The applicants applied to the commission for permission to subdivide their four acre parcel of property located in Avon into two lots, each lot comprised of two acres. The property was zoned as a residential use and was originally part of a larger thirty-four acre parcel, which had previously been subdivided. The relevant section of the zoning regulations established a maximum density for parcels in the residential zone of 0.3 families per acre as well as establishing two acres as the minimum lot area in the zone. The commission approved the application because they relied on its historical practice of looking back to the parent parcel of land as it existed in 1957 when the towns zoning regulations were adopted. The commission determined that because the parent parcel had been previously subdivided, two more lots could be created from the applicants’ property. Surrounding neighbors brought suit arguing that the commission’s decision violated the maximum density requirement of the zoning regulations.
The trial court held that the commission had violated the zoning regulations by calculating the density requirement in the applicable zoning regulations. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Connecticut found that nothing in the language of the regulation required that the density requirement is to be calculated with regard to each proposed lot at the time that a subdivision application is filed with regard to that lot. Moreover, despite the absence of a definition for “parcel”, the court found the term to be ambiguous because the density requirement of the regulation is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations: (1) density is to be calculated based on the single tract of land or parcel that exists at the time a subdivision application is made; or (2) density is to be calculated based on the single tract of land or parcel that existed at the time that the subdivision requirements were first applied. Applying these interpretations the court concluded that the plot in question constituted a plot of parcel of land occupied of being occupied by one principal building determining the land use form consistent with the subdivision regulations and thus can be a parcel within the meaning of a definition.
The Court then looked at the definition of “subdivision” and to see whether the statute supports the commission’s interpretation that “parcel” in the regulations refers to the parent parcel that existed prior to the initial subdivision. The regulation stated that subdivision was defined as “the division of a tract or parcel of land into three or more parts or lots made subsequent to the adoption of subdivision regulations by the commission. . .” (Avon zoning regulations § IV(A)(5)) The court therefore found that the commission’s historical interpretation of the density requirement gave effect to both the density requirement and the minimum lot area requirement of the zoning regulations and concluded that the trial court improperly determined that the commission incorrectly construed the term parcel in the density regulation as applying to the parent parcel of the property because the commission reasonably and consistently has interpreted the regulation for many years which gives its decision considerable weight to that interpretation.
Newman v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, 289 Conn. 209, 976 A.2d 698 (8/25/2009)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR293/293CR148.pdf
