Cady v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Burlington, 330 Conn. 502

Defendant (GM Retirement, LLC) owns a 1.63-acre parcel formerly composed of four lots; after a 1959 state taking for Route 179 there were three conforming lots in existence by 1958–59.
Defendant acquired and later recombined parcels; in 2014 it submitted a May 22, 2014 lot-line revision map reconfiguring three existing lots into three reconfigured lots (30,261; 16,866; 24,057 sq ft), each meeting the size requirement for lots in existence as of October 1, 1983.
Zoning enforcement officer Burdick approved the lot-line revision as not requiring subdivision review, and the Burlington Zoning Board of Appeals (the board) upheld that determination after a public hearing.
Plaintiff (Cady) appealed administratively and in trial court, arguing the reconfiguration constituted a "subdivision" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-18 and therefore the lots had to meet the larger minimum area for subdivisions created after October 1, 1983.
The trial court reversed the board, concluding the revision created a new lot (not a minor adjustment) and thus was a subdivision; it applied § III.F.7 of the Burlington zoning regulations and found one lot nonconforming.
The Supreme Court reversed: it held the board’s factual findings (three preexisting lots) were supported by substantial evidence, § 8-18 was not triggered because no single parcel was divided into three or more parts, and § III.F.7 did not apply because the resulting lots met the pre-1983 lot-size standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant's lot-line reconfiguration constituted a "subdivision" under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-18	The reconfiguration created a new lot (one lot divided into three or a change more than a "minor" adjustment) and thus is a subdivision subject to the larger minimum lot area requirement	The map merely reconfigured three preexisting lots into three conforming lots; no single tract was divided into three or more parts, so § 8-18 does not apply	Reversed trial court: not a subdivision because § 8-18 requires division of a tract into three or more parts; board's finding that three lots preexisted 1983 was supported by substantial evidence
Whether § III.F.7 (preexisting nonconforming-lot exception) applied	Trial court treated one resultant lot as new and applied § III.F.7 to assess preexisting status and conformity to larger post-1983 standards	Defendant argued revised lots meet the pre-1983 lot-area standard, so § III.F.7 (which applies only to undersized lots seeking to use a preexisting exception) was inapplicable	§ III.F.7 did not apply because the reconfigured lots met the minimum area for lots in existence as of October 1, 1983; thus no nonconforming-lot exception analysis was required

McCrann v. Town Plan & Zoning Comm'n, 161 Conn. 65 (statutory definition of subdivision requires division of a tract into three or more parts)
Goodridge v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 58 Conn. App. 760 (minor lot-line adjustments that create no new lot do not constitute a subdivision under § 8-18)
Newman v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 293 Conn. 209 (assessment of subdivision/density must consider the original tract as of the triggering regulation date)
Caruso v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 320 Conn. 315 (standard of review for zoning board decisions; substantial evidence rule)
Kuchta v. Arisian, 329 Conn. 530 (principles of statutory construction applied when interpreting statutes like § 8-18)