Skip to main content
· 7/11/2024

131 Beach Road, LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission

Citations

  • 349 Conn. 647

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 8-30g (a) (2)), an ''affordable housing application'' is defined as ''any application made to a [zoning] commission in connection with an affordable housing development . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 8-30g (g) (1)), in an appeal from a zoning commission's denial or conditional approval of an affordable housing application, it is the zoning commission's burden to demonstrate, based on the evidence in the record, that ''(A) the decision [being appealed] is necessary to protect substantial public interests in health, safety or other matters which the commission may legally consider; (B) such public interests clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing; and (C) such public interests cannot be protected by reasonable changes to the affordable housing development . . . .'' The plaintiff, which owned real property in the town of Fairfield, filed an application with the defendant town plan and zoning commission, seek- ing a text amendment to the town's zoning regulations, as well as the approval of a site plan and the issuance of a certificate of zoning compli- ance, in connection with the plaintiff's plan to build an affordable hous- ing development on its property. The proposed development consisted of a forty unit, five story building that had a maximum height of sixty feet. The plaintiff's property, however, was located in the town's residence A zone district, wherein permissible uses were limited to single family dwellings that have a maximum height of two and one-half stories or thirty-two feet. Following a public hearing, the commission denied the plaintiff's request for a text amendment to the zoning regulations, which would have created a new permissible use for affordable housing within the residence A zone district, but conditionally approved the plaintiff's request for a site plan and certificate of zoning compliance, provided that the plaintiff, inter alia, reduced the height of the proposed building 648 SEPTEMBER, 2024 349

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Dannehy; Clark

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.