Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 14 the [C]ommission's decision to waive the landscape buffer requirement." The superior court found that: "The regulations afford the [C]onunission the discretion to determine that an alternative buffer may be necessary in r areas not strictly wetlands in order to preserve the wetlands themselves." The Neighbors again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed. The Appellate Court of Connecticut held that the Commission"was within its authority to exercise liberal discretion to apply the [town zon- ing] regulations to the facts that it was presented with" and that its deci- sion to grant the special exception here was not"unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal." In so holding,the court explained that: "A special [exception] allows a property owner to use his [or her]property in a manner expressly permit- ted by the local zoning regulations . . . . The proposed use . . . must satisfy standards set forth in the zoning regulations themselves as well as the conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety,convenience, and property values . ." "Acting in this administrative capacity," explained the court,"the[Cormnission's]function is to detennine whether the applicant's proposed use is expressly permitted under the regulations, and whether the standards set forth in the regulations and the statute are satisfied." The court noted that the Town zoning regulations provided for two exceptions to the landscape buffer requirements: "(1)if the [C]ommission concluded that the property's natural vegetation formed an effective buffer then the [C]ommission had the discretion to augment or satisfy the landscaping requirement, or(2) if the buffer area was an inland wetlands area, then the [C]ommission, in order to preserve and protect the inland wetlands, had the discretion to waive the buffer requirement or prescribe alternative requirements." The court acknowledged that the Commission had not specifically addressed the landscape buffer requirement or either of those exceptions when it deliberated on the RTI's applications. However, the court found that it did"deliberate about the landscaping of the rear portion of[RTI's] property," and had been presented with infor- mation that significant portions of RTI's property were in inland wetland areas. The court concluded that it"reasonably[could] infer that by approving the special exception, [the Commission] accepted that the remaining nat- ural vegetation provided a sufficient buffer." The court found that the Commission's decision to accept the natural vegetation as an effective buffer"was further buttressed by the accepted terms of the special excep- tion,"which allowed an underground septic system as the only structure for the rear portion of the property and noted that a conservation easement granted by RTI to the Town would"ensure that natural vegetation stayed in place." The court noted that the Town's regulations were unambiguous as to . : ©2016 Thomson Reuters 11 f F f i; I" i C