Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

March 25, 2006 -- Page 5 responsibility for assuring that a nuisance was not created or for abating such a nuisance rested with other governmental agencies. Even so, the board included conditions in its approval addressing the resi- dents' blasting concerns and residents' concerns over the eventual use of the property, including limitations on hours, signage, lighting, and security. see also: Weaver v. Knox County B~ard of Zoning Appeals, 122 & W..3d 781 (2003). see also: Overstreet v. Shoney's Inc., 4 & W.3d 694 (1999). Appeal -- Commission wrongly denies subdivision plan Unnecessary interpretation used in denial . Citation~' Pappas v. Enfield PZC, Superior Court of Connecticut, No. CV054010049 (2006) CONNECTICUT (01/30/06) -- pappas owned land in a section of Enfield that authorized single-family residences. Pappas wanted to divide the land into three building lots. She applied for subdivision, and her plan included con- structing a new cul de sac that would connect the lots with the nearest street, Riverview. Although no public hearing was required for subdivision applications, a series of public hearings were held between November 2004 and January 2005. In March 2005, the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission (the commission) voted on and denied her application. Pappas appealed the commission's decision, claiming that it acted arbi- warily and "in abuse of the discretion vested in it." She claimed that her appli- cation complied with all of Enfield's zoning and subdivision regulations and that there was no formal reason ~ven for its denial. The commission argued that the application did not meet all of the town's conditions, and that the commission had not acted arbitrar/ly or unlawfully. It claimed that Pappas' plan would create a cul de sac that was longer than al- lowed by town regulations. According to the commission, the length ora cul de sa~ was determined by its intersection with the nearest through street. Riverview was a dead end, and the intersection with the nearest through street would make the cul de sac that Pappas proposed exceed town regulation. Pappas asked that the decision of the commission be overturned and that her application be approved. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the applicant. The court found that the commission had no basis for denying Pappas' application, and ordered that it be approved. The commission argued that the cuI de sac must be measured in relation to the nearest through street, but the regulation stated only that a cul de sac "shall not be longer than 600 ft. measured from the fienter of the turnaround to the © 2006 Quintan Publishing G[oup. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information pieass call (617) 542-004u. 49