2011 Ct. Sup. 5585
No. CV09 502 74 48Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
February 22, 2011

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]


The appellant has filed an appeal from the action of the Weston Planning and Zoning Commission (“Commission”) in approving an application for a subdivision of a parcel of land and, in a separate proceeding, issued a certificate of zoning compliance. The appellant is an abutting land owner and is aggrieved and therefore has standing to assert the claims made.

Ms. Fash (The Victoria R. Fash Living Trust) bought a parcel of land in 1993, consisting of 2.9531 acres on which her home is located. The following year Ms. Fash purchased an adjacent parcel of vacant land consisting of 4.6994 acres. In 2008 Ms. Fash received a communication from a zoning official of the Town of Weston indicating that her two lots might need subdivision approval because the zoning official had been advised that, in 1959, a deed of .86 acres from one of the lots had previously been conveyed by one of her predecessors in title.

The appellant makes various claims including a claim that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to authorize a two-lot subdivision by virtue of the provisions of General Statutes § 8-18 which provides, in part, as follows:

Section 8-18 Definitions. As used in this chapter . . .”subdivision” means the division of a tract or parcel of land into three or more parts or lots made subsequent to the adoption of the subdivision regulations by the Commission.

The appellant also claims that the action of the Commission was improper because there is a failure to comply with a driveway ordinance and because there was no Wetlands approval.

CT Page 5586 There may be at issue of whether subdivision approval was required in the first instance depending upon whether the 1959 conveyance by a predecessor in title was a minor lot line adjustment or a division of land. See such cases as Goodridge v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 58 Conn.App. 760 (2000), and Balf v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 2006 W.L. 852258 (Satter, J.) [40 Conn. L. Rptr. 876].

It was appropriate for the Planning Commission to view this factual history of the transfers of property to determine whether the transfers complied with its subdivision rules. Accordingly, the Commission had jurisdiction to make that determination.

There is no contemplated construction on either of the parcels of land owned by Ms. Fash and Ms. Fash admits that if any construction or improvements are contemplated numerous permits will be applied for and obtained. The Wetlands Commission determined that an inspection was not needed since there was no proposed work to be done that would impact the Wetlands.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

CT Page 5587