HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING AMENDMENT, BUFFER ZONES (DENIED) TOWN OF SOUTH W7NDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION a
a
Application No. I The Camassion will Qf ficially receive applicati ons
Received Date: at its .�Au1ar meeting-6n_the 4th Tuesday, of the
Action or Pub 1 i c Hearing by: nLz, provided it has been submitted to'the Can fission
C-a;*-an, Secretary or agent by 4:30-P.M., on the
Receipt No. pr:ceding day-
APPLICANT : Barbara Barbour and Wnsyl Szestnknw
ADDRESS : 5 Old Parish Drive, S. Windsor Old Parish Drive S. Windsor
OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS :
ADDRESS :
COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
ZONE
NAME , ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE
DIRECTED: Barbara Barbour, 5 Old Parish Drive South Windsor Connecticut 06074
TELEPHONE 289-2426
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING)
1. Zone Change- to (public hearing required)
2 . Filing for Subdivision
3. Filing for Open Space Subdivision (public hearing required)
4 . Filing for Resubdivision (public hearing required)
5 . Special Exception to Article (public hearing required)
6. Site Plan of Development
7 . Removal of Sand, Gravel , Clay or Quarry Stone & Ore (public
hearing required)
XXXX 8 . Other (explain in detail) amend regulations to provide for a
3)0' buffer industrial park - residential zone (Section 4.8-4.4)
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
AND SUBMITTED WITH 6 SETS OF PLANS (7 sets if public hearing is required)
BEFORE IT IS RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.
Applicant 0W`IER
INDUSIRI aL PART{ ZOI E (Coat'd.)
4.8.4.4 Buffer Areas
Where required by the Commission, landscaped buffer areas
shall be established to mitigate visual, noise and other
impacts between residential and industrial zones and l4:nd
uses.
All buffer areas shall be designed by a qualified
landscape professional. The buffer design shall be
portrayed on the landscaping plan.
Wherever lot lines abut any residential zone, a landscaDed
buffer area shall be established NO LESS THAI`: * HUMIUD
3,00) FEET in width. All buffer areas are in addition to
the required yards. Moreover, where deemed necessary by
the Commission to mitigate potential adverse impacts, he
above buffer area may also be required where lot li es
abut any residential use not in a residential zone.
Front yard landscaping Shall not obstruct line-of-sight
for vehicles entering and exiting the premises, nor shall
it unduly obstruct line-of-sight for vehicles traveling on
abutting Town or State highways. Corner visibility shall
be maintained consistent with Section 3.9 of t iese
regulations.
Cat * THREE ud
I
Reference: Proposed Amendment to 4.8.4.4 of the South Windsor Zoning Re ulations
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Facts:
Currently before the Planning 6 Zoning Commission is a proposal to 'ncrease the
presently required 50' buffer between Residential and Industrial Park zones to a
300' buffer zone. There currently exist only two (2) viable IP zoned parcels cap-
able of development in South Windsor. The larger of these parcels s owned by
Capuano Developers and is now known as "Governors Square" (it was forme ly known as
"Park Center"). The Town has already made a substantial financial c mmitment to
promoting proper commercial/industrial development on this site. Capuan Developers
currently has two (2) parcels under construction with immediate plans to commence
development of the third and fourth parcels upon approval.
The overall site plan submitted in May, 1987 to the Planni & Zoning
Commission shows a capability of development of 706,750 squar feet of
commercial/industrial facilities.
If the new proposed ordinance is adopted, the overall developmen capability
will be reduced by approximately 300,000 square feet. The result of tie ordinance
will be to severely and permanently impair the ability of the owner to utilize its
property.
I
ALTER AND PURT ILL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 155 SYCAMORE STREET. P 0 BOX 935. GLAS TONBURY.CONNECTICUT 06033 • (203)6�90569•JUR15 NO 101951
i
Statutory Authority.:
Connecticut General Statutes 8-2 provides the authority for the zoning commis-
sion of a town to enact regulations to control development within the community.
Such authority is not without limitation. The statute states in part:
Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration a
to the character of the district and its particular suitability
for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of
the buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land
throughout the municipality.
Legal u on y:
A regulation that effectively renders land useless to provide a buffer between
two districts has been held to be a misuse of the police power. See Anderson,
American Law of Zoning, 3rd 53.27, and cases cited therein. In a New York case
(Vernon Park Realty v. Mt. Vernon, 307 NY 493 (1954)) , the Court stated:
However compelling and acute the community (traffic) problem may
be, its solution does not lie in placing an undue and unco
pensated burden on the individual owner of a single parcel of
land in the guise of regulation, even for a public purpose.
In Bartlett v. Zoning Commission, 161 Conn. 24 (1971) , the Connecticut Supreme
Court held that new regulations (regarding wetland filling) would deprive the owner
of any reasonable use of the land; and, therefore, the regulations were so unreason-
able and confiscatory as to constitute a taking of land for public use without
compensation.
2
ALTER AND PURTILL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 155 SYCAMORE STREET, P 0 BOX 935. GLASTONBURY.CONNECTICUT 06033 • (203)65 0569•JURIS NO 101951
Uniformly, ordinances have been held unconstitutional when Courts have found
that the use value has been severely reduced , substantially decreased r substan-
tially depreciated by an ordinance which made little or no contribution to the pub-
lic health, safety, morals or general welfare. Such ordinances are regarded as
confiscatory and void although their impact upon use value falls short Df complete
destruction thereof. See Anderson, American Law of Zoning, 3rd 53.26 ( pp. 173-174
and cases cited therein.)
In Veseskis v. Bristol Zoning Commission, 168 Conn. 358, 360 (1975) , our
Supreme Court held:
To require by zoning regulation a buffer strip between one zon
of a particular classification and another zone of a different
class in one specific instance and not in other instances whe
zones of these two zone classifications abut clearly violate
the statutory uniformity requirement and is exactly the arbi-
trary and discriminatory use of the police power which the
statute was designed to prevent. See 1 Anderson, American La
of Zoning 553.13, 5.17; Bassett, Zoning, pp. 51-52.
Conclusion•
The site most impacted by the regulation has been determined to biE a primary
area of commercial/industrial development in South Windsor. Developmeni should be
carried on in accordance with the Town Plan of Development and Comprehens've Plan.
The proposed ordinance would reduce the developability of this parc 1 by 30% -
50% and would result in a dramatic loss in value to the owner as well as huge loss
of tax revenue to the Town of South Windsor.
3
ALTER AND PURTILL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 155 SYCAMORE STREET. P 0 BOX 935. GLA5T0NBURY CONNECTICUT 06033 • (203)659 69•JURIS NO 101951
i
The proponents have provided little or no evidence of what public benefit would
be served by the ordinance except to illegally expand the residential zone line by
creating a non-developable buffer.
The Commission must examine the proposal's "public benefit'! for the entire
community, not simply a limited number of adjoining residences. Thelloss of develop-
able land and the concomitant loss of tax revenue to the entire Town is a substan-
tial burden imposed on the entire community at the expense of the eveloper for the
benefit of a very few residents.
For the following reasons, the proposed ordinance should be re ected:
1. It is beyond the Commission's statutory authority;
2. The amendment would result in a "taking" of the owner's proper y without
compensation; and
3. The ordinance would deprive the entire community of a subs antial tax bene-
fit for the benefit of a relatively few residential properties.
Respectfully submitted,
CAPUANO DEVELOPERS
By
Peter Ja Alter
/Its Attorney
4
ALTER AND PURTILL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 155 SYCAMORE STREET, P 0 BOX 935 GL ASTONBURY,CONNECTICUT 06033 1 (203)659-0 9•JURI5 NO 101951
LAW OFFICES
KUEHN. CAVANAUGH AND CUMMINGS, P. C.
1665 ELLINGTON ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
(203) 644-3473
�cx aax�ib
:r€x
EDWARD R. KUEHN
WEST H RTFORD FFICE:
HAROLD R . CUMMINGS
968 FARMINGTON AVENUE
FRAZIER G. SCOTT
LORRAINE R. PAULHUS WEST HART FORD, COr,N. 06107
RONA C. LYNCH
12031 236-29 3
MICHAEL J. LANZA
August 19, 1987 PLEASE REPLY TO:SOU7 WINDSOR
REGARDING: Proposed Zoning Amendment
Amendment to Planning and Zoning regulations, Section 4.7.2.8
Uses
M. Retail Sales, Rentals and Service of Heavy Construction Equipment toget er
with the Right to Repair and Service the same.
i
rt-•O
ZONING REFERR LL
kV, G
FORM
For: NOTIFICATION OF REFERRALS BY ZONING COMMISSIONS OF THE CAPITOL REGION
From: ( ) Zoning Commission
( ) Planning and Zoning Commission of South Windsor
( ) City or Town Council (municipality)
(acting as zoning commission)
To: Capitol Region Council of Governments
Planning Division
214 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06106 September 8, 1987
(date)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8-3b of the General Statutes of Connecticut,
as amended, the following proposed zoning change is referred to the Capitol Region
Council of Governments for report:
NATURE OF PROPOSED CHANGE
( ) Adoption or amendment of Zoning ) Adoption or amendment of ZONING
MAP for any area within 500 feet of REGULATIONS applying o any zone
another Capitol Region municipality. within 500 feet of an Cher Capitol
Attach map showing proposed change. Region municipality. Attach copy
of proposed change in regulations.
THE CHANGE WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED: ( ) by municipal agency -
(s ecify)
(X) by petition
PUBLIC HEARING ON SAID CHANGE IS SCHEDULED FOR: SEPTEMBER 29, 1987
(date)
MATERIAL SUBMITTED HEREWITH:
( ) Public Notice (K) Regulation Changes ( ) Other (Specify)
( ) Map of Change ( ) Supporting Statements
:::::.........................................................::::
(For Use by CRCOG)
:`: Date postmarked
Date received (Authorized Signature)
.::: Received by ti ::€ Title Chairman, Planning & Zoni g Commission
File No. Address Su ivan Ave. ,
South Windsor, t b b. /
*BY LAW, THIS NOTICE MUST BE POSTMARKED AT LEAST35 DAYS BEFORE PUBLIC HE ING.
CRCOG - 8/73
.to+N dt,`
y r
u
70-WJVI aidesottzh Vzf-ZdAlat
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN 06074
SOR-C AREA CODE 203/644-2511
September 9, 1987
Ms. Barbara Barbour
5 Old Parish Drive
South Windsor, CT. 06074
RE: #1296 - Zoning Amendment
Barbour & Szestakow Buffer Zone Section 4.8.4.4.
Dear Ms, Barbour:
Please be advised that the Public Hearing in the above matte has een
scheduled for Tuesday, September 29, 1987, at 8:00 P.M. , in he Co ncil
Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenu , South
Windsor.
Yours very truly,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
By: 0. Ok t
Louise C. Evans, Chairman
LCE:cbs
cc: Wasyl Szestakow
4Oon at,
H Y
.4 U
O-P s-OUL4 ?d&U1,4olt
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN_ 06074
'►osoR•co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER THURSDAY , SE TEMB R 17 , 1987
THURSDAY , SE TEMB R 24, 1987
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Planning
and Zoning Commission on Tuesday , September 29, 1987 , at 8 : 00 P .M. in the
Council Chambers of the South Windsor Tcwn Hall , 1540 Sullivan Avenue ,
South Windsor , to consider the following:
1 . Application of Barbara §arbour and Was 1 Szestakow for an amendment of
Section 4. 8. 4. 4 of the Zoning Regulations, to 67Tuire a 3 O' buffer zone
between residential zones and industrial park zone , o
2 . Application of Highlift , Inc . for an amendment to Section 4. 7 . 2 . 8 of
the Zoning Regulations , special exception uses in the industrial zone :
Add section : M. Retail sales , rentals and service of heavy construction
equipment together with the right to repair and service
the same .
3. Application of Samuel M. Sisisky for a Resubdivision ol land to create
three lots ; two at the west end of Greenfield Drive and or e at the west
end of Farmstead Drive , A-20 zone .
4 . Application of Russak Brothers , Inc . for a Resubdivisi n of land to
create five parcels on the west side of Ring Street , sout of McGuire
road , RR zone .
5 . Application of Capuano Builders & Developers for a Res bdivision of
land to create three lots on the east side of Nutmeg Road South , and south
side of Governor ' s Highway , IP zone .
Copies of these applications and maps more clearly defining the properties
are on file in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of South Windsor .
At this hearing , interested persons may appear and be heard , and written
recommendations will be received .
PLANNING & ZONING CO MISSION
Louise C . Evans , Chairman
David H . Sorenson , S cr,et ry
I I
V
� n
South Windsor Chamber of Commerce
> C V
1750 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel. 203 644-9442
OR•��?Pic
TU L1VF.WORD
September 2I9 , 19 7
Chamber Statement - Proposed zoning Amendmentsil
Industrial Park Zone
1) . The Planning & Zoning Commission comprehensively eval.uat d the
Industrial Park zoning regulations twice during thelllast 5
years , including buffer requirements , yards , and bujilding height.
Changes were made after much research and deliberation. Why not
give these new regulations a chance?
2) . Industrial parks and the businesses that locate within them help
us balance the tax base and help offset the tremendous residential
growth of our community, and accompanying increase1 n town services ,
as exemplified by the new Oxbow Lane development.
3) . The proposed regulations , establishing a 300 feet bluffer plus a
25 feet rear yard, or a 325 feet no development area, would
devastate industrial growth in South Windsor and would remove
tremendous acreage from our industrial land inventory .
4) . If these proposed amendments are adopted, we are concern d about
the precedent, and this threatens the integrity an deve opability
of commercial and industrial zoned areas in South indso .
5) . Recent court cases plus available legal information indicate
that adoption of more restrictive industrial zoning regulations,
such as those presented tonight, may constitute an 'i, lleg l
taking of private property, and will likely lead to expensive
litigation.
6) . The South Windsor Chamber of Commerce therefore, i the trongest
terms , urges the Planning & Zoning Commission to r ject his
proposal .
I
i
I
Z 4
RAYMM J. ALEXANDER
219 Griffin Road
South Windsor, CI' 06074
E-
September 29, 1987 �G0@,s�S.
Ms. Louise C. Evans, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Camui$sion
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Public Hearing For:
Amendment to Section 4.8.4.4 of the Zoning Regulations
Dear Ms. Evans:
Please place this letter in the public record as being in oppositior
to this application. As a resident of South Windsor, I believe thi
application is totally inappropriate. This application is a rielf
serving effort veiled as a South Windsor public interest group. When,
in fact, the interests of the community will be adversely served.
our municipality runs on tax collars. We cannot on the one d as
for better schools and more police protection and on the other cut off
our tax base unless, as' a Town, we are willing to support this effoit
with our residential property taxes. This attempt, by a few to
benefit themselves, will be at the loss of hundreds of thousands of
dollars in lost tax baste. We have witnessed this kind of action in
the past with the loss of the Allied Plywood facility. The communi y
suffered for the few in the loss of the Winchester Mall to a
neighboring town.
As in the case of the farmer who could no longer farm because the
smell of his animals displeased his new neighbors, the Industrial Park
zone existed before the neighbors arrived. once again, the problem
seems to be the new neighbors and not the Industrial Park zone.
I believe the Industri Park regulations are appropriate anccnmensurate with theictivities they regulate.
Y.
;,.
Very truly yours, .�
I
Raymond J. Alexander ! _
I
'LANNING DEPARTMENT SE TEMB$R 29, 1987
BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
(Where industrial zone abuts residential)
TOWN REQUIREMENTS
East Hartford 50' Landscaped buffer
East Windsor 100' Buffer
Enfield 100' Landscape buffer and 50' rear yard
Farmington 25 ' Rear yard with trees and plantings
Glastonbury 100 ' Setback for buildings (allows parking to be
50' back) - TPZ has discretio to require
screening .
Killingly 25 ' Buffer zone & rear yard
Manchester 8 ' Buffer area and required yard ( equal to
that of the required residential ya�rds ) ;
fence 6' to screen headlights , etc . i
Mansfield 150' (May be reduced by Commission - as applicant
presents proposed buffering_, )
Rocky Hill 50' Buffer - 20' of which must be landsccaped .
Tolland 100 ' Buffer
Vernon 25 ' Landscaped buffer and require yards .
A 7TfC#1-16W- 7%
we, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning d Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an indust ial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
MV4E ADDRESS
I JI / X L 76 S /c 414-k,- C
�.� Z�2
�l 7 � �
2�2 '-7 53 z)-- f± �
-t- x)z
L-,t�/,�/,-Z/;
K
t
6UWL LkWCCL) SidiCT
�q
�r rr t
T7, j6MHC-
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning a d Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
IAME ADDRESS j
I
7
3 1
66 Ilia
r
C1S 1 4
.. �3r 17
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, supFort the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
NAME ADDRESS
i
J�
Lv
i
i
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning d Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an indust ial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
IS ME ADDRESS
i
TATe, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
LAME ADDRESS
ell K.
J,
r �d z l- e/
11 Tr
UL
21
` + 11
�l O cr2 r
3 JI
I,
l A.
T y
4
sir---
,, JC77
�,, �
I
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
NAME ADDRESS
v
't--- -57%CL
eAT
l-z4
7
v� 7
7 E-Z s
i
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
DRESS
NAME AD
I
c�
Z �
We, the undersigned, residents of South Windsor, sup rt the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an indust ial park
and residential zone tolthree hundred (300) feet.
NAME ADDRESS
3 -v
s
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrfial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
MME ADDRESS
W 4
. e' ( c
I y
i
i
a
I,
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
NAME ADDRESS
V11 "o'l Z't 7 y �
G - G
IO D 6-A
o IL LUX" 0�5— Q� LAk
'Si�mj L-A-6a�ka-� - -j-da4ly /�v
Ij
s
Ld.
a
Icy
S, U
ZOL-
7 r • T/
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an indus4ial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
NNME ADDRESS
1h. 44.
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
NAME ADDRESS
&ftcC sIP
pi�l �AZ
13 &0 101 �� r
1.3
J/a&C '0 e-dIr,/-, L qO"L
'II
1
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
IME ADDRESS
2Ob
GG L
y C J C
.,✓�,�� ,� Lc, -�
U
r i
I
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, request that the
South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission schedule another public
hearing on the proposed Charbonneau Industrial Park due to the
undetected large mass of water located on said parcel, which was not
brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission's attention at the June
2, 1987 public hearing. The official transcript of that Oublic
hearing contains a substantial gap covering the developer's
presentation. We want a new opportunity to listen and comment on
same.
MME ADDRESS
Ilk,
l G�
2 ?
� I
a
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, request t t the
South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission schedule another ublic
hearing on the proposed Charbonneau Industrial Park due to the
undetected large mass of water located on said parcel, which was not
brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission's attention at th June
2, 1987 public hearing. The official transcript of that public
hearing contains a substantial gap covering the developer's
presentation. We want a new opportunity to listen and co t on
same.
NAME ADDRESS
Z
4z,
22
„o V
1
;, ,,
- I
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
(--�j:nmission to increase the minimal buffer betureen an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
NAME ADDRESS
Mw
as rIAlA/ ST . .S_ LOiA
_� Cf/ - -L0 V���v.G..9I / GILG'1 ✓7 \..=L�� r
b 3 a rr4. Lam_
JA
I d
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, sup?rt the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an indust ial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
NAME ADDRESS
Irk all
� 12;7L,. _ �/
i
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, supOrt the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning d Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an indust ial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
I
N%KE ADDRESS
r
� 1 J
��1 � �'"1G�Y� c�� t'"Cdil n �[,z►'i'l r',� . �y i u.�r n �S�'Y
f
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, suppo t the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
MME ADDRESS
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning an Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
- and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
MME ADDRESS
C'
�'k-A-+-
r I
i
i
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
DAME ADDR -,'SS
ST. SGz�lj lyl�. o/c
_3t Gm
__f�f a , •J a - �S o�
c)
JA
_- ��
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, request that the
South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission schedule another ublic
hearing on the proposed Charbonneau Industrial Park due o the
-undetected large mass of water located on said parcel, which was not
brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission's attention at tha June
2, 1987 public hearing. The official transcript of that ublic
-hearing contains a substantial gap covering the Bevel per's
presentation. We want a new opportunity to listen and c t on
same.
MME ADDRESS
41,
; 10OF
sow
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, request that the
South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission schedule another ublic
hearing on the proposed Charbonneau Industrial Park due o the
undetected large mass of water located on said parcel, which w not
brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission's attention at the June
2, 1987 public hearing. The official transcript of that Public
rearing contains a substantial gap covering the devel per's
presentation. We want a new opportunity to listen and comment on
same.
MME ADDRESS
F
I
i
i
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, request that the
South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission schedule another public
hearing on the proposed Charbonneau Industrial Park due o the
undetected large mass of water located on said parcel, which w not
brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission's attention at th June
2, 1987 public hearing. The official transcript of that ublic
hearing contains a substantial gap covering the developer's
presentation. We want a new opportunity to listen and commmt on
same.
r ME ADDRESS
awa (J4)Z!Ad" �30
de
7 d
Ell
J
i 4,42�.4 0,444 7SZ LIJ �eldscjv- 4�w
��T�7�q � �YJ�`e(�! o�� /`-ru✓rN.a-wY;. �`�' ._ S: /NdlY�.svr`
we, the undersigned residents of South Vtindsor, surrort the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zc,n Ana
J
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an 4rc" astrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
NAME ADDRESS
1-7
-bib �ql
-41
c
pp GC
d
� .,l ��It�^✓ ti r
� "24
IAV
t ji , exu
n
R ILI- [IVIT-
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
MME ADDRESS
-t.4'
.s
I CA
cC
7d r � s-A
.� ,.
. ---
i
666 -
6-41
�Ol'`fil�tLt'jp
' —
i i r
v/
7Z,-,,
yo �o�W V
Tt'e, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the �S
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
MME ADDRESS
z: z
i
At
�T�
We, the undersigmed residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
MME ADDRESS
PO d34 ,
o F C3��)C/G'C 5kLc
---
Lka U-c
-e-
14
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
N%ME ADDRESS
I
Li
�5sz
A.AI `I .1 S t
V '
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor, support the
application pending before the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission to increase the minimal buffer between an industrial park
and residential zone to three hundred (300) feet.
MME ADDRESS
c
i (
ty
—r=
( w �
2 13 CLT 37 THE CONNECTICUT LAW TRIBUNE SE s E.V
Towns Told Not to Retreat from Land,Us__-e Regult-atipe-1.
BY LEORA HERRMANN seminar—First English Evangelical Lu- Dangerous Decision First English.But a moratorium oflirniled
theran Church of Glendale v. County of The second Supreme Court decision, duration and scope should pass muster it ,
"We have all been scared to death for Los Angeles, 107 S.Ct. 2378, and Nollan Nollan, held that a condition on a the administrative record sr,,ports the.
no good reason," declared University of v. California Coastal Commission, 107 development permit must substantially need for it. Courts do not find a taking if
Connecticut Law School Professor Terry S.Ct. 3141--have raised the stakes for advance a legitimate state interest that landowners are left with some reasonable
J. Tondro at a September 11 seminar on land-use regulators, according to panelist would be affected adversely by the devel- use of their property. A moratorium on
two United States Supreme Court land- Dwight H. Merriam,chair of the land-use opment.If the condition does not meet this
use decisions that rocked the regulatory group at Hartford's Robinson&Cole. test, the court said,it constitutes a taking. See "Activism for
community. In First English, the Court held that a Nollan is"a particularly dangerous and f arldomiers?"on page.10.
If numbers measure concern,the record landowner can sue for damages for a tem- troubling decision,"Merriam said,a case
1
crowd of more than 280 municipal at- pora or its property. that changes the legal standards for devel- zoning changes would, therefore, prob-
torneys, planners, and commissioners e 13 CLT 24). Warning ag opment conditions. "The nexus or con- ably survive attack and would be even
from around the state who attended the overreaction to this holding,Merriam em- ection or linkave between these con- more palatable if it allowed for exceptions
seminar registered a high level of trepida phasized that a taking—the denial of all tions that we i cpeatedly impose on in hardship cases.
tion. reasonable use of land—is tough to prove. velopment approvals must be much • Tailor op,,n-space set-asides. A zon-
"That was the largest attendance at If some reasonable use remains, there is stronger in its ties to the legitimate govern- ing law that requires a specific p,rrcntage
[Connecticut Conference of Municipal- o taking, he said. mental interest," he said. of open space may be vulnerable under
ities] workshop in recent history," said An rnment Although law professor Tondro agreed Nollan. But a tov n can require open space
Kevin T. Maloney, public relations man- can la A fully deprive a landowner of all use that Nollan "had the effect of saying you as a condition of development if the ad-
ager for the Connecticut Conference of have to be verX careful about the condi- ministrative record shows that the devel-
Municipalities (CCM), which sponsored tions ou impose, a sat opment will create a need for that amount
the seminar along with the Connecticut T
he DEP planning director uag in the decision that supports the assive and active recreation space.
Association of Municipal Attorneys. legalityof controversial land-use regula- • sive conditions. Nollan did not
This high turnout may indicate the ex- rged state planners: tions such as flood plain zoning, scenic aw conditions that attetnp: to amel-
tent of interest in the impact of the deer- "Hang in there. Don't be zoning, an�histo�ricpres�ervation. � iorate a public harm produced by an ac-
sions. But if the audience follows the tivity. It would be safe, for example, to (�•
panelists' advice, Connecticut developers scared. Lawyers are going to Dos require a funeral parlor to make conces-
are in for a fight over the interpretation of sue or not irrespective of two Under circumstances that the courts sions relating to traffic, parking,lighting,
the new Supreme Court cases. „ have yet to define, said the panelists, the or hours of operation as a condition of a
Arthur J. Rocque,director of planning new Supreme Court cases. Supreme Court cases in tandem could re- permit allowing the parlor to locate in a
for the Connecticut Department of En- sult in whopping damage awards against residential neighborhood. But although
vironmental Protection, urged the plan- municipalities.But,they reassured the au- many conditions can survive scrutiny, an
ners not to let fear of litigation deter them of his land if using the property would dience,towns can avoid such liability with- outright denial of the permit can be safer
from vigorous land-use regulation. "My "create a situation that's like a public out abandoning strict land-use control. than a conditional grant, unless the denial
advice to you is to hang in there," he ex- nuisance." Under these stringent legal There is "a lot more we could do with could be construed as a taking.
horted the group. "Don't be intimidated. standards, he predicted, even the First the police power that we haven't done • Continue with coastal management.
Don't be scared. Lawyers are going to sue English plaintiff probably will not succeed before," Merriam said. As examples of Unlike the California coastal law chal-
or not, irrespective of whether they have in establishing a taking on remand. regulatory techniques that could be used lenged in Nollan, Connecticut's Coastal
two new Supreme Court cases to rely on. Merriam would not go as far as panelist to side step First English and Nollan,Mer- Management Act does not impose condi-
Tondro in narrowing the predicted impact riam cited mandatory clustering, the use tions on development. Instead, it limits
Cases Upped the Ante of First English, however. Tondro sug- of transferable development rights, and waterfront property to water-dependent
Squeezed around tables and packed in gested the damage remedy will not be ex- voluntary programs in which developers uses, including public access. Nollan,
the aisles of the Silver City Ballroom at the tended to cases in which a procedural error are allowed to build with higher density in therefore, did not affect enforcement of
Meriden Yale Inn, planners and their at- results in a temporary denial of all exchange for other concessions. the Connecticut law.
torneys listened as Tondro and his co-pan- reasonable use of the property. But after Among the other suggestions the panel- In addition, the panelists a av i sed
elists taught them how to avoid liability the seminar, Merriam disagreed. "Some- ists offered were: municipalities to check their zcni,g reg- '
under the new decisions without retreating body's property can be taken through an • Design moratoriums with care. ulations for conflicts with Voflan and to
from aggressive land-use regulation. intentional procedural violation just as A total moratorium on development check their liability insurance for rove,I_.e
The two cases discussed at the CCM easily as a substantive error," he said. probably is a compensable taking under under First English.
y/Zo'VjN a 4
v (�
o '
awn- O-P s-outli ?&7�
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
SoI-CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511
RESOLUTION
OF THE
SOUTH WINDSOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
WHEREAS , the South Windsor Economic Development Commission has
reviewed the proposed Amendment to the South Windsor Zoning
Regulations requiring a 300-foot Buffer Zone between Residential
Zones and the Industrial Park Zone ; and
WHEREAS , it has been determined that such Amendment would have
a dramatic impact on the future industrial development of the Town ;
and
WHEREAS , such Amendment would , in turn , have a deleterious
impact on the tax base of the Town ;
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the South Windsor Economic
Development Commission recommends that the Planning and Zoning
Commission maintain the existing Zoning Regulations relative to
Buffers ; and abide by the existing Comprehensive Plan ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any consideration of changing the
Buffer Zone Regulations by the Planning and Zoning Commission be
done only after thorough study and requisite Public Hearing .
Dated this 28th day of September , 1987
d4w'-v
r
James Murray
Chairman
f�?Ti�cffM�N T
y
o South Windsor Chamber of Commerce
CI
a ' 1750 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel. 203-644-9442
�9n�bSOP., Pao
Tp LIVE.WORD
September 29 , 1987
Chamber Statement - Proposed Zoning Amendments
Industrial Park Zone
1) . The Planning & Zoning Commission comprehensively evaluated the
Industrial Park zoning regulations twice during the last 5
years , including buffer requirements , yards , and building height.
Changes were made after much research and deliberation. Why not
give these new regulations a chance?
2) . Industrial parks and the businesses that locate within them help
us balance the tax base and help offset the tremendous residential
growth of our community, and accompanying increase in town services ,
as exemplified by the new Oxbow Lane development.
3) . The proposed regulations , establishing a 300 feet buffer plus a
25 feet rear yard, or a 325 feet no development area, would
devastate industrial growth in South Windsor and would remove
tremendous acreage from our industrial land inventory.
4) . If these proposed amendments are adopted, we are concerned about
the precedent, and this threatens the integrity and developability
of commercial and industrial zoned areas in South Windsor .
5) . Recent court cases plus available legal information indicate
that adoption of more restrictive industrial zoning regulations ,
such as those presented tonight, may constitute an illegal
taking of private property, and will likely lead to expensive
litigation.
6) . The South Windsor Chamber of Commerce therefore, in the strongest
terms , urges the Planning & Zoning Commission to reject this
proposal .
A MA c0t1 Fir H
Reference: Proposed Amendment to 4.8.4.4 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Facts:
Currently before the Planning & Zoning Commission is a proposal to increase the
presently required 50' buffer between Residential and Industrial Park zones to a
300' buffer zone. There currently exist only two (2) viable IP zoned parcels cap-
able of development in South Windsor. The larger of these parcels is owned by
Capuano Developers and is now known as "Governors Square" (it was formerly known as
"Park Center"). The Town has already made a substantial financial commitment to
promoting proper commercial/industrial development on this site. Capuano Developers
currently has two (2) parcels under construction with immediate plans to commence
development of the third and fourth parcels upon approval.
The overall site plan submitted in May, 1987 to the Planning & Zoning
Commission shows a capability of development of 706,750 square feet of
commercial/industrial facilities.
If the new proposed ordinance is adopted, the overall development capability
will be reduced by approximately 300,000 square feet. The result of the ordinance
will be to severely and permanently impair the ability of the owner to utilize its
property.
ALTER AND PURTILL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 155 SYCAMORE STREET, P 0 BOX 935, GLASTONBURY.CONNECTICUT 06033 • (iO3)659-0569•JURIS NO 101951
Statutory Authority.:
Connecticut General Statutes 8-2 provides the authority for the zoning commis-
sion of a town to enact regulations to control development within the community.
Such authority is not without limitation. The statute states in part:
Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration as
to the character of the district and its particular suitability
for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of
the buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land
throughout the municipality.
Legal Authority:
A regulation that effectively renders land useless to provide a buffer between
two districts has been held to be a misuse of the police power. See Anderson,
American Law of Zoning, 3rd §3.27, and cases cited therein. In a New York case
(Vernon Park Realty v. Mt. Vernon, 307 NY 493 (1954)) , the Court stated:
However compelling and acute the community (traffic) problem may
be, its solution does not lie in placing an undue and uncom-
pensated burden on the individual owner of a single parcel of
land in the guise of regulation, even for a public purpose.
In Bartlett v. Zoning Co fission, 161 Conn. 24 (1971) , the Connecticut Supreme
Court held that new regulations (regarding wetland filling) would deprive the owner
of any reasonable use of the land; and, therefore, the regulations were so unreason-
able and confiscatory as to constitute a taking of land for public use without
compensation.
2
ALTER AND PURTILL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 155 SYCAMORE STREET, P 0 BOX 935, GLASTONBURY.CONNECTICUT 05033 • (203)659-0569•JURIS NO 101951
Uniformly, ordinances have been held unconstitutional when Courts have found
that the use value has been severely reduced, substantially decreased or substan-
tially depreciated by an ordinance which made little or no contribution to the pub-
lic health, safety, morals or general welfare. Such ordinances are regarded as
confiscatory and void although their impact upon use value falls short of complete
destruction thereof. See Anderson, American Law of Zoning, 3rd §3.26 (pp. 173-174
and cases cited therein.)
In Veseskis v. Bristol Zoning Commission, 168 Conn. 358, 360 (1975) , our
Supreme Court held:
To require by zoning regulation a buffer strip between one zone
of a particular classification and another zone of a different
class in one specific instance and not in other instances when
zones of these two zone classifications abut clearly violates
the statutory uniformity requirement and is exactly the arbi-
trary and discriminatory use of the police power which the
statute was designed to prevent. See 1 Anderson, American Law
of Zoning §§3.13, 5.17; Bassett, Zoning, pp. 51-52.
Conclusion•
The site most impacted by the regulation has been determined to be a primary
area of commercial/industrial development in South Windsor. Development should be
carried on in accordance with the Town Plan of Development and Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed ordinance would reduce the developability of this parcel by 30% -
50% and would result in a dramatic loss in value to the owner as well as a huge loss
of tax revenue to the Town of South Windsor.
3
ALTER AND PURT ILL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 155 SYCAMORE STREET. P 0 BOX 935. GLASTONBURY.CONNECTICUT 06033 • (203)6590569•JURIS NO 101951
The proponents have provided little or no evidence of what public benefit would
be served by the ordinance except to illegally expand the residential zone line by
creating a non-developable buffer.
The Commission must examine the proposal's "public benefit" for the entire
community, not simply a limited number of adjoining residences. The loss of develop-
able land and the concomitant loss of tax revenue to the entire Town is a substan-
tial burden imposed on the entire community at the expense of the developer for the
benefit of a very few residents.
For the following reasons, the proposed ordinance should be rejected:
1. It is beyond the Commission's statutory authority;
2. The amendment would result in a "taking" of the owner's property without
compensation; and
3. The ordinance would deprive the entire community of a substantial tax bene-
fit for the benefit of a relatively few residential properties.
Respectfully submitted,
CAPUANO DEVELOPERS
r)
By
Peter Ja Alter
/Its Attorney
4
ALTER AND PURTILL • ATTORNEYS AT LAW• 155 SYCAMORE STREET, P 0 BOX 935. GLASTONBURY.CONNECTICUT 06033 • (203)659-0569•JURIS NO 101951
ATT-AC, EAt T z ���� �
-
2k- c
L -V
77-L_
/u,7
J,4
4Tm*M6NT- T
RAYMM J. ALEXANDER
219 Griffin Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
ty ,t
September 29, 1987 Y ,y�mm�sgt
Ms. Louise C. Evans, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, Cr 06074
RE: Public Hearing For:
Amendment to Section 4.8.4.4 of the Zoning Regulations
Dear Ms. Evans:
Please place this letter in the public record as being in opposition
to this application. As a resident of South Windsor, I believe this
application is totally inappropriate. This application is a self
serving effort veiled as a South Windsor public interest group. When,
in fact, the interests of the community will be adversely served.
Our municipality runs on tax collars. We cannot on the one hand ask
for better schools and more police protection and on the other cut off
our tax base unless, as a Town, we are willing to support this effort
with our residential property taxes. This attempt, by a few to
benefit themselves, will be at the loss of hundreds of thousands of
dollars in lost tax base. We have witnessed this kind of action in
the past with the loss of the Allied Plywood facility. The community
suffered for the few in the loss of the Winchester Mall to a
neighboring town.
As in the case of the farmer who could no longer farm because the
smell of his animals displeased his new neighbors, the Industrial Park
zone existed before the neighbors arrived. Once again, the problem
seems to be the new neighbors and not the Industrial Park zone.
I believe the Industrial Park regulations are appropriate and
commensurate with the activities they regulate. �« ,.31
Very truly yours,
a
Raymond Alexander
of /+ DAD n Project N o . 8 6-14 2
U J September 18, 1997
Rovernors Squar Center
Proposers Zoning Omendment Establi-;king Ihree Hundred Feet Buffer
Summary of Impacts
Overall Site Impacts
A. Bui Iding Square Fnat-age:
1 ) . Proposed squaw- footage - 70h,750 5q . ft . nr- 16.2 acres
2 ) . Jrnrracted squar e footage - 'Ic 0,1r50 s,q . f t . o►- 7. 4 acr-e,:;
3) . RPma i n i r lg --;quay (-- footage - 1R6,A00 sq . f t . or 9.0 ac r es
B. Existing buffer area and rr griir ed yard :
1 ) . Existinq fifty foot buffer - 174,654 sq . ft . or- 4 . 0 acres
P ) . Existing twenty-five feet rear yard = 87,327 sq . ft . or 2.0
acres
9) . Total of both buffer area and yard = 261 ,981 sq . ft . or 6.0
acres .
C . Proposer-1 huffer area and proposed yard :
1 ) . Proposed three hundred feet rear yard = 1 ,049, 400 sq . ft . or
24 . 1 acres .
2) . Proposed twenty-five feet rear yard = 87, 327 sq . ft . or 2.0
acres
3) . Total of both buffer- area and yarn = 1 , 136, 727 sq . ft . or 26. 1
acres .
Individual Site Impacts
A. Lot 1hreP :
1 ) . hrnposed square footage = 56, 1+00 sq . ft .
2) . Remairrirrg squar e footage = 0 sq . ft .
B. Lot Four :
1 ) . Proposed square f ou t aq(, = 57P ,200 sq . f t .
2 ) . 1 n 300 ' zone = Ili . 000 sq . f t .
3) . I rr tr,-1 f f i t ar ea'; = 1 2' 000 5(1 . f t .
4 ) i n i ng squat r, f no tago i i 1 ,c O)O sq . f t .
C. Lot Five:
1 ) . rropose(i foci tago -- V4 .400 sq . f t .
2 ) . In I0V ' Tune -31 �000 sq . f t .
3 ) . irr traffic arms = 9, f,00 sq . ft .
4 ) . Remaining square footage = :33,CIO)0 sq . f t .
D. Lot Six :
1 ) . Proposed s(lu-ir e Footage = 47 ,800 sq . -f t .
2 ) . Remaining square footage = 43,600 sq . ft .
E . Lot Eleven:
1 ) . Prnposed square footage = 34 ,200 sq . ft .
2 ) . Remaining square footage = 0 sq . ft .
F. Lot l w e t v e:
1 ) . Pr oposefi srluar-e f oo tagr, = 6n ,'.3OO -,q . f t .
2) . Remaining square footage = 0 sq . f t .
G. Lot rhirtenn:
I ) . f'r opused square fon tape - ;' '3,000 sq , f t .
2) . Remaining square footage = O sq . ft .
H. Lot Fnur- teen:
1 ) . Pr oposed square forrtage = 49 ,750 -,q . f t .
2) . Ppniaining square footage O sq . ft .
esign ATTA" MENt
K
fjrofessionals, Inc.
2 civil engineers plannery
491 bucklanri road, south Windsor, ct 06074 (203) 644-4795
o r
o South Windsor Chamber of Commerce
a c u
0o i 1750 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Tel. 203-644-9442
4,
o $OR.CO�t��c
TQ LIVE,'✓•'OR4
September 29 , 1987
Chamber Statement - Proposed Zoning Amendments
Industrial Park Zone
1) . The Planning & Zoning Commission comprehensively evaluated the
Industrial Park zoning regulations twice during the last 5
years , including buffer requirements , yards , and building height.
Changes were made after much research and deliberation. Why not
give these new regulations a chance?
2) . Industrial parks and the businesses that locate within them help
us balance the tax base and help offset the tremendous residential
growth of our community, and accompanying increase in town services ,
as exemplified by the new Oxbow Lane development.
3) . The proposed regulations , establishing a 300 feet buffer plus a
25 feet rear yard, or a 325 feet no development area, would
devastate industrial growth in South Windsor and would remove
tremendous acreage from our industrial land inventory.
4) . If these proposed amendments are adopted, we are concerned about
the precedent, and this threatens the integrity and developability
of commercial and industrial zoned areas in South Windsor .
5) . Recent court cases plus available legal information indicate
that adoption of more restrictive industrial. zoning regulations,
such as those presented tonight, may constitute an illegal.
taking of private property , and will likely lead to expensive
litigation.
6) . The South Windsor Chamber of Commerce therefore, in the strongest
terms , urges the Planning & Zoning Commission to reject this
proposal .
U�11
1828 ':'gain ':itree t
East „indsor -fill,
CT 06028
?;ovember 30, 1987
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of South Windsor
South Windsor, C2 06074
Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
Though I am unable to attend the public hearing- this evening_,,, 1
would appreciate having this letter read aloud, for the record.
The proposal to increase the buffer zones between residential
and commercial/industrial development, I feel, is a Tood one. In
general, it would help the town regulate potentially intrusive develop-
ment and thereby protect residential areas.
I
I am particularly concerned, however, about historic .1-ain -treet.
As you know, practically the entire length of P•:ain Street was placed
on the National Register of Historic Places in recof_�nition of its unique
character. ]'he division and use of land remains almost the same as
it was when the area was settled nearly 300 years a6o. 'his sunLmer,
as president of the South Idindsor Historical :Society, I was privile,ed
to show two staff members of the 1,4-ational Trust for Historic Preser-
vation many historic homes in ,.South lndsor. They .sere both over,rr.el c
by the number of preserved structures in the to,.rn, and nartic�ilarl,%-
the character of lain :>treet. _'hey found our example outs uar_dinr_- in
comparison to almost .1,0 other sites they visited throw:._lout
It is our :)bli,ation, I believe, to preserve t1_is ,sonde_,',,1 rc, ou c
•.rhich has a^e:1 1,ande:i dorm to us over the cent;;rieo and Is jo:-e_- c
by all residents of .South 'Jindsor. It ,,ould be a tra,;ed to !_ave an
com nercial o_ industrial development along; ''_oute j visible fron, a,i r
street. I support the increase is the minimum puffer zone as a tool
to protect our heritage.
.,incerel; ,
/ir;Mini a , ,acro
nF�.. 1 1g87
Scath Windsor
Planning & Zoning Commissi�
s 10'M R eF'q
P `�
a � TO -01�n 01
s L 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE . SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
R•co� AREA CODE 203/644-2511
December 2 , 1987
Ms . Barbara Barbour
S Old Parish Drive
South Windsor , CT 06074
RE: Application #1296 - Zoning Amendment Request
Dear Ms . Barbour :
Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on
December 1 , 1987 to deny the above-referenced application for an amendment
to the Zoning Regulations to require a 300 foot buffer between Residential
and Industrial Park Zones .
The Commission is currently investigating the feasibility of revising all
of its buffer requirements for any residential zone abutting any
non-residential zones . Therefore , the Commission believes that it would
be more prudent to conclude its research prior to enacting a buffer
regulation which would affect only one zone.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this matter .
Very truly yours ,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
R mond F. Hallowell , Jr .
Chairman
: r t
cc : M. Gantick , Director of Public Works
F . Shaw, W. P.C . A .
T. D' Auria , Building Official
E. Belleville, Assessor
W. Lanning , Fire Marshal
M. Banach , Director of Planning
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
ngineering
PZC File
4 mac~ 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
�►oSoR.CO ' AREA CODE 203/644-2511
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER SATURDAY , DECEMBER 5 , 1987
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
At the December 1 , 1987 meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission voted to
take the following action :
1 . Deny the application of Barbara Barbour and Wasyl Szestakow for an
amendment of Section 4 . 8. 4. 4 of the Zoning Regulations , to require a
300' buffer zone between residential zones and industrial park zone.
2 . Approve , with modifications , the application of Dart Hill Realty , Inc .
for approval of Section VI , consisting of 19 lots , of Mountain View
Estates , an open space subdivision located on the north side of Dart
Hill Road , A-30 Zone .
Dated at South Windsor , Connecticut this 2nd day of December , 1987 .
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Raymond F. Hallowell , Jr . , Chairman
David H. Sorenson , Secretary
1�/AM ADDRESS
Sep/
XP
At
s, .
,zo
o?�
a2 �
-2S
2L
�7
z�