Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/2019

Home

Subdivision —Property owner proposes, and town ap- proves, lot line revisions Proceedings/Jurisdiction— Local environmental groups argue that developer's exemptionfrom state's' Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act expired for .failure, .to com- mence construction within three years of receiving ' final approvals Referendum-City''rejects peti- tions for referendum of zon- ing resolutions, finding the resolutions were. administrative in nature Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies/Jurisdiction- City argues developer's Land Use Petition Act action should be dismissed for fail- ure to exhaust administra- tive remedies Zoning News from Around the Nation THOMSON REUTERS' January 25, 2019 1 Volume 13 1 Issue 2 Subdivision Property owner proposes, and town approves, lot line revisions Abutting neighbor argues lot line revisions constitute a subdivision with resultant lots too small to satisfy the minimum lot area requirements for lots created by subdivision Citation: Cady v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Burlington, 330 Conn. 502, 196 A.3d 315 (2018) CONNECTICUT (12/11/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a landowner's proposed map of his property that included revised boundary lines between adjacent lots constituted a subdivision. The Background/Facts: In 2013, GM Retirement, LLC ("GM") pur- chased a lot (the "Claire Hill Lot") in the Town of Burlington (the "Town"). In 2014, GM purchased two more lots (the "Wark and Legowski Lots"), which were adjacent to the Claire Hill Lot. In 1959, those three lots had been four lots, which were affected when the state widened a bordering road. The 6 state road project made one of those four lots non -conforming in size, leav- ing three conforming lots. In 1986, the non -conforming lot was combined 8 with the Claire Hill Lot. Thus, as of 2014, GM's property consisted of three lots, totaling 1.63 acres. After GM's purchase of the lots, GM submitted to the Town zoning enforcement officer (the "ZO") for approval a map of the three lots with revised property boundaries. GM proposed lot line revisions which reconfig- ured the three lots on its property. The ZO determined that there had been three preexisting lots which could be "reconfigured as needed to comply with current minimum bulk requirements of the R-15 zoning district for purposes of lot improvement and that no subdivision was required inorder to proceed to do so." The ZO also concluded that the lot line revision map, reconfiguring the lots into conforming R-15 zone lots, permitted development. GM's .abutting neighbor, Bruce A. Cady ("Cady") appealed the ZO's deci- sion to the Town's Zoning, Board of Appeals ("ZBA"). The ZBA denied the appeal and upheld the ZO's decision. Cady then appealed to the trial court. Among other things, Cady argued Mat #42479372