[Download] "Crescent Development Corp. v. Planning Comm." by Supreme Court of Connecticut # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Crescent Development Corp. v. Planning Comm.
- Author : Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 21, 1961
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 58 KB
Description
The plaintiff bought a tract of land, a
portion of which was bounded on the east by Ponus
Street, in New Canaan of the entire tract, about
thirteen acres lay in New Canaan and forty acres
in Stamford. Although the Stamford and New Canaan
portions were contiguous, only the portion bounded
by Ponus Street abutted a public highway. In
pursuance of a plan to subdivide the entire tract
for residential development, the plaintiff filed a
preliminary application with the defendant, the
New Canaan town planning commission, seeking
approval of the proposed subdivision of the New
Canaan land. This action was taken in accordance
with what are now 8-25 and 8-26 of the General
Statutes, providing that no subdivision of land
shall be made until a plan for it has been
approved by the town planning commission, and
that if a subdivision plan is disapproved by the
commission the grounds of disapproval shall be
stated in the records of the commission. See
Purtill v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 146 Conn. 570,
572, 153 A.2d 441; Langbein v. Planning Board,
145 Conn. 674, 679, 146 A.2d 412; Levinsky v. Zoning
Commission, 144 Conn. 117, 123, 127 A.2d 822. The plaintiff's proposed subdivision
contemplated the division of the New Canaan
property into five house lots with a roadway
running through it westerly from Ponus Street to
the Stamford property at the Stamford line. At
the hearing before the defendant, the plaintiff
explained that its proposed subdivision of the
Stamford property into some thirty-three house
lots, with access to Ponus Street, a public
highway, over the roadway through the New Canaan
subdivision, had been approved by the Stamford
authorities. After a hearing, the defendant
voted that the plaintiff's preliminary plan for
[148 Conn. 148]