|
January 25; 2019 I Volume 13 I Issue 2
<br />that "the proposed realignment of boundary lines for
<br />the three lots constituted a subdivision under [Conn.
<br />Gen. Stat.] § 8-18 and that the resultant lots were too
<br />small to satisfy the minimum lot area requirements for
<br />lots created by subdivision after October 1, 1983." Sec-
<br />tion IV.B.5 of the Town's Zoning Regulations —which
<br />were adopted on October 1, 1983—required a minimum
<br />lot area of 43,560 square feet for "any lot created by
<br />subdivision and recorded after October 1, 1983," and a
<br />minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet for any "lot in
<br />existence as of October 1, 1983." The sizes of GM's
<br />reconfigured lots were 30,261 square feet, 16,866
<br />square feet, and 24,057 square feet.
<br />The trial court agreed with Cady and reversed the de-
<br />cision of the ZBA. The trial court determined that GM's
<br />proposed lot line revision did constitute a subdivision
<br />because "any change other than a `minor lot line adjust-
<br />Contributors-
<br />Corey.E.` BurnhamHoward
<br />For authorization to photocopy, please contact the West's
<br />Copyright Clearance Center at 222 Rosewood Drive,
<br />Danvers, MA 01923, USA (978) 750-8400; fax (978) 646-
<br />8600 or West's Copyright Services at 610 Opperman
<br />Drive, Eagan, MN 55123, fax (651) 687-7551. Please
<br />outline the specific material involved, the number of copies
<br />you wish to distribute and the purpose or format of the use.
<br />This publication was created ,to provide you with accurate
<br />and authoritative information concerning the subject matter
<br />covered; however, this publication was not necessarily pre-
<br />pared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular
<br />jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal
<br />or other professional advice and this; publication is not a
<br />substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal
<br />or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a
<br />competent attorney or other professional.
<br />Zoning Bulletin is published and copyrighted by Thomson
<br />Reuters, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul,
<br />MN 55164-0526. For subscription information: call (800)
<br />229-2084, or write to West, Credit Order Processing, 620
<br />Opperman Drive, PO Box 64833, St. Paul, MN 55164-9753.
<br />POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Zoning Bulletin,
<br />610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul, MN
<br />55164-0526.
<br />..._ ... THOMSON REUTERS°
<br />610 Opperman Drive
<br />P.O. Box 64526
<br />St. Paul, MN 55164-0526
<br />1-800-229-2084
<br />email: west.customerservice@thomsonreuters.com
<br />ISSN 0514-7905
<br />2019 Thomson Reuters
<br />All Rights Reserved
<br />QuinlanTM is a Thomson Reuters brand
<br />Zoning Bulletin
<br />ment . . . whereby no new lot is created' constitutes a
<br />subdivision." More specifically, the trial court con-
<br />cluded that, here, the change proposed by GM was not
<br />a "minor lot line adjustment but was a subdivision"
<br />because a new lot was created and that lot failed to meet
<br />the greater area requirements of the Town's Zoning
<br />Regulations.
<br />GM appealed. Among other things, on appeal, GM
<br />argued that its revisions of the lot lines did not consti-
<br />tute a "subdivision," and thus, the Town Zoning Regula-
<br />tion requiring a minimum lot area for certain construc-
<br />tion did not apply to the proposed lots.
<br />DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court re-
<br />versed, and matter remanded with instructions.
<br />Agreeing with GM, the Supreme Court of Connecti-
<br />cut concluded that substantial evidence supported the
<br />ZBA's determination that GM's lot line revisions did
<br />not constitute a subdivision.
<br />In so concluding, the court looked to the statutory
<br />definition of "subdivision" found in Conn. Gen. Stat.
<br />§ 8-18. The statute defines "subdivision" as "the divi-
<br />sion of a tract or parcel of land into three or more parts
<br />or lots made subsequent to the adoption of subdivision
<br />regulations . . . for the purpose . . . of sale or building
<br />development . . . ." (Conn. Gen. L. § 8-18.) Based on
<br />that definition, the court explained that in order to con-
<br />stitute a subdivision, two requirements must be met:
<br />"(1) [t]he division of a tract or parcel of land into three
<br />or more parts or lots, and (2) for the purpose, whether
<br />immediate or future, of sale or building development."
<br />With that definition of "subdivision" in mind, the court
<br />found that GM's line revision here did not constitute a
<br />subdivision "because one lot was not divided into
<br />three." The court found that the evidence showed that
<br />"three conforming lots simply were reconfigured into
<br />three differently shaped, yet still conforming, lots."
<br />The court further concluded that because GM's lots
<br />were in existence prior to the adoption of the Town's
<br />Zoning Regulations, the proposed lots met the mini-
<br />mum size requirements of the R-15 zone.
<br />See also: McCrann v. Town Plan and Zoning Com-
<br />mission of Town of Bloomfield, 161 Conn. 65, 282 A.2d
<br />900 (1971).
<br />Case Note:
<br />In its decision, the appellate court addressed the trial court's
<br />determination that GM's revised lot lines constituted a
<br />subdivision because it was more than a "minor lot
<br />adjustment." The appellate court noted that nothing in the
<br />language of § 8-18 indicated that the determination of
<br />whether a particular proposal constitutes a subdivision
<br />"depends on the degree of the lot line adjustment." "Indeed,. •
<br />§ 8-18 does not address a lot line adjustment or the size of an
<br />adjustment at all; instead, it addresses 'the division of a tract
<br />or parcel of land . . ..' " said the court. Similarly, the court
<br />0 2019 Thomson Reuters
<br />
|