Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007

Home

September 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 18 the record. In this case, there was nothing in the regulations to supporr the decision of the commission. The neighbors challenged the action of the town, acting as a plamling cOllli-IDssion, because it was based on a density application dating back SO years, which was not described in any regulation or written docu- ment. General law relating to the subdivision of land provided: "Before executing the powers granted in this section, the commission shall adopt regulations covering the subdivision of land." Furthermore, the state su- preme court had held that: "the adoption of rules and regulations [was] mandatory" and that an administrative zoning commission was bound by its regUlations because "the planning power of the cOllli-IDssion [was] derived from the general starutes." The town's subdivision regulations required that all subdivided lots comply with a~l relevant zoning Regulations. The property in question was in a residential zone that w~s required by regulation to have a mini- mum acreage of 3.3 acres. In approving the subdivision, the commis- sion relied on a traditional practice of going back to the "parent parcel" which existed in 1957, when the subdivision regulations were adopted and applied a density formula taking into consideration all the other lots which constiruted the "parent parcel" and determined that the' ex- cess acreage of those lots made the re-subdivision of the subject prop- erty permissible. The problem w-i.th this calculation was that it did not appear any- where in the zoning or subdivision regulations, recorded maps, or the recotd of the commission's decision making process. General law em- phasized the importance of regulations being put irl vnitingand re- quired pritLted copies to be made to the public. The court noted that: "The preservation and use of traditional zoning and planning practices, particularly those grandfathering old zoning re- quirements, [was] not uncOllli'"1l0n, but [did] not have perpetual life, es- pecially when challenged on the basis of a current zoning requirement." Furthermore, prospective or present O~7ners of nearby lots "should not be required to rely on a historical formula for calculating density, not set forill in some regulation available to the public and not ascertain- able without some esoteric search into historic commission procedures, which would not yield any written authority, but only the oral testimo- ny of commission staff or members." Because the decision of the town was not supported by sufficient evi- dence and relied only upon an unwritten practice for formulating lot density, the court voided the decision for being in violation of the town's rnitLimum lot size requirement. 7 53