Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

- ---------'. Page 2 - November 10, 2006 Z.B. Application - Landowner claims reliance on commission staff statements Argues commission bound to follow them Citation: Gerlt v. South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission, Superior Court of Connecticut, No. CV044000638 (2006) CONNECTICUT (09/07/06) - Gerlt owned 1.95 acres located in anAA~30 Open Space Zone and part of a subdivision known as Ridgefield. In 1985, the South Wmdsor Planning & Zoning Commission adopted a new regulation regarding the creation of open space lots. The new regulation increased the square foot- age, minimum lot width, and open space area requirements. In 2004, Gerlt filed an application to subdivide her property into three open space lots. The commission denied the application, stating that her proposal did not comply with the requirements for an open space subdivision. Gerlt sued the commission, arguing that it should have applied the open space regulation that was in effect prior to 1985, because she had relied on statements made by commission staff when she purchased the property that the commission had a policy of applying the old regulation to land such as hers. DECISION: Judgment for the commission. It was undisputed that various staff members had indicated to Gerlt that the pre-1985 regulation could probably be applied to her application, but such statements were not binding on the commission. Further, the grandfathering of property under the old regulation was contingent upon development of the property being underway at the time that the regulation changed. For the commission to be held to the staff members' statements, there had to be "unjustifiable inducement" concerning Gerlt's purchase of the land; in other words, Gerlt had to prove that the statements by the commissi~:jn staff deceptively influenced her decision to purchase the property. Further, she had to establish that reliance of such a nature made the enforcement of the regula- tion "highly inequitable." Gerlt could not prove either. ; Finally, there was sufficient evidence in the record to show that the commission's decision was not arbitrary or capricious; see also: Poirer v. ZoningBoard of Appeals, 75 Conn.App. 289 (2~03). Conditional Use Permit- Landowner wants to expand mine Application denied over public health concerns Citation: Hanson v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners, Court of . Appeals of Minnesota, No. A05-2047 (2006) :MINNESOTA (09/12/06) - Hanson owned 205 acres ofland in the San Fran- cisco Township of Carver County. A gravel mine had operated on the property since the 1950s. A conditional use permit (CUP) for mining was originally issued in 1981; in @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 66 .'/. L') ~..c..) }