Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin Common law in Illinois could have afforded Peters a remedy. Case law in the state had demonstrated that a clause in the state consti- tution guaranteed landowners in Peters' position relief. The clause stated that: "[w]hen the Constitution rorbid...the taking or damaging or private property without just cOD?-pensation and point[ed] out no remedy, and no statute affordled] one, ror the invasion or the right or property thus secured, the common law, which afford[ed] a remedy ror every wrong, [would] furnish the appropriate action ror the re- dress of such grievance." Because Peters had not pursued relief under common law remedies, the lower court had correctly dismissed the case ror lack or ripeness. The decision or the district court was arfirmed. See also: Roe v. Cook County, 358 Ill. 568, 193 N.E. 472 (1934). Subdivision-,.-- Town allows subdivision based on density formula not used for 50 years Neighbors claim subdivision creates lots that are too small Citation: Newman v. Avon Planning & Zoning Com'n, 2007 WL 2390436 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007) CONl\i~CTICUTI (08/0ll07)-Markow owned a rour-acre parcel or land it"'1 the Stonefield subdivision in the town or Avon. She applied to divide the lot into two, two-acre lots. The subdivision was approved, despite complaints rrom other Stonefield property owners. They claimed that the resulting lots violated a section or the town zoning regulations that provided any residential dwelling lot be a minimum or 3.33 acres. Importantly, the town clailTIed that the subdivision was proper based on a density rormula that took the "root" or "parent" parcel into ac- count. The town determined that the parent parcel, which was first cre- ated in 1957, consisted or 34 acres. From that, the town applied the density rormula that was it"'1 existen~e at the time or the subdivision or .3 ramilies per acre, which would all.ow ror a total or 10.2 lots. Because only eight lots existed at the time or the subdivision request, the tOVVl1 argued that two more lots could lega.lly eXist within the subdivision. A group or neighbors challenged the' subdivision in court. Decision: Challenge upheld. Ordinarily, the decision or a planning COmIDlSSlOn "was emrust- ed with the runction or applying its own regulations" and its decision would be invalidated only ir not supported by substantial evidence on 6 52