## Facts

- Lynn and Jeff Andrews owned property in Wallingford, Connecticut and filed a subdivision application.
- The proposed lots would be accessed from an existing public road located in North Branford, not from a Wallingford road.
- While the application was pending, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Wallingford proposed an amendment to its subdivision regulations: “All proposed streets shall be connected to existing public roads within the Town of Wallingford.”
- A public hearing on the amendment occurred on October 15, 2003; the trial court found it was extremely brief, with no input from the fire department, police department, or board of education, and no public comment.
- The town planner stated the amendment would ensure police, fire, and school buses could reach the subdivision from Wallingford.
- The commission adopted the amendment, which effectively barred approval of the Andrews’ proposal as submitted.
- The Andrews appealed to the Superior Court, claiming the commission exceeded its authority under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-25; the court sustained the appeal and declared the amendment null and void.
- The commission appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-25 authorized a subdivision regulation requiring all proposed subdivision streets to connect only to existing public roads within the town.
2. Whether the commission established that the locality-only road-connection requirement was necessary to protect public health and safety under § 8-25.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment sustaining the Andrews’ appeal.
- The court held the commission exceeded its statutory authority under § 8-25 by adopting the in-town road-connection requirement.
- The court agreed the record did not support the claim that the amendment was necessary for public health and safety.
- The amendment was properly declared null and void.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal planning and zoning commission has no inherent power; it may act only under authority expressly granted or necessarily implied by its enabling statute.
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-25 authorizes subdivision regulations concerning street arrangement and coordination and measures tied to public health and safety, but does not expressly authorize a categorical ban on subdivision street connections to roads in neighboring towns.
- When an agency asserts a regulation is justified as a health and safety measure, the record must provide a factual basis showing the restriction is reasonably necessary to serve that statutory purpose.
- Judicial deference to local land-use decisions does not extend to enlarging an agency’s statutory authority; the existence and scope of authority is a legal question for the courts.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a subdivision regulation requiring all subdivision streets to connect only to existing town roads because § 8-25 did not confer that power expressly or by necessary implication, and the commission failed to create a record showing the restriction was necessary for public health and safety.


Andrews v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of the Town of Wallingford, 97 Conn. App. 316, 904 A.2d 275 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)