Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2007

Home

Page 4 Z.B. new. cuI 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 thatit acted arbi~ trarily and "in abuse of the discretion vested.in it." She daimed.:that her appli- cation complied with all of Enfield's zoning and subdivision regulations and that there was. no formal reason given for its..denial. . .' TIie:commission argued that the application di~notmeet all of the town's conditions, and that the commission had not acted arbitrarily or unlawfully. It claimed. that Pappas' plan would create a cui de. sac that was longer .than'al-' . IQwed by town regulations. According to the commission, the length of a cuI de . sac 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 cuI de sac that Pappas pr-oposed exceed1town regulation.. . '.:: Pappas asked that the .decision of the commission be' overturned and tha~ her application be approved. ])ECISION:JudgmentiDfavor'oftheapplicant: , . The court found that the commission had no basis for denying p'appas' 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 cui de sac "shall not be longer than 600 ft. measured from the center of the turnaround to the nearest street intersection." There was no. specific language that said the street could not be a dead end. Despite the clarity. of the language, the commission felt that further interpre- tation was 'necessary. The commission believed that the intention. of the regula- tion was to measure cur de sacs in relation to through streets exClusively, but the court found that this interpretation was groundless. The commission could not deny Pappas' application since it complied with the town's requirements. The plain language rule . applied in this case: "The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not use absurd or unworkable results. extra, textual ev.idence,ofthe meaning of the statute shall not be considered." lithe commission thought that the regulation was problematic, the solution was to amend the regulation - by changing "street" to "through street" - but, until that was done, Pappas' application could not be denied. see also: Schwartz v. Planning and Zoning Conunission, 543 A.2d 1339 (1988). @2006West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. 38