Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Page 6 -- September 10, 2005 Z.B. Zoning Code -- Commission requires sidewalk in buffer area Neighborittg proper~ owner claims commission misread code Citation: CLmningham v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of PIainville, Appellate Cottrt of Connectic[tr, No. AC 25739 (2005) CON'NECTICUT (07/19/05) --Durldn submitted a site plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the town of Plainville to build seven stand-alone condorrdniums. The planned development abutted a residential zone with its southern portion. The zoning code provides: "lots shall be buffered from neighboring proper- ties by natural vegetation, as recommended by" the commission. A 25-foot buffer area with screening was required when property abutted a residential zone. "Screening" included a fence and trees, Or a berm with trees. FinallY, the commis- sion could modify the buffer and screening requirements if the physical charac- teristics of the site made it impractical to require such screening and buffers. Although the commission approved Durldn's plan, it required him to place a concrete sidewalk within the buffer area. Cunningham, a neighboring property owner, sued the commission, arguing the buffer could not contain a sidewalk. The court ruled in the commission's hvor. Cunningham appealed, arguing the commission was misreading the code. DECISION: A ~rmed. The commission acted properly in requiring the concrete walkway within the buffer. A local board or commission was in the most advantageous position to interpret its own regulations. A fair reading of the plain language of the code showed the commission had the discretion to recommend what types of natural vegetation were placed within the buffer area. If the commission determined it was impractical to require screening and a 25-foot buffer area, it could modify the requirements. The code did not require a 25-foot buffer completely filled wifh trees.and natural vegetation extending across the entire property line. The plain lan- guage of the section only required a fence and trees within the buffer area and this could be modified if the commission found the requirements impractical. Reviewing the site plan, it was readily apparent there was a 25-foot buffer on the southern portion. Within the buffer were a fence and many trees, including pines and either oaks or maples. In the area of the buffer farthest from the street, there was a four-foot concrete walkway. As long as there was a 25~foot buffer with a fence and trees, the addition of a concrete walkway was not prohibited. see also: Wood v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 784 A.2d 354 (2001). see also: Blakeman v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 846 A.2d 950 (2004). 208 © 2005 Quinian Pu01isning Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.