This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Plaintiff Ronald S. Prisley filed this action against the Town of Deep River Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging an equal protection “class of one” claim based upon the Commission’s denial of Prisley’s 2014 re-subdivision application for a property located in Deep River, Connecticut. In this case. The court reviewed the Commission’s motion for summary judgment.
The Commission sought summary judgment on Prisley’s equal protection claim on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to identify the existence of a similarly situated comparator so as to establish differential treatment. Specifically, the Commission claimed, the two re-subdivision applications were not similarly situated due to the Plaintiff’s requested waivers – which served as acknowledgements “that he was unable to meet” each of the three regulations at issue – that had been met by its alleged comparator, 20 Hemlock Drive.
Additionally, had the application for 20 Hemlock Drive included a non-compliant building rectangle, Prisley failed to offer any evidence to overcome the Commission’s contention that the two properties were dissimilar by virtue of the fact that Prisley’s application would have yielded two rear lots; in doing so, Prisley would be violating two subdivision regulations, while the application at 20 Hemlock Drive yielded two front lots. Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
Prisley v Town of Deep River Planning and Zoning Commission, 2020 WL 4505511 (D. Ct. 8/5/2020)
Leave a Reply