· 7/21/2020

500 North Avenue, LLC v. Planning Commission

Citations

  • 199 Conn. App. 115

Syllabus

The plaintiff landowner appealed from the decision of the defendant planning commission, which had concluded that the plaintiff was required to file an application for subdivision approval in order to revise the lot lines of two abutting properties that it owned. The plaintiff submitted a map of the properties to the town's planning and zoning administrator, seeking a lot line adjustment that would reduce the acreage of one property and increase the acreage of the second property by ten acres. Following a hearing, the commission denied the plaintiff's request for a lot line revision, concluding that the plaintiff's map required subdivision approval because it created a drastic change in the existing lots. There- after, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which rendered judg- ment dismissing the appeal, from which the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff's proposed lot line revision constituted a subdivision under the applicable statute (§ 8-18). Held: 1. The Superior Court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the commission's finding that the plaintiff's proposed lot line adjustment of two adjacent lots constituted a subdivision under § 8-18: because no new lot was created from the boundary adjustment that resulted in three or more parts or lots, the proposed lot line revision did not satisfy the definition of subdivision pursuant to § 8-18; although one of the properties had previously been subject to a first cut, the commission's decision that subdivision approval was required was contrary to the language of § 8-18 as the plaintiff's proposal did not divide that property a second time, resulting in three or more parts or lots. 2. The Superior Court improperly concluded that subdivision approval was required because the proposed lot line revision was more than a minor adjustment: there was nothing in the

Judges: Alvord; Prescott; Lavery

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.