139 Conn. App. 256
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Eureka V, LLC challenged Ridgefield planning and zoning commission decisions denying complete denial of watershed development and imposing restrictions on nonwatershed vs watershed areas.
- The subject property is a 153-acre Ridgefield parcel, with 67 acres in the Saugatuck Reservoir watershed.
- Plaintiff sought amendments to zoning map and regulations to create a housing opportunity development zone with a plan for affordable housing.
- The commission approved amendments with restrictions: density cap, sewer connections required, and a watershed ban on development and sewer lines.
- Plaintiff pursued § 8-30g appeals; the Superior Court largely sustained the restrictions but remanded for reasonable terms on nonwatershed portions.
- Court reversed, holding the restrictions were not necessary to protect substantial public health or safety interests under § 8-30g(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the watershed ban was necessary to protect public health or safety. | Restriction necessary to protect health/safety. | Ban justified by protecting drinking water. | Not necessary; ban not supported by record evidence. |
| Whether prohibiting sewer lines through the watershed area was necessary to protect the water supply. | Restrictions not necessary; alternatives existed. | Sewer through watershed poses unacceptable risk; required ban. | Not proven necessary; evidence favored less restrictive density. |
| Whether the density restriction on nonwatershed area was arbitrary and not necessary. | Density limits hinder viability of affordable housing. | Density as reasonable measure to protect water supply. | Density of two units/acre not necessary; 1 unit/2 acres would suffice. |
| Whether plaintiff was statutorily aggrieved and properly in court under § 8-30g (f). | Aggrievement established by potential substantial adverse impact. | Plaintiff lacked aggrievement evidence. | Plaintiff proved aggrievement; appeal properly brought. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, 271 Conn. 1 (2004) (plenary review when record shows potential harm to public interests; mixed factual/legal review)
- Kaufman v. Zoning Commission, 232 Conn. 122 (1995) (must show evidence of potential harm and probability of harm; record must quantify or estimate harm)
- Christian Activities Council, Congregational v. Town Council, 249 Conn. 566 (1999) (§ 8-30g remedial statute; aims to guard against pretextual denials)
- Wisniowski v. Planning Commission, 37 Conn. App. 303 (1995) (agency cannot deny zone change for affordable housing on basis of noncompliance with regs without aggrievement)
- West Hartford Interfaith Coalition, Inc. v. Town Council, 228 Conn. 498 (1994) (interpretation and scope of § 8-30g; liberal construction in favor of affordable housing)