons for <br />the denial were not supported by sufficient evidence in the record and <br />did not constitute substantial public interests that clearly outweighed the <br />Town's need for affordable housing. <br />The superior court agreed with the Commission that its denial of <br />the affordable housing application was proper on the emergency access <br />ground. It disagreed with the Commission's reasons for denial on the <br />other two grounds. <br />AvalonBay appealed. The Commission and the Town also cross appealed. <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />