Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

Page 6 - October 25,2006 Z.B. prevent a more accurate interpretation at a later date. In the past, the commission had approved [mal plats and development for additional lots, notwithstanding that: the preliminary plan had lapsed, septic tanks were no longer permitted on one-acre lots, and the minimum lot size in the zone had been increased to 10 acres. Regardless of any changes in the law or mistakes by local officials in ap- proving the earlier lots, nothing in the record indicated that the commission had engaged in any false representation or concealment of material facts. At most, there was lax enforcement of regulations, and permission was granted previ- ously to allow the development of lots that should not have been. Sebastian argued that it had a vested right in the development of its remain- ing property. However, the court found that the money invested by Sebastian related directly to the lots that had been developed and sold already. Further, no improvements had been made to the undeveloped 59 acres that would sug- gest an investinent in those lots. Although Sebastian claimed that the commission's decision was arbitrary because it had not enforced the restrictions previously, ultimately, the commis- sion would have acted arbitrarily if it had not followed the local regulations in existence at the time of the hearing. In addition, a developer was charged with having knowledge of applicable laws and regulations, with the understanding that conditions change over time. The commission could enforce the regulations as written; the decision of the lower court was affIrmed. Appeal- Landowner seeks to nullify amendment requiring sub~vision to connect to existing road Commission states amendment is within its authority, necessary to promote public interests Citation: Andrews v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Wallingford, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 26713 (2006) CONNECTICUT (09/05/06) - Andrews submitted an application to subdivide property that she owned in the town of Wallingford. In her application, she stated that access to the proposed subdivision would be by way of an existing road in a neighboring town. Subsequently, the town amended its subdivision regulations with regard to access streets to add the requirement that "all proposed streets shall be con- nected to existing public roads within the Town of Wallingford." A public hear- ing on the amendment was held, at which time the town planner stated that she believed that it was the intention of the commission all along to require ~ubdi- vision access roads to connect to existing public roads in the town, but that it was not brought to light until Andrews' application was submitted. According to the record, the hearing lasted less than fIve minutes, and no one @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 62 .~ J I .:----... .' ), \- .....0 . '. ) .. "----'I /