199 Conn.App. 115
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background:
- 500 North Avenue, LLC owned two contiguous Stratford parcels: 795 James Farm Road (15 acres) and Peters Lane (10 acres).
- The company submitted a Mylar lot-line revision to reduce James Farm Road to 4.7 acres and enlarge Peters Lane to about 20 acres.
- Town staff memos referenced a 2003 "first cut" that had earlier created 875 James Farm Road from the original 15-acre tract.
- The Planning Commission denied the lot-line revision, concluding it was a subdivision because it dramatically reconfigured lots for development; the Superior Court affirmed.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding § 8-18 requires an actual division of one lot into three or more parts or lots and that the size or "drastic" nature of a boundary adjustment does not by itself create a subdivision.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the proposed lot-line adjustment constitute a "subdivision" under § 8-18? | No — no new lot created; statute requires division of one lot into three or more parts or lots. | Yes — because of a prior "first cut," the adjustment would produce a third part of the original tract, requiring approval. | Held: No subdivision — the proposal did not divide 795 James Farm Road a second time into three or more parts/lots. |
| Is the magnitude/drastic nature of the adjustment relevant to whether it's a subdivision? | Not relevant — statute focuses on division into 3+ parts, not size of adjustment. | Relevant — a large reconfiguration is more than a minor adjustment and should require approval. | Held: Degree of adjustment is irrelevant under § 8-18; size alone does not create a subdivision. |
| Does the phrase "parts or lots" allow "parts" to be read separately from "lots" to capture fractional divisions? | "Parts" should be read with "lots"; both mean separate whole units of a tract. | "Parts" can be read disjunctively from "lots," so creating a third part (even if merged) meets the statute. | Held: "Parts" clarifies "lots" and is not a distinct disjunctive category; read together with "lots." |
| Can purpose (development) alone make an adjustment a subdivision? | No — the statutory two-part test requires division into 3+ parts/lots first, then purpose for development. | Yes — submitted for development, so it qualifies. | Held: Purpose alone is insufficient; the division requirement is a prerequisite. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCrann v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 65 (1971) (establishes that § 8-18 requires division of a tract into three or more parts or lots to constitute a subdivision)
- Cady v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 330 Conn. 502 (2018) (clarifies that the inquiry is whether one lot has been divided into three or more lots and rejects a size/degree-based rule)
- Goodridge v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 58 Conn. App. 760 (2000) (discusses "minor" lot line adjustments but was implicitly limited by Cady)