AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning Commission
130 Conn. App. 36
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Zoning Commission denied AvalonBay’s 2000–2008 site plan for an affordable housing project on the Cutspring property in Stratford, citing public health and safety concerns (emergency access, traffic, wetlands, density, site design).
- AvalonBay revised its plan multiple times, adding a secondary emergency access via Circle Drive and other safety improvements, but the Commission again denied the site plan in 2008.
- Trial court ultimately upheld the denial on some grounds (notably emergency access via the Merritt Parkway underpass) and remanded for further findings, which the Supreme Court later dismissed as not final.
- This appeal centers on whether the Merritt Parkway underpass provides adequate emergency vehicle access and whether Circle Drive and wetlands impacts can sustain denial.
- The appellate court held that the underpass provides sufficient access for emergency vehicles and cannot support denial on that basis, while Circle Drive and wetlands concerns do not suffice to uphold the denial.
- The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part; AvalonBay’s appeal was sustained on the underpass issue, and the denial was not upheld on Circle Drive or wetlands grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Merritt Parkway underpass provides adequate emergency access | AvalonBay contends underpass allows timely aerial access; record shows feasibility. | Committee relied on underpass risks to justify denial. | Underpass provides sufficient emergency access; denial cannot be based on underpass alone. |
| Whether Circle Drive is a sufficient basis to deny as inadequate secondary access | Circle Drive can serve as a secondary route with reasonable accommodations. | Circle Drive is too narrow and cannot be safely widened; denial justified. | Circle Drive safety concerns do not provide a sufficient basis to deny the affordable housing site plan. |
| Whether wetlands impacts/outstanding environmental concerns outweighed affordable housing need | No new wetlands impact beyond prior plans; 2008 plan did not differ significantly to require new wetlands review. | 2008 plan changes could worsen wetlands impact and thus justify denial. | Evidence insufficient to show wetlands concerns outweighed the need for affordable housing; denial reversed on environmental grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, 271 Conn. 1 (2004) (requires proof of substantial public interests with quantified risk; plenary review if evidence exists)
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, 284 Conn. 124 (2007) (remand and final judgment standards in 8-30g appeals; wetlands interplay)
- AvalonBay Communities, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 103 Conn.App. 842 (2007) (review of emergency access and environmental grounds in housing appeals)