In Federico v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 5 Conn. App. 509, 500 A.2d 576 (1985), the Court stated the proper application of the provision of 8-26: "These regulatory and statutory requirements must be read to concern zoning violations inherent in the plan itself as submitted and not . . . use violations. Such requirements relate to subdivisions plan which in and of themselves would violate zoning regulations. Examples of such conflicts include approval of a subdivision plan involving one-half acre lots in a one acre zone, or approval of a plan for a residential subdivision in an industrial area which prohibited such use." Id., 5 Conn. App. at 515. The Court stated in Federico that only zoning violations that are inherent in the plan as submitted may be a basis for denying the subdivision application. In Federico, the potential use in question would have been the residential use of the lot. If existing, the residential use would have triggered and, presumably, violated the applicable yard and frontage regulations. The court stated that "until a building permit application is filed in the future, there are no 'applicable' yard and frontage requirements." Id., 515. The court indicated that if a use implicates zoning issues properly considered for a subdivision application, and if that use is an existing and not merely a potential use, that would be a proper ground for denial of the application. The court stated "examples of such conflicts include . . . approval of a plan for a residential subdivision in an industrial area which prohibited such use." Id. The court rejected only "inchoate violations involving the use of the lot in question, which may never occur . . . ." Id.