Dauti Construction, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission
125 Conn. App. 665
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Dauti Construction LLC owns 95 Church Hill Road and is contract purchaser of 99 Church Hill Road; combined property ~4.5 acres.
- In Feb. 2006, Dauti applied to the commission for a zone change to build 23 residential units on the 95 Church Hill Road parcel.
- In Aug. 2006, after a preliminary review, the water and sewer authority recommended denial of the zone change for sewer capacity reasons.
- Following the denial, Dauti contracted to purchase the adjacent 99 Church Hill Road parcel and submitted a 8-30g affordable housing application in Oct. 2006 for a 26-unit development with 30% affordable units, including removal of the existing multifamily at 99 Road that had an existing sewer connection.
- Public hearings occurred Dec. 7, 2006 to Jan. 18, 2007; the water and sewer authority advised in Jan. 2007 that the development did not meet current zoning and that there was insufficient sewer capacity.
- On Apr. 5, 2007 the commission denied the affordable housing application for lack of an adequate sewage disposal plan; Dauti appealed to the trial court, which ultimately sustained the appeals and remanded for modifications, including aquifer protections and reallocation of unit designations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sewer denial ceased to justify the denial | Dauti contends the sewer denial no longer supports denial after the water authority ruling was invalidated. | Newtown argues ongoing validity of sewer-based denial and procedural remand concerns. | Yes; sewer denial no longer valid basis. |
| Whether trial court should wait for final judgment on sewer appeal | Concurrent decisions warranted simultaneous resolution of appeals. | Decision should wait until sewer dispute finalizes. | No; simultaneous rulings permissible. |
| Whether remand for modifications was proper rather than dismissal | Court could require modifications to cure statutory/regulatory defects. | Modifications improper for statutory nonconformance; should dismiss. | Remand for reasonable modifications proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, 271 Conn. 1 (2004) (affordable housing appeal standard; plenary review when evidence supports public-interest harms)
- Quarry Knoll II Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 256 Conn. 674 (2001) (scope of trial court review aligned with appellate review on record-based appeals)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 103 Conn.App. 724 (2007) (ditch ambush and trial-by-ambuscade concerns in appellate procedure)
- Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838 (2008) (statutory construction vs. administrative appeal standards)