LOMBARDO v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

13674

38 Conn. App. 812 (1995) | Cited 0 times | Connecticut Appellate Court | August 22, 1995

The dispositive issues in this appeal arewhether the trial court improperly (1) reviewed thedefendant planning and zoning commission's approvalof the defendant Paul Wright's1 applications for a specialpermit and for subdivision approval for the sameparcel of land as one subdivision application rather thanreviewing each approval separately pursuant to theregulations that governed each application, and (2)determined that the subdivision regulations were not

[38 Conn. App. 814]

     met because rear lots are prohibited in a subdivisionand one lot had no direct access to a public street, asrequired by the regulations.

The plaintiff, Dianne Lombardo, appealed to theSuperior Court from the decisions of the planning andzoning commission of the town of Manchester grantingWright's applications for a special permit and subdivisionapproval. The trial court sustained the appealsand Wright appealed to this court upon our grantingof his petition for certification. We affirm the judgmentof the trial court.

The following facts are necessary for the resolutionof this appeal. On April 22, 1992, Wright applied to thecommission for a special permit to create a rear lot ofapproximately 5.30 acres from a 7.23 acre lot knownas 175 Bolton Road. Wright simultaneously filed anapplication to subdivide the balance of the acreage intotwo front lots of approximately one acre each. The commissiongranted both applications, and the plaintifftimely appealed the decision on August 31, 1992. OnSeptember 28, 1992, Wright filed two separate applicationsrequesting the same approvals that he hadpreviously received for a rear lot and a subdivision.These subsequent applications were apparentlyintended to correct irregularities in the original applicationthat were raised by the plaintiff's appeal. Theapplication for a rear lot was granted on December 7,1992, and the subdivision application was approved onJanuary 4, 1993. The plaintiff timely appealed from thecommission's granting of the two subsequent applications,and the trial court consolidated the three appeals.

The plaintiff asserted in the trial court that the commission'sapproval of the applications was improperbecause they resulted in a subdivision that did not meetthe requirements of the regulations. Wright arguedthat he had a right to create a rear lot first and thereafter

[38 Conn. App. 815]

     to divide the resulting acreage into two front lots.The trial court agreed with the plaintiff, stating: "Therecord is clear that Wright sought in his simultaneousapplications and site plan to divide his property intothree lots and that the commission failed to require himto comply with the subdivision regulations which, ontheir face, applied to the creation of three lots fromone parcel of land."

We agree with the trial court's resolution of all ofthe issues as set forth in its thorough and thoughtfulmemorandum of decision. Lombardo v. Planning &Zoning Commission, 43 Conn. Sup. 508, 663 A.2d 1128(1994). The court's memorandum of decision fullyaddresses the issues raised by the defendant in thepresent appeal. We, therefore, adopt its decision as astatement of the facts and applicable law on theseissues. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat thediscussion contained therein. See Greater BridgeportTransit District v. State Board of Labor Relations,232 Conn. 57, 64, 653 A.2d 151 (1995); Advanced BusinessSystems, Inc. v. Crystal, 231 Conn. 378, 381,650 A.2d 540 (1994); Fromer v. Freedom of Information Commission,36 Conn. App. 155, 158, 649 A.2d 540 (1994).

The judgments are affirmed.

1. Wright and the planning and zoning commission of the townof Manchester were the defendants in the underlying action. OnlyWright has appealed the trial

The dispositive issues in this appeal arewhether the trial court improperly (1) reviewed thedefendant planning and zoning commission's approvalof the defendant Paul Wright's1 applications for a specialpermit and for subdivision approval for the sameparcel of land as one subdivision application rather thanreviewing each approval separately pursuant to theregulations that governed each application, and (2)determined that the subdivision regulations were not

[38 Conn. App. 814]

     met because rear lots are prohibited in a subdivisionand one lot had no direct access to a public street, asrequired by the regulations.

The plaintiff, Dianne Lombardo, appealed to theSuperior Court from the decisions of the planning andzoning commission of the town of Manchester grantingWright's applications for a special permit and subdivisionapproval. The trial court sustained the appealsand Wright appealed to this court upon our grantingof his petition for certification. We affirm the judgmentof the trial court.

The following facts are necessary for the resolutionof this appeal. On April 22, 1992, Wright applied to thecommission for a special permit to create a rear lot ofapproximately 5.30 acres from a 7.23 acre lot knownas 175 Bolton Road. Wright simultaneously filed anapplication to subdivide the balance of the acreage intotwo front lots of approximately one acre each. The commissiongranted both applications, and the plaintifftimely appealed the decision on August 31, 1992. OnSeptember 28, 1992, Wright filed two separate applicationsrequesting the same approvals that he hadpreviously received for a rear lot and a subdivision.These subsequent applications were apparentlyintended to correct irregularities in the original applicationthat were raised by the plaintiff's appeal. Theapplication for a rear lot was granted on December 7,1992, and the subdivision application was approved onJanuary 4, 1993. The plaintiff timely appealed from thecommission's granting of the two subsequent applications,and the trial court consolidated the three appeals.

The plaintiff asserted in the trial court that the commission'sapproval of the applications was improperbecause they resulted in a subdivision that did not meetthe requirements of the regulations. Wright arguedthat he had a right to create a rear lot first and thereafter

[38 Conn. App. 815]

     to divide the resulting acreage into two front lots.The trial court agreed with the plaintiff, stating: "Therecord is clear that Wright sought in his simultaneousapplications and site plan to divide his property intothree lots and that the commission failed to require himto comply with the subdivision regulations which, ontheir face, applied to the creation of three lots fromone parcel of land."

We agree with the trial court's resolution of all ofthe issues as set forth in its thorough and thoughtfulmemorandum of decision. Lombardo v. Planning &Zoning Commission, 43 Conn. Sup. 508, 663 A.2d 1128(1994). The court's memorandum of decision fullyaddresses the issues raised by the defendant in thepresent appeal. We, therefore, adopt its decision as astatement of the facts and applicable law on theseissues. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat thediscussion contained therein. See Greater BridgeportTransit District v. State Board of Labor Relations,232 Conn. 57, 64, 653 A.2d 151 (1995); Advanced BusinessSystems, Inc. v. Crystal, 231 Conn. 378, 381,650 A.2d 540 (1994); Fromer v. Freedom of Information Commission,36 Conn. App. 155, 158, 649 A.2d 540 (1994).

The judgments are affirmed.

1. Wright and the planning and zoning commission of the townof Manchester were the defendants in the underlying action. OnlyWright has appealed the trial

Case Summary:
To generate a summary for LOMBARDO v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION click here.
Back to top