Andrews v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Wallingford
Connecticut Appellate Court
97 Conn. App. 316, 904 A.2d 275 (2006)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Lynn Andrews (plaintiff) and Jeff Andrews (plaintiff) owned property in the town of Wallingford, Connecticut. The Andrews applied to subdivide their land to the town planning-and-zoning commission (the commission) (defendant). Pursuant to the application, access to the subdivision was to be through an existing road in the nearby town of North Branford. After the Andrews submitted their application, the commission applied to amend its subdivision regulations to add a requirement that all proposed subdivision streets be connected to public roads within the town of Wallingford. The commission held a brief meeting at which the town engineer expressed the opinion that the Andrews’ proposed subdivision should be connected to an existing road within Wallingford so that the town’s police, fire department, and school buses could access the subdivision from Wallingford. No evidence was presented to support the town engineer’s statement, and the commission did not seek input from the fire department, the police department, or the school board. After the brief meeting, the commission approved the amendment to the subdivision regulations. The Andrews appealed the commission’s decision to the trial court, which declared the amendment null and void. The trial court reasoned that the commission had exceeded its statutory authority. The commission appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (DiPentima, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.