Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

August 25, 2011 1Volume 5 No. 16 Zoning Bulletin DECISION: Reversed and matter remanded. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that evidence was insuf- ficient to support the Commissions' denial of Avalon Bay's applications based on safety concerns over emergency vehicle access. The court also held that the Commission's concerns about emergency access and regarding environmental issues were insufficient to outweigh the need for affordable housing in the Town so as to preclude granting Avalon- Bay's applications. In reaching its conclusion, the court explained that in order for a mu- nicipality to deny an affordable housing site plan application, "[t]he re- cord must establish more than a mere possibility of harm to a substan- tial public interest"; rather, "[t]he record must contain evidence as to a quantifiable probability that a specific harm will result if the application is granted ... ." In other words, "[m]ere concerns alone" are insufficient to support the denial of an affordable housing application in Connecti- cut (pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-30g(g)). Here, the court found evidence was insufficient to support the Com- missions' denial of AvalonBay's affordable housing application on the basis of safety concerns. The Commission's concerns focused on whether aerial fire trucks could fit under a 'parkway underpass. The court found all evidence showed that all aerial fire trucks could fit under the under- pass without delay. The Commission had also expressed concern about the width of an adjacent public street as an adequate secondary emergency route. The court found this was an insufficient basis for denial of Avalon- Bay's affordable housing application because the street would be used only if the primary route could not be accessed; and for the concerns to have merit, three chance occurrences would have to manifest simultaneously. Finally, the court also concluded that perceived concerns regarding environmental issues (the court found the record insufficient to support the concerns), including negative impact to natural resources and wet- lands, did not outweigh the need for affordable housing in the Town. In conclusion, the court found that: the Commission "rested on spec- ulation to support its safety concerns," and "the record [did] not contain 'evidence as to a quantifiable probability that a specific harm [would] re- sult if the application [was] granted.'" The court remanded the matter to the trial court. The appellate court directed the trial court to render judgment sustaining AvalonBay's appeal and directing the Commission to approve AvalonBay's affordable hous- ing site plan application. 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters