Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

Page 4 -- June 25, 2004 Champlain had no vested rights in the prior zoning laws. Champlain's May 14 sketch plan application could not vest a rigllt to con- sideration under the then-e,'dsting zoning laws for Subsequent final site plan approval or a zoning permit application. Rights vested under a preliminary application did not extend to subse- quent applications of a more detailed nature. Ultimately, because of the different nature of the sketch plan application and the site plan application, the earlier application could not vest a right to consideration under the pre-amendment zoning laws. see also: Sprin~etd Hydroelectric Co. v. Copp, 779 A.2d 67 (200J). see also: [n re Taft Comers Associates, 758 A.2d 804 (2000). Inverse Condenmation -- City amends master plan to create more pa, rks Landowner believes amendment will lead to property condemnation Citation: AEL Realty, Holdings [nc. v. Board of Representatives of the Ci~, of StarrCbrd, Appellate Cottrr of Connecticut, No. AC 22565 (2004) CONNECTICUT (04/27/04) -- A_EL Realty Holdings Inc. owned undevel- oped property in the downtown area of the city. In 1988, AEL obtained zoning approval to construct a'15-story structure of 118 residential units. The prop- erty was in a district suitable for residential, multifamity, or high-density use. In 2000, the planning board approved an amendment to the city's master plan that was integral to a comprehensive land use plan. One' of the plan's underlying purposes was to enhance open space and parks and create afford- able housing. Under the amendment, AEL's property was changed to a public park zoning designation. A_EL sued, and the court ruled in the board's favor. ,~kEL appealed, arguing the amendment to the master plan was strong evi- dence condemnation of the property would occur when requested by the mayor. It claimed the change in zoning classification amounted to a taking of its prop- erty by inverse condemnation. DECISION: Affirmed. A_EL was free to continue to use its property as it was currently zoned. Thus, the board's action did not amount to an inverse condemnation. The board took rio action with regard to any of the zoning regulations pertaining to AEL's property. A master plan was merely advisory and set forth the most desirable use of the land and an overall plan for the town. Because the overall objectives contained in the master plan had to be imple- mented by the enactment of specie'lc regulations, the plan itself was only a rec~mmendation ~md an interpretive tool. Consequendy, the amendment of the plan had no immediate effect on .KEL's !and and its claim of inverse con- 130 2004 Guiman ?ubiisning G~'oup. Any reproeuction is prohibited. ?or more iniorrnaiion please call (617) 542-0048.