Posted by: Patricia Salkin | September 7, 2020

CT Appeals Court Holds Boundary Line Adjustments Proposed by the Plaintiffs Did Not Constitute a Resubdivision

This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

In 1954, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Wilton approved a subdivision of property located between Millstone Road and Hickory Hill Road. In 1968, the commission approved a resubdivision of the southwesterly portion of that subdivision into twelve lots, as documented on map no. 2784 on the Wilton Land Records. At the time of this case, the plaintiffs owned six of those lots, known as lots 5 through 10 of the resubdivision, in a residential zone. Plaintiffs commenced this declaratory judgment action, alleging that the ‘‘boundary line adjustments and the addition and consolidation of the three parts of 1B to adjacent lots is allowed as a matter of law and is not a subdivision of land as defined in §8-18 … and is allowed without the approval of the commission.’’ The court ruled in favor of the defendant, and this appeal followed.

At the outset, the court noted that when the owner of multiple parcels of property proposes boundary line adjustments “that do not result in the division of one parcel into three or more lots but, rather, simply reconfigure the shape of presently existing lots”, these adjustments do not constitute a subdivision of the parcel. Here, since the plaintiffs’ proposal merely reconfigured the contours of four existing lots, and did not divide parcel 1B into three or more lots, the court properly concluded that it did not constitute a subdivision under § 8-18.

Moreover, while parcel 1B would be reduced in size, the record indicated it would nonetheless continue to exist as the remainder parcel depicted on the data accumulation plan that was admitted into evidence. The defendant failed to provide the court with no authority in which the mere inclusion of an abutting and previously existing building lot on a map – which was not part of either a prior subdivision or resubdivision- constituted the creation of an additional building lot, as that term was used in § 8-18. As such, the court held that the boundary line adjustments proposed by the plaintiffs did not constitute a resubdivision pursuant to § 8-18. The judgment was therefore reversed in part and the case was remanded with direction to render a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Jeweler v Town of Wilton, 2020 WL 5105071 (CT App. 9/1/2020)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: