MacKenzie v. Planning & Zoning Commission
146 Conn. App. 406
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Real Time Investments sought a zone change of 1.15 acres from RC to DB1 and concurrent special exception/site plan approval to build a McDonald’s; it filed a metes-and-bounds description with the town clerk.
- At hearings opponents argued the proposed plan violated DB1 setback and landscaped buffer rules (parking within 30 feet of an RC zone and lack of required three-row evergreen buffer).
- Applicant presented an "original" plan (more parking, narrower driveway, no buffer) and an alternate plan (complies with setbacks/buffer by reducing parking). Applicant’s counsel represented the adjacent owner (Babu) and stated Babu had no objection to waiving the buffer.
- The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the zone change unanimously and, by 4–1 vote, granted the special exception based on the original plan while stating it was "waiving" buffer/setback requirements; the decision did not discuss authority to waive those requirements.
- Plaintiffs (owners within 100 feet) appealed, arguing (1) the commission lacked authority to vary/waive DB1 setback and buffer requirements (those powers are reserved to the zoning board of appeals and uniformity under § 8-2 prohibits case-by-case deviations); and (2) the notice filed under § 8-3(a) was inadequate. The trial court upheld both approvals; appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission could vary/waive DB1 setback and landscaped buffer requirements when granting a special exception | Commission lacked authority to vary district rules case-by-case; variance power belongs to the ZBA and § 8-2 uniformity forbids ad hoc intra-district changes | Regulations (§§117-1103, 117-900(E)) permit the commission to approve site plans with minor variations; commission acted within legislative discretion for design districts | Held: Commission acted administratively on the special exception; it could not waive/vary those requirements—special exception grant reversed (zone change unaffected) |
| Whether the plaintiffs’ challenge was moot after the adjacent owner’s property was rezoned to DB1 | Rezoning of abutter renders buffer/parking rules inapplicable, so no practical relief possible | Rezoning recorded; defendant argues appeal moot because buffer/parking rules no longer apply | Held: Not moot—plaintiffs still can obtain relief on the minimum yard setback claim (20 ft) because a setback intrusion remained; appeal proceeds on substantive merits |
| Whether the commission’s action on the special exception should be reviewed under a legislative or administrative standard when paired with a zone change | The zone change is legislative but the special exception is administrative; special exception must meet existing regulations | Defendant argued that combined application and design-district context made the special exception legislative in nature | Held: Zone change is legislative but the special exception is an administrative act subject to stricter review; commission must apply existing regulations to special exception requests |
| Whether the metes-and-bounds notice filed with the town clerk satisfied § 8-3(a) | Notice was insufficient because it referenced maps not filed with the clerk and omitted line "jogs" | Notice contained a metes-and-bounds description and referenced a compilation map on file with the zoning office; sufficient under precedent | Held: Notice complied with § 8-3(a); metes-and-bounds description and map reference were adequate to inform the public |
Key Cases Cited
- Langer v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 163 Conn. 453 (1972) (zoning commission cannot vest itself with case‑by‑case power to vary regulations; variance power belongs to zoning board of appeals)
- Weigel v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 160 Conn. 239 (1971) (zone change is legislative; special permit is administrative and must comply with regulations)
- Bridgeport v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 277 Conn. 268 (2006) (notice under § 8‑3(a) must be on file with town clerk and cannot merely incorporate maps elsewhere)
- Campion v. Board of Aldermen, 278 Conn. 500 (2006) (planned development/floating zones must still satisfy § 8‑2 uniformity; flexibility does not permit intra‑district ad hoc waivers)
- Zimnoch v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 302 Conn. 535 (2011) (distinguishing legislative zone change from administrative special exception; combined applications require separate analyses)
- Veseskis v. Bristol Zoning Commission, 168 Conn. 358 (1975) (uniformity requirement forbids creating special zoning rules or buffers for a single parcel within a district)