Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

April I0, 2006-- Page 7 when the condition was not expressly given at the time the permit was ap- proved. Therefore, the board could not reasonably uphold the department's decision to require Harmony to apply for new permits or modifications to its existing permits. Subdivision -- Residential subdivision of lots prompts public safety concerns Developer claims denial of application was actually based on traffic concerns Citation: Pansy Road v. Town Plan ~& Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield, Superior Court of Connec~cut, No. 92334 (2006) CO~XrECTICUT (02/17/06) -- Pansy Road (a developer) filed an application for residential subdivision of five lots in the town of Fairfield, Conn. After a public hearing, the Town Planning and Zoning Commission (commission) voted to deny the application. The commission stated concerns for public safety and neighborhood compatibility, specifically with regard to the street that the sub- division plans proposed would allow access to the subdivisions. The developer appealed the decision. It argued that its subdivision plan had satisfied all of the substantive zoning and subdivision requirements, and claimed that the commission had acted arbitrarily, unlawfully, and in abuse of its vested power. The developer'~laimed that its application was denied based on a consideration that was outside the scope of the commission's review -- namely, offsite traffic. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. There were two parts to the court's deliberation in this appeal First, the court had to decide i~ it was allowable for the commission to take offsite condi- tions into account when considering the developer's application. If it found that the commission could indeed take this factor into consideration, the court then had to decide if there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision to deny the application. The court found affwrnatively in both regards, so the appeal was dismissed. With regard to the first prong of the central issue, the court relied on Fried- man v. Planning & Zoning Commission, which clearly overruled earlier cases on the question of offsite considerations, finding that a zoning commission "[wa]s not precluded from considering offsite issues even though the applica- tion is for a permitted use." The court agreed with the logic in Friedman and decided that the commission had not acted beyond its authorized scope of review in denying the developer's application. The court next had to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support the commission's decision. After reviewing the record, the court found that several speakers at the public hearing cited existing and prospective concerns © 2006 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 59