Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

Z.B. July 25, 2006 - Page 5 acted upon was paramount, since such an interpretation would defeat the pur~ pose of the legislative grant to the town. In addition, when the legislature authorized local municipalities to enact this type of ordinance, it did not limit the types of provisions that the ordinance could contain. The court, therefore, found in favor of the town. see also: Conway v. Town of Stratham, 414 A.2d 539 (1980). ( Lots - Developer argues that lots are part of valid subdivision plan Claims lots exempt from regulation since plan predates ordinance Citation: T & M Building Co. lnc.v. Town of Trumbull Zoning Board of Appeals, Superior Court a/Connecticut, Judicial DEst. of Fairfield, at Bridgeport, No. CV044002329 (2006) CONNECTICUT (03/30/06) - T & M Building Company was the owner of67 single-family residential lots in the town of Trumbull. On March 23,2004, T & M submitted an application for a zoning compliance certificate for these lots to the zoning enforcement officer. On April 15, 2004, the zoning enforcement officer denied T & M's application. T & M appealed the zoning enforcement officer's decision to the town's zoning board of appeals. On Sept. 1, 2004, after a public hearing, the board voted unanimously to deny T & M's appeal. T & M appealed the board's decision to court on the grounds that the board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal. T & M further claimed that the 67 lots were exempt from the town's zoning regulations. DECISION:Aflirmed. T & M's appeal was dismissed. T & M contended thaUhe lots were nonconforming, single-family residen- tial lots. T & M based this claim on the fact that the lots are shown on a subdivision plan drawn and filed with the town clerk in 1916. Under the Con- necticut Zoning Act, if a municipality enacted a change in its zoning regula- tions, any lots created by a valid subdivision plan which predated the zoning change were exempt from compliance to the change. However, the board stated that, although the subdivision plan was fIled with . the town clerk, the plan was not approved by any municipal board or officer having the authority to review subdivision plans, and it did not create a valid subdivision. The court stated that it was well-settled case law that the filing of a map or plan with the town clerk did not create an approved subdivision. The plan had to have been approved by a planning board or other board exercising the powers of a planning board. In this case, there were no boards authoriz~l;i to approve the subdivision plan on which T & M relied, so it never became valid. Therefore, the plan did not create an approved subdivision. see also: Poirier v: Zoning Board of Appeals, 815 A.2d 716 (2003). @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction' is prohibited, For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 97