Plaintiff applied to subdivide property located along a public street into a 5-lot residential subdivision, with the construction of a cul-de-sac to intersect with the public street.  A school was located about 30 yards away from the proposed intersection.  At the public hearing, numerous residents testified that the proposed subdivision would exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems along the public street, particularly during the start and end of the school day. A study of traffic prepared by the plaintiff indicated that the development would have “an insignificant, if any, impact on the overall operation of Pansy Road or any of the nearby intersection.”  The zoning commission, however, unanimously voted to deny the application.  The trial court concluded that the Town properly considered off-site traffic congestion in denying the application, and that substantial evidence was present in the record to support that decision.  

The Supreme Court said that since the planning commission was acting in an administrative capacity when it reviewed the subdivision application, it had no discretion or choice but to approve the subdivision if it conforms to the regulations.  Since the property was zoned residential, the Court said it is presumed that the proposed use does not adversely affect traffic within the zone, and therefore the Commission cannot deny the application based on existing off-site traffic congestion. Further, the Court found that the record showed no consideration by the commission of alternate locations for the intersection or other similar, properly limited considerations, instead, it simply denied the application. The Court reversed the trial court and remanded directing the trial court to sustain the plaintiff’s appeal.  

Pansy Road, LLC v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Fairfield, 283 Conn. 369, 926 A.2d 1029 (2007), also available at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR283/283CR106.pdf