HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpec Exc/Site/Resubdivision TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION '
APPLICATION FORM s`m
r w
Application No: REICEIVEb"'��""
Official Receipt Date:
Receipt No: OCT
$ 19"
APPLICANT: B & M Enterprises
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1060, South Windsor CT 06074 ZT #1 mmosl n -OPT.
OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: Bancroft Brook, L.L.C.
ADDRESS: c/o Cmm-dngs & Lanza, 1610 Ellington Road, South Windsor, CT 06074
COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: North side of Strong Road, West of Route 5
ASSESSOR'S MAP # 96 PARCEL# 11 ZONE A-40
NAME, ADDRESS, TEL& FAX # OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED:
Peter R. DeMallie, Design Professionals, Inc 165 South Satellite Road
South Windsor CT 06074 (860) 291-8755• Fax (860) 291-8757 Q
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply): �-G 6rt d" �`�' � ��K 75' !L
❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing required and Certified letter to abutters required)
❑ Subdivision/Resubdivision ❑ Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing Required)
❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor ❑ Major
Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) 0 Minor ❑ Major
❑ Conditional Approval
j Special Exception to Article 4.3.11 j
p (Public Hearing, Certified letter to abutters require
f Site Plan of Development l `'
❑ General Plan of Development
❑ Earth Filling (Sec. 15) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 14 - Public Hearing required)
❑ Regulation Amendment: ❑ Zoning ❑ Subdivision (Attach proposed amendment)
Temporary and Conditional Permit for
❑ Major Home Occupation for
❑ Other (explain in detail)
An Application Pending sign is required to be posted on thPinformation)
for all applic tions to 1 ) s
prior to being heard by the
ignature of Applicant a of r er
(See reverse side for additions
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CHECKLIST
REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE PLANS
APPLICANT 1 ��f , 5
PROJECT NAME Shad Broo.; Village
This checklist must be signed by plan prepares (P.E.JL.S.) declaring that all required information
is provided. Items 1-7 are required for all applications; items 8-11 required where appropriate.
Check mark for each item supplied.
J—
1. On each sheet for plans or maps, title P p , block with the following information:
Ja. Name, address and telephone of applicant.
b. Name, address and telephone number of Land or Surveyor Professional
Engineer. Y sional
J c. Name of Development.
d. Date when drawings were made.
2. Key Map: An overall map drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals
q either 100 feet or
200 feet. This map will show the overall design of the Development and
surrounding property within 500 feet.
a. Data block which gives needed zoning information such as percentage of
lot coverage, acreage of tract, number of apartment units, parking
Jrequirements, etc.
b. Outline of buildings.
c. Layout of streets.
I Y
.l d. Surrounding property boundaries-within 500 feet
Je. Names of abutting property owners.
t f. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas.
g. Driveway cuts on abutting properties and any properties across from
proposed site.
J
h. Applicant is responsible for providing a list of all property owners.
i. Distance to and name of nearest intersection street.
t1 3. Architectural v Ele ations: See attached checklist for Architecture and Design
Review.
4. Plot Plan: A ma layout of the proposed Y p p p sed site drawn to a scale of 1 inch
equals 40 feet on either of the following size sheets: (1) 24" x 36" with a
3/4" ruled margin; (2) 18" x 24" with a 1/2" ruled margin, containing the
following data:
a. Distance and bearings of all boundary lines and acreage of site. Iron pins
required at all property angle points and shown on map.
b. Proposed streets and street lines with center line station, curve data, and
parking spaces.
c. Building lines in accordance with zoning regulations.
d. Proposed buildings and other structures, including signs, outside lighting,
and dumpsters (on concrete pad and screened).
e. Easements, noting grantors, grantees, and purpose.
f. Names of abutting property owners.
g. Monuments will be indicated at corners and angles of all streets and at all
points of curvature and tangency. The monumented points within -
proposed site shall be coordinated. These coordinates shall appear in
tabular form on the plot plan. The accessibility of these CGS points shall
be determined by the Town Engineer.
h. All open space or other common or public land uses shall be indicated.
i. A-2 certification; P.E./L.S. seals and signatures.
5. Topographic Ma : A ma drawn to a scale of I P P inch to 40 feet on sheets not
exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins shall in addition to
/ the requirements of the plot plans show the following:
a. All existing and proposed buildings.
b. Curb Lines and pavement width, sidewalks.
c. Existing and proposed sanitary sewers.
d. Existing and proposed water and-all existing utilities.
e. Present wooded area indicated by foliage lines. Any trees to be saved
should be shown.
f. Existing and proposed contours shall be shown in not less than two-foot
intervals, but in cases of relatively level land,the contours shall be one-
foot intervals and spot elevations.
g . Regulated wetlands and 100-year floodplain or note that none are
present.
h. Proposed storm drainage stem showing all catch basins
9 sY 9 ;endwalls,
manholes, lengths and sizes of pipes and elevations of structures.
(Maximum distance between catch basins shall be 300 feet and minimum
size of storm drain lines shall be 15 inches, within Town ROW.) If
plan/profile sheet is provided all of this does not need to be shown. Only
top of frame elevations and inverts of open discharge pipe shall be shown
on this plan.
i. Connections of all springs into proposed storm system drainage stem as
/ needed.
J j. Location and indications of existing brook channels, and 100-year flood
limits.
k. A-2 &T-2 Certification; P.E./L.S. seals and signatures.
✓ 6. Landscaping plan:
7. Drainage calculations: - Zero Runoff Increase per attached guidelines.
J
/ 8. Traffic Report:
9. Plans and Profiles: A plan and profile of the proposed streets drawn on
plan/profile paper of scales 1 inch to 40 feet horizontally, and 1 inch to 4 feet
vertically on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled
margins and containing the following:
a. Layout of streets in sections coordinated by stations with the profile.
b. Street plan showing roadways, drainage, sanitary sewer (including house
sewer), foundation drains, lot lines, buildings including all utilities with
elevations (top frame and inverts), size, type, length, slopes of pipes.
c. Sight line at driveway &street intersections.
d. Profile of roadway showing existing and finished grades. Roadway profile
will show all tangent grade and all vertical curve information.
e. Profile will show all catch basins and all drainage lines between catch
basins with all invert and top of frame elevations, sizes, lengths and
slopes of pipes.
3
f. Where any storm drainage line discharges into an existing brook
sufficient profile of this brook will be shown to determine conditions.
g. CGS datum shall be used on all sites accessible to these controls. The
Town Engineer shall, based on standard engineering practices, determine
the accessibility of these controls.
h. Profiles shall show all sanitary sewer lines and manholes, in
elevations, inverts, top of frame, sizes, lengths, and slopes of pipes. Top
of foundation elevations for building shall be shown.
_ 10. Open Space Site Improvement Plans: For sites which require or include a
provision for open spaces, a plan which contains data for site improvement
may be required. This map shall be drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40
feet.
11. Sanitary Report: Where individual sanitary sewage disposal systems are
proposed, the final plans shall include a Sanitary Report certified by a
Professional Engineer. The report shall demonstrate the feasibility of the
proposed individual systems.
N PR ARE P.E./ S.)
DATE
3anua 31 98
QUIT CLAIM DEED
TO ALL PEOPLE TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:
KNOW YE, THAT SOUTH WINDSOR LAND CONSERVATION TRUST, INC. a
Connecticut nonprofit Corporation having its principal place of business in the Town of South
Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut acting herein by LEON MAINELLI, its
President duly authorized (hereinafter referred to as the"Releasor")
for the consideration of ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR AND OTHER VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION BUT LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED ($100.00)DOLLARS
received to its full satisfaction%f BANKCROFT BROOK,LLC.,a Connecticut Limited Liability
Company having-Its principal place of business in the Town of Manchester, County of Hartford
and State of C�necticut (hereinafter referred to as the"Releasee")
does remise, release, and forever QUIT-CLAIM unto the said BANKCROFT BROOK,L.L.C.
and unto its successors and assigns forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand
whatsoever as it the said Releasor, has or ought to have in and to a certain piece or parcel of land
located westerly of Strong Road in the Town of South Windsor County of Hartford and State
of Connecticut which is more particularly described on SCHEDULE A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
The Releasor herein, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns forever, reserves all rights of
ingress and egress in and from said premises and passage for all purposes whatsoever over all of the
premises conveyed herein as referenced on Schedule A attached hereto.
Said premises are further conveyed subject to conservation easements and restrictions in favor of the
Releasor herein, its successors and assigns forever,as covenants running with the land. Releasee, for
itself and its successors and assigns forever, covenants and agrees that it shall not, without the prior
written, express consent of the Releasor, engage in any of the following activities:
(a) the construction or placing of buildings, structures, roads or signs;
(b) the dumping or placing of soil, leaves or year wastes, etc., or other substances or
materials as landfill or dumping or placing of trash, ashes, waste, rubbish,junk, garbage or unsightly
or offensive materials'
(c) the excavation, dredging or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or other mineral
substance;
(d)the removal or destruction of trees(living or dead)shrubs or natural vegetation, the killing
of wildlife; or
(e) Any other activity or use detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation,
erosion control, soil conservation, wildlife or the maintenance of the Inland wetland areas in their
natural, scenic and open condition.
(f) The objective of these restrictions and limitations is to ensure that the land be left in its
natural state.
Schedule A
Land to be conveyed from South Windsor Land Conservation Trust,Inc.
to Bancroft Brook,LLC
Beginning at a point which is N65128'30"W a distance of 65.00 feet to
an existing iron pin, said point being the northwest corner of the parcel
herein described; thence S24031130"W, along property of now or formerly
Edward T Sunderland III, a distance of 405.55 feet to a point; thence
S63011'07E, along the northerly street line of Strong Road, a distance of
199.08 feet to a point; thence N23005'29nE, along property now or formerly
of Chamberlain & Robert G. Hunt and now or formerly South Windsor Land Conservation
Trust,Inc.,partially by each, in all a distance of 315.03 feet to a point;
thence N63011'07"W along property now or formerly Bancroft Brook,LLC, a
distance of 30.06 feet to a point; thence N23005'29"E, along property now
or formerly of said Bancroft Brook,LLC, a distance of 97.40 feet to a point;
thence N65028130"W along property now or formerly of South Windsor Land .
Conservation Trust,Inc. , a distance of 158.56 feet to a point being the point
and place of beginning.
Said property is depicted as Parcel A on a map entitled - "Resurvey/
Property Survey prepared for: South Windsor Land Conservation Trust,Inc. ,
Strong Road, South Windsor,Connecticut, Land to be Conveyed from South Windsor
Land Conservation Trust,Inc. to Bancroft Brook,LILC, Date: October 7,1998,
Design Professionals,Inc. , 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor,Connecticut,
1 inch = 100 ft. , sheet 1/1- Said parcel contains 1.75 acres.
Legal Description
Shady Brook Village SRD
Strong Road
The Shady Brook Village SRD parcel consists of 9.11 acres and is depicted as Parcel A
on a map entitled, "Resurvey/Property Survey Prepared for: B&M Enterprises, Strong Road,
South Windsor, Connecticut, Sheets 6/10 & 7/10; Topographic Survey; Job No. 98-1123; date:
October 7, 1998; Design Professionals, Inc.; 165 South Satellite Road, South Windsor,
Connecticut 06074, 860-291-8755, graphic scale 1 inch= 40 feet, Richard P. Martel, Lic. No.
12882.
Shady Brook Village
Abutter List
1) South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc _
c/o Leo Mainelli
63 Timber Trail
South Windsor,CT 06074
2) Florence Winton
100 Strong Road
South Windsor,CT 06074
3) Charette, Kevin J_ & Laurie A_
90 Strong Road
South Windsor,CT 06074
4) . Robert G. Hunt & Chamberlain
42 Strong Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
S) . Edward T. Sunderland, III
P.O. Box 362
East Windsor hill, Ci' 06082
Shady Brook Village
Abutter List
1) South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Znc_
c/o Leo Mainelli
63 Timber Trail
South Windsor ,CT 06074
2) Florence Winton
100 Strong Road
South Windsor,CT 06074
3) Charette , Kevin J_ & Laurie A .
90 Strong Road
South Windsor,CT 06074
4) . Robert G. Hunt & Chamberlain
42 Strong Road
South Windsor, Cr 06074
5) . Edward T. Sunderland, III
P.O_ Box 362
East Windsor Bill, CT 06082
MEMORANDUf4E(; Ei -,,V" "'..,,�,. -�-
Town of
TO: Marcia Banach - Planning and Zoning sip 2w� 1196 South
FROM: Sergeant Thomas Field f - AW i n d s o r
SIUTR
DATE: 18-Sep-98 o i c e Services
SUBJECT: Application 98-48P
I viewed the sight on Strong Road, Shady Brook Village, and found that existing shrubs and
trees at 90 Strong Road blocked the sight line west. The view tothe east was also blocked by
shrubs and trees and SNET telephone pole# 2204.
Strong Road at this site has very little traffic going by the proposed road.
The two proposed houses are very close to the existing Preston Trucking Terminal.
We have had and continue to receive complaints of noise from residential homeowners living
near Industrial zones and truck terminals.
E. Thomas Field, Sergeant
South Windsor Police Services
Traffic Unit Manager
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS, INC.
civil engineers planners surveyors
Transmitted via certified mail
Oct. 7, 1998
Dear Current Abutting Property Owner
Re: Shady Brook Village Application DPI Project No. 98-1123
Strong Road
South Windsor, Connecticut
In accordance with Section 7.3b of the "Town of South Windsor Inland Wetlands, Watercourses,
and Conservation Regulations" and in accordance with regulations of the Planning &Zoning
Commission, we are required to notify you that applications have been filed on the property
abutting yours and are subject to hearings by the Inland Wetlands Agency and the Planning&
Zoning Commission. The applications and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning
Department in the Town Hall.
As an abutting property owner you are invited to the hearings to ask questions and/or give
comments, however,you are not required to attend. You may also submit written comments
regarding the application prior to the hearings if you so desire. For further information regarding
the specific dates these applications will be heard, please contact Debbie Wark, Recording
Secretary, Jeff Folger, Zoning/Wetlands Enforcement Officer, or Michele Lipe, Deputy Planning
Director at the South Windsor Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 253, 229, or 252,
respectively. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Design P essionals,_Inc.
By:
Peter R.DeMallie
Principal
cc: Town of South Windsor
Harold Cummings, Esq.
Brian Edwards
• 165 South Satellite Road-South Windsor, CT 06074 Tel 860 291-8755 Fax 860 291-8757
4
R LF I V E D
IT I998
MEMORANDUM
October 12, 1998
TO: Planning Department
FROM: Human Services/Adult & Senior Services Director
SUBJECT: Senior Residence Development
In response to your request for input from a Senior Services perspective, please be
advised as follows:
1. According to a survey of Americans Age 50 and Older, done by the American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP) "Understanding Senior Housing Into the
Next Century" dated September 1996 older people are very diverse in their
housing needs and preferences.
• Seventy percent of respondents believe that their current residence is where
they will "always live." This finding seems consistent with a 1989 and 1992
survey also conducted by AARP.
• It seems fair to assume that thirty percent of the senior population will be
looking at other ways to meet their housing needs.
Senior Residence Developments seem to be well received by the seniors that have
moved into these homes. In keeping with the overall findings of AARP's survey, most
of these folks plan on staying in these homes and never having to move again.
A portion (approximately one-third) of this overall senior population will at some time,
or regularly, use the senior center, require transportation, " inhome" services, meals-
on-wheels, outreach, medical, education, social services, family meetings, etc. It is
important to note that this will have an impact on the senior service delivery system in
South Windsor as this addition to our senior population ages in place.
Valerie Ballard
' QUIT CLAIM DEED
TO ALL PEOPLE TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:
KNOW YE, THAT SOUTH WINDSOR LAND CONSERVATION TRUST, INC. a
Connecticut nonprofit Corporation having its principal place of business in the Town of South
Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut acting herein by LEON MAINELLI, its
President duly authorized (hereinafter referred to as the"Releasor")
for the consideration of ONE ($1.00) DOLLAR AND OTHER VALUABLE
CONSIDERATION BUT LESS THAN ONE HUNDRED ($100.00) DOLLARS
received to its full satisfaction of BANKCROFT BROOK,LLC.,a Connecticut Limited Liability
Company having its principal place of business in the Town of Manchester, County of Hartford
and State of Connecticut (hereinafter referred to as the"Releasee")
does remise, release, and forever QUIT-CLAIM unto the said BANKCROFT BROOK, L.L.C.
and unto its successors and assigns forever, all the right, title, interest, claim and demand
whatsoever as it the said Releasor, has or ought to have in and to a certain piece or parcel of land
located westerly of Strong Road in the Town of South Windsor County of Hartford and State
of Connecticut which is more particularly described on SCHEDULE A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
The Releasor herein, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns forever, reserves all rights of
ingress and egress in and from said premises and passage for all purposes whatsoever over all of the
premises conveyed herein as referenced on Schedule A attached hereto.
Said premises are further conveyed subject to conservation easements and restrictions in favor of the
Releasor herein, its successors and assigns forever, as covenants running with the land. Releasee, for
itself and its successors and assigns forever, covenants and agrees that it shall not, without the prior
written, express consent of the Releasor, engage in any of the following activities:
(a) the construction or placing of buildings, structures, roads or signs;
(b) the dumping or placing of soil, leaves or year wastes, etc., or other substances or
materials as landfill or dumping or placing of trash, ashes, waste, rubbish,junk, garbage or unsightly
or offensive materials'
(c) the excavation, dredging or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or other mineral
substance;
(d)the removal or destruction of trees(living or dead)shrubs or natural vegetation, the killing
of wildlife; or
(e) Any other activity or use detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation,
erosion control, soil conservation, wildlife or the maintenance of the Inland wetland areas in their
natural, scenic and open condition.
(f) The objective of these restrictions and limitations is to ensure that the land be left in its
natural state.
y - The Releasor reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, the right to continue to use the
property subject to the easements and restrictions referenced above, for all purposes not inconsistent
with the terms hereof as set forth in the by-laws and charter of the Releasor.
The Grant and reservation of the Conservation Easements referenced above shall in no way
grant anyone other than the parties hereto, their guests and invitees, the right to enter upon the
property so conserved.
The foregoing Conservation Easements and restrictions shall be permanent and shall be
binding upon the Releasee and its successors and assigns, and shall enure to the benefit of the
releasor, its successors and assigns.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises, with all the appurtenances, unto the said Releasee, its
successors and assigns forever, so that neither we, the Releasors, nor our heirs nor any other person
under us or them shall hereafter have any claim, right or title in or to the premises,or any part
thereof, but therefrom we are and they are by these presents forever barred'and excluded.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,We have hereunto set our hands and seals this day of November,
1998.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered SOUTHWINDSORLAND CONSERVATION.
in the Presence of: TRUST, INC.
By
Leon Mainelli, its President
duly authorized
STATE OF CONNECTICUT )
) ss: South Windsor November 1998
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
On this the day November, 1998, before me, Harold R. Cummings, the undersigned officer,
personally appeared SOUTH WINDSOR CONSERVATION TRUST, INC. . acting herein
by LEON MAINELLI, its President, duly authorized Signer and Sealer of the foregoing
Instrument and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of said
Corporation.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand.
Harold R. Cummings
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Grantee Address:
~ � r
P
f P
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
DATE: November 17, 1998
RE: Shady Brook Village
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 10-29-98 for the proposed Shady
Brook Village and have the following comments:
Sheet 4
1. Strong Road street line should be established by monumentation and deed along
the frontage of this project.
Sheet 5
1. Iron pins should be placed delineating the South Windsor Land Trust property
(where N 230 05' 29" E meets N 630 11' 07"W, where N 230 05' 29" E meets N
650 28' 30"W and where N 650 28' 30" E meets S 240 31' 30"W)
Sheet 6
1. A catch basin should be placed on the west side of Bailey Circle at Strong Road.
2. It should be noted on this drawing that Strong Road is to be reconstructed in
vicinity of new sanitary sewer.
Sheet 7
1. Footing drain outlet pipes, sanitary house laterals and water laterals should be
identified.
2. Combination footing drain outlet pipes should be identified as to size and type of
pipe.
3. Outlet protection is required at the outlets of footing drain outlet pipes.
4. All units shall have back water valves installed in footing drain outlet pipes.
These shall be placed in accordance with the Building Code.
5. The footing drain for unit 3 is shown outleting into a drywell. This should be
placed into storm system as N/F Hunt has indicated that groundwater now
bleeds out in that area.
Sheet 10
1. Some PVI's are not identified.
2. Storm pipe between PCB5 and PCB6 not identified on profile.
3. Profile from 0 + 51 to 3 + 50± should be revised to eliminate the changes in
grade between 2 + 00 and 2 + 50±.
4. Sanitary sewer is shown as .4% slope. Town standard indicates that the velocity
in a pipe should be greater than or equal to 2.5 FPS in the upper reaches of
sewers. Applicant must show that a minimum of 2.5 FPS flow is proposed.
Sheet 12
1. Typical sidewalk detail has text over text— needs to be revised.
2. Sanitary sewer trench detail does not show pavement section.
3. Curb detail is not latest Town standard.
4. Pavement section not Town standard.
Sheet 13
1. Reconstruction of Strong Road should be identified in both general notes and
sequence of construction.
JCl/sfg
ti•
1
November 18, 1998
To: The Town of South Windsor
Wetlands Commission &Planning&Zoning Commission
Re: Petition in Favor of Shady Brook Village
We the undersigned, although not able to be present for the public hearing,would like to make
our thoughts known respecting the proposed Senior Residential Development called Shady Brook
Village off of Strong Road. We hope you will accept this into the public record.
We are residents of Collins Hill I&IL the Senior Residential Development off of Sullivan
Avenue. We are very happy to be in South Windsor. We hope you approve this project because
we feel that there should be more Senior Residential Developments in Town.
Some of us have family members and friends that would like to live in a similar community. We
are aware that Shady Brook is in the process of approval so we wanted to endorse this project as
we feel it would be a boost for the Town of South Windsor as well as an additional location for
Seniors within the town to reside.
We are very happy with this unique,quiet community of our senior peers and hope you will
consider favorably Shady Brook Village.
We respectfully ask that you accept this into the public record.
Signed Address
1.
2.
3. Pz✓� Pel0s6
�l eo 11l v�5 Grass+ r oSo C(I,'-r ds a,—
S s 27
6.
7. /J,
e_ r CO x- ' 5 s -
8. -.�T
Signed Address
NUNTE� �INLc) ,
12.
13.
�t
i
14.
15.
lb.
17,
18.
19.
20.
i�
AUG-12-'13 21:05 ID: TEL N0: #202 P01
;i
•tit S Q v/� fro
v '-5 I''
j�
I:
I�
j� ��ora.-tee C•J,'v�,vt
/
�i
i
i�
i
I!
I
(I
li
I
I�
I
:U II
�r
i�
i�
I �I
j
,f� I
i)
i
I
i
_{ li
1(
_ I
I
r, I
�i
I I ,.
��� � ,� ��
�� l
i �
f � � .�� .� - / / .� /// Ir
/ ' i / i
�� i � � .� / � i � t // /��
� � i
,.
�'� � �
,�
L
N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engine
DATE: November 24, 1998
RE: Shady Brook Village
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 11-17-98 for the proposed Shady
Brook Village and have the following comments:
Sheet 4
1. Strong Road street line should be established by monumentation and deed along
the frontage of this project.
Sheet 6
1. A catch basin should be placed on the west side of Bailey Circle at Strong Road.
2. It should be noted on this drawing that Strong Road is to be reconstructed in
vicinity of new sanitary sewer.
Sheet 7
1. Footing drain outlet pipes, sanitary house laterals and water laterals should be
identified.
2. Combination footing drain outlet pipes should be identified as to size and type of
pipe.
3. Outlet protection is required at the outlets of footing drain outlet pipes.
4. All units shall have back water valves installed in footing drain outlet pipes.
These shall be placed in accordance with the Building Code.
Sheet 8
1. Toe Drain Detail is incomplete.
Sheet 10
1. Some PVI's are not identified.
2. Storm pipe between PCB5 and PC136 not identified on profile.
3. Profile from 0 + 51 to 3 + 50± should be revised to eliminate the changes in
grade between 2 + 00 and 2 + 50±.
4. Sanitary sewer is shown as .4% slope. Town standard indicates that the velocity
in a pipe should be greater than or equal to 2.5 FPS in the upper reaches of
sewers. Applicant must show that a minimum of 2.5 FPS flow is proposed.
Sheet 12
1. Typical sidewalk detail has text over text— needs to be revised.
2. Sanitary sewer trench detail does not show pavement section.
3. Curb detail is not latest Town standard.
4. Pavement section not Town standard.
Sheet 13
1. Reconstruction of Strong Road should be identified in both general notes and
sequence of construction.
JCl/sfg
Memorandum
To: Jerry Iazzetta—Town Engineer
CC:
From: Jeff Folger
Date: 11/24/98
Re: Location of stormwater outfall on Shady Brook Village SRD.Appl.#98-58P
I would recommend moving the location of the level spreader associated with the northwestern
stormwater outfall approximately 30' to the south,which would put the spreader just south of the#75
wetland flag.In examining the location of the proposed northwestern stormwater outfall it appears
that:the current outfall location would result in a higher risk of erosion and entail a greater level of
disturbance because the spreader would have to be placed in and through an existing berm and
directed at the brook.
The revised.location would result in stormflows taking a longer,flatter route to the brook thereby
increasmg the attenuation of pollutants and slowing flow velocities.
1
Shady Brook Senior Residence Development
PH 11-24-98
1. Request for a resubdivision, Special Exception and site plan approval to
construct a 20-unit Senior Residence Development on Strong Road. The
subject site property is 11.84 acres, with one lot of 9.1 acres for the SRD and a
remaining parcel with 2.73 acres. The applicant has just filed an additional
application for a Special Exception to allow an interior lot on the 2.73-acre
parcel. If an interior lot is to be created from that remainder parcel, it must be
done prior to simultaneous with this SRD subdivision, or the right to create an
interior lot will be forfeited under our interior lot regulations.
2. There are existing single family residences to the south and west of the
proposed Shady Brook Senior Residence development. To the east is
industrially-zoned land and uses, including Preston Trucking. There is an
existing 50-foot right-of-way along the new driveway to the industrially-zoned
rear property currently owned by Glen Knafel (see sheet 3 for location of
Knafel property). To the northeast is property of the South Windsor Land
Conservation Trust. We would also note the presence of a ten-foot strip of land
belonging to the Land Trust surrounding most of the property. Town staff are
concerned about this ten-foot strip of land, as it will be exceptionally difficult
for residents and neighbors to differentiate where Shady Brook land ends and
the ten-foot strip of Land Trust property begins.
3. The proposed density is 2.4 units per net buildable acre; maximum 8 units per
net buildable acre are allowed. The maximum number of units in a Senior
Residence Development is 20 units. Proposed impervious coverage is 16%;
60% allowed. Required parking is 1.5 spaces per unit, or 30 spaces; the
applicant has provided 57 spaces, or 2.85 spaces per unit. It appears that all
other zoning requirements are met.
4. There are regulated wetlands on this site. IWA/CC approved the application on
November 18, with a $10,000 bond and an approval condition requiring the
design engineer to oversee the installation of the detention basins.
5. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved up to
72. The maximum number of units that the Commission may approve is
currently capped at 115.
6. Public water is available in Strong Road. Public sewer can be extended from
Gorski Drive. WPCA approval is required. If the development will have
curbside refuse collection and recycling, a hold harmless agreement and
permission to enter form will need to be provided to the Town to allow the
refuse & recycling vehicles to enter the site.
7. Sgt. Thomas Field, the SWPD traffic authority, has reviewed this proposal and
has the following comments: (See attached memo from Tom Field)
8. There is a 25' buffer requirement around the site perimeter, in addition to the
yard setbacks. The applicant has included cross-sections as required to
demonstrate the buffer.
9. The Human Services Department has provided a memorandum regarding the
provision of senior residence developments: (Read Val's Memo, attached)
10. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include:
• traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the
neighborhood;
• there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area;
• surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the
neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
• impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and proposed
utilities, street, drainage system, sidewalks, and other elements of the
infrastructure;
• the land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse
environmental impacts are created;
• the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town
Plan of Development;
• the SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of South Windsor;
• the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community
facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within
reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close
proximity to or contains permanent open space land;
• the SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped
residents or visitors;
• the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests no additional approval
conditions other than as already noted.
ti
Shady Brook Senior Residence Development
PH 11-24-98
1. Request for a resubdivision, Special Exception and site plan approval to
construct a 20-unit Senior Residence Development on Strong Road. The
subject site property is 11.84 acres, with one lot of 9.1 acres for the SRD and a
remaining parcel with 2.73 acres. The applicant has just filed an additional
application for a Special Exception to allow an interior lot on the 2.73-acre
parcel. If an interior lot is to be created from that remainder parcel, it must be
done prior to simultaneous with this SRD subdivision, or the right to create an
interior lot will be forfeited under our interior lot regulations.
2. There are existing single family residences to the south and west of the
proposed Shady Brook Senior Residence development. To the east is
industrially-zoned land and uses, including Preston Trucking. There is an
existing 50-foot right-of-way along the new driveway to the industrially-zoned
rear property currently owned by Glen Knafel (see sheet 3 for location of
Knafel To the northeast is property of the South Windsor Land
property).
_ Conservation Trust. We would also note the presence of a ten-foot strip of land
belonging to the Land Trust surrounding most of the property. Town staff are
concerned about this ten-foot strip of land, as it will be exceptionally difficult
for residents and neighbors to differentiate where Shady Brook land ends and
the ten-foot strip of Land Trust property begins.
3. The proposed density is 2.4 units per net buildable acre; maximum 8 units per
net buildable acre are allowed. The maximum number of units in a Senior
Residence Development is 20 units. Proposed impervious coverage is 16%;
60% allowed. Required parking is 1.5 spaces per unit, or 30 spaces; the
p6 n6 ' applicant has provided 57 spaces, or 2.85 spaces per unit. It appears that all
other zoning requirements are met.
4. There are regulated wetlands on this site. IWA/CC approved the application on
cyO ^� November 18, with a $10,000 bond and an approval condition requiring the
design engineer to oversee the installation of the detention basins.
5. If this application is approved, it will bring the total SRD units approved up to
72. The maximum number of units that the Commission may approve is
currently capped at 115.
6. Public water is available in Strong Road. Public sewer can be extended from
Gorski Drive. WPCA approval is required. If the development will have
curbside refuse collection and recycling, a hold harmless agreement and
permission to enter form will need to be provided to the Town to allow the
refuse & recycling vehicles to enter the site.
7. Sgt. Thomas Field, the SWPD traffic authority, has reviewed this proposal and
has the following comments: (See attached memo from Tom Field)
8. There is a 25' buffer requirement around the site perimeter, in addition to the
yard setbacks. The applicant has included cross-sections as required to
demonstrate the buffer.
9. The Human Services Department has provided a memorandum regarding the
provision of senior residence developments: (Read Val's Memo, attached)
10. The Special Exception criteria for review of a SRD include:
• traffic impacts will not be detrimental to the residential character of the
neighborhood;
• there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area;
• surrounding property values will be conserved and the character of the
neighborhood will not be unduly disrupted;
• impacts will not be detrimental to the capacity of the present and proposed
utilities, street, drainage system, sidewalks, and other elements of the
infrastructure;
• the land is physically suited to the proposed use and minimal adverse
environmental impacts are created;
• the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town
Plan of Development;
• the SRD proposal will help meet senior housing needs of South Windsor;
• the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community
facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within
reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close
proximity to or contains permanent open space land;
.V
• the SRD facility has been designed to meet the needs of handicapped
residents or visitors;
• the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and low profile
If this application is approved, the Planning Dept. requests no additional approval
conditions other than as already noted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
DATE: November 30, 1998
RE: Shady Brook Village 98-58P
The following comments are in addition to my memorandum of November 24,
1998 concerning the proposed Shady Brook Village:
1. In reviewing the existing 50' ROW in favor of Irwin A and Geraldine M. Knafel,
and the fact that the Knafel property is in the industrial zone, we offer the
following:
a. The proposed Bailey Circle intersection with Strong Road does not allow a
single unit truck or bus to make the right turn into Bailey Circle. The road
should be designed to accommodate commercial type vehicles.
b. Bailey Circle should be designed and built to allow direct access from the
Knafel property.
JCl/sfg
Memorandum ,, ..
To: Michele Lipe—Asst.Director of Planning
CC:
From: Jeff Folger
Date: 12/08/98
Re: Location of stormwater outfall on Shady Brook Village SRD.Appl.#98-58P
Based on an additional field visit I have requested that the proposed stormwater outfall located in the
northwest corner of the property be altered so that the outfall is placed approximately 30 feet to the
south.
We received a concept plan from the applicant which was discussed at the Nov 24 hearing,however
no revised plans showing the change have been submitted.
N
ji
i
1./
i ;
it
!I !
4i
I
I.I
i
:.I
i
!
,
i
j
i
i
I
I ;
i
j
,I
i
i
I ,
I
I
I'
_- --- -------- -_
� j
I;
I.�
j l
I
i;I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
DATE: December 22, 1998
RE: Shady Brook Village
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 12-9-98 for the proposed Shady Brook
Village and have the following comments:
Sheet 4
1. Strong Road street line should be established by monumentation and deed along the
frontage of this project. This should be noted on this sheet and sheet 5.
2. Proposed roadway encroaches on N/F Charette and N/F Winton as no streetline is
established.
3. Information at Station 1+00 difficult to read as overlapping occurs.
Sheet 6
1. A catch basin should be placed on the west side of Bailey Circle at Strong Road.
2. WPCA approval is required.
Sheet 7
1. Combination footing drain outlet pipes should be identified as to size and type of pipe.
Sheet 8
1. Toe Drain Detail is incomplete.
Sheet 10
1. Profile from 0 + 51 to 3 + 50± should be revised to eliminate the changes in grade
between 2 + 00 and 2 + 50±.
2. Sanitary sewer is shown as .4% slope. Town standard indicates that the velocity in a
pipe should be greater than or equal to 2.5 FPS in the upper reaches of sewers.
Applicant must show that a minimum of 2.5 FPS flow is proposed.
Sheet 12
1. Curb detail is not latest Town standard.
2. Pavement section not Town standard.
JCl/sfg
Tvo�, dtz�
_ Ce-Ylll
3
C1"�.c�� Cell'
oil
P
1'-� �'�n✓. r� v�saV S arc{�matil
no
1'"v '
1
6A� AA,-A
At -
z
10
ca
tAA C4-r\- -e
+a d,
ns
s � � o
-�.�-e. - 4-0
If
tLA- F-a-4� C P
LAJ t.0 s
ILA,� `
=bit- � �� L224,
',Aj-ems
A-o ba� IQ- ,
�o
LAJ Io�� tkP—
- - - ,
� s
6 rr m1t
t V r T4 ,`ri t V .Q. -
t o-P-1, ,
fit.Q. -
s
1 ra • P-o- � JIk-�t u-,
LIMAlea- tkD- bp� tka-f i
- _
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Plan ing
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
DATE: January 12, 1999 5
RE: Shady Brook Village
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 12-9-98 for the proposed Shady Brook
Village and have the following comments:
Sheet 4
1. Strong Road street line should be established by monumentation and deed along the
frontage of this project. This should be noted on this sheet and sheet 5.
2. A single unit truck must encroach on the opposing lane when making a right turn into
the proposed site.
3. Information at Station 1+00 difficult to read as overlapping occurs.
Sheet 6
1. A catch basin should be placed on the west side of Bailey Circle at Strong Road.
2. WPCA approval is required.
Sheet 7
1. Combination footing drain outlet pipes should be identified as to size and type of pipe.
Sheet 8
1. Toe Drain Detail is incomplete.
Sheet 10
1. Profile from 0 + 51 to 3 + 50± should be revised to eliminate the changes in grade
between 2 + 00 and 2 + 50±.
2. Sanitary sewer is shown as .4% slope. Town standard indicates that the velocity in a
pipe should be greater than or equal to 2.5 FPS in the upper reaches of sewers.
Applicant must show that a minimum of 2.5 FPS flow is proposed.
Sheet 12
1. Curb detail is not latest Town standard.
2. Pavement section not Town standard.
JCl/sfg
LAW OFFICES
t
CUMMINGS AND LANZA,L.L.C.
1610 ELLINGTON ROAD
POST OFFICE BOX 667
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074-0667
(860)644-3473
FAX(860)644-3347 '
HAROLD R.CUMMINGS EDWARD R.KUEHN
MICHAEL J.LANZA OF COUNSEL
VINCENT J.PURNHAGEN
January 12, 1999
VIA FACSIMILE#860 -643-5773
Barry D. Guliano, Esquire
Phelon FitzGerald& Wood
773 Main Street
Manchester, CT 06040
Re: Shady Brook Village Application for Senior Residents District
Northerly of Strong Road
Dear Barry:
Per our prior telephone conversation,I am the attorney for Bancroft Brook, LLC.,the owner of the
premises northerly of Strong Road which is the subject of the pending Senior Residents District
Application known as Shady Brook Village.
Specifically, a question has been raised as to the installation of road improvements at the proposed
intersection of the new private road, Bailey Circle,with the existing town road, Strong Road.
It is my opinion that my client, as land owner and B & M Enterprises, as applicant, has the legal
right to install the pavement and curb line as shown on the maps and plans prepared by Design
Professionals, Inc. and filed with the Town of South Windsor in support of the application.
Attached to this opinion letter, please find a copy of the face page of the Warranty Deed to Kevin
J. And Laurie Charette,the abutting property owners to the west of the proposed road, and a copy
of the face page of the Certificate of Devise of the Estate of Peter A. Winton, showing the legal
description for the Winton property, the abutter to the east of the proposed road.
As I have underlined in both deeds,both deeds only claim ownership to the northerly line of Strong
Road.
I have also attached a copy of the portion of the map submitted by the applicant for the construction
of Bailey Circle. You will note that I have hand-written on the attached map "Charette southerly
line" and "Winton southerly line". It is my opinion that the southerly lines of the Charette and
Winton properties are as shown on the attached sketch of the applicant's map where I have written
the words "Charette southerly line" and"Winton southerly line.
The location of the abutter's southerly line is further reinforced by the location of the"established
iron pin" as shown on the Winton line. That iron pin, set in the Winton boundary, is exactly two
hundred feet from the southerly line as shown on the map and called for in the Winton deed.
Therefore, it is my opinion that Bancroft Brook LLC and B &M Enterprises have the legal right to
install the proposed pavement and curbing at the intersection at Bailey Road and Strong Road as may
be approved by the Town.
Sincer yours,
arold R. Cummings
HRC:cj
Enclosures
C: Peter DeMallie
Brian Edwards
+ .......
1 ✓
_ voL 7.79 Pia 037 f)
001431
WARRANTY DEED
ROGER CHARETTE and MARJORIE A. CHARETTE, both of the Town of
Bolton, County of Tolland, and State of Connecticut for the
-consideration of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY NINE THOUSAND and 00/100
(129,000.00) DOLLARS grant to KEVIN J. CHARETTE and LAURIE A.
CHARETTE both of the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford,
and State of Connecticut as joint tenants with WARRANTY COVENANTS
Two certain pieces or parcels of land with all the buildings
thereon standing, lying and being on the Northerly side of Strong
Road, situated in the Town of south Windsor, County of Hartford
and State of Connecticut, and being more particularly bounded and
described as follow, to wit:
FIRST PIECE:
1 Beginning at a stake set on the North side of Strong Road, said
stake is about ten hundred forty-seven (1047) feet East of the
East line of Main Street; thence N. 36' 19' 00" E along land now
or formerly of Paul C. and Benjamin L. Bancroft, a distance of
one hundred fifty (150) feet to a stake; thence S 53° 41' 00" E
along land now or formerly of Paul C. Benjamin L. Bancroft, a
distance of one hundred (100) feet to a stake; thence S 36 19'
00" W along land now or formerly of Paul C. and Benjamin L.
Bancroft. a distance of one hundred fifty (1501 feet to a stake
set on the North side of Strong Road; thence N 53° 41' 00" W
along the North side of Strong Road, a distance of one hundred
(100) feet to the point or place of beginning. All corners are
at right angles
Said parcel or piece of land is bounded:
NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Paul C. and Benjamin L.
Bancroft;
EASTERLY by land now or formerly of G. Herbert Clarke;
SOUTHERLY by Strong Road; and
WESTERLY by land now or formerly of Paul C. and Benjamin L.
Bancroft.
SECOND PARCEL:
Beginning at the southeast corner of land of
George H. and Shirley T. Clark, on the northerly side of Strong
Road; thence North 36 19' East, one hundred fifty (150) feet
along land of George H. and Shirley t. clarke to a point; thence
South 53 41' East, Twenty-five (25) feet to a point; thence
South 36 19' West, One hundred fifty (150) feet to a point on
the northerly boundary of Strong Road; thence North 53 41' West,
Twenty-five (25) feet along Strong Road to point of beginning.
Said piece or parcel of land is bounded:
NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Benjamin L. Bancroft;
EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Benjamin L. Bancroft;
SOUTHERLY by Strong Road; and
WESTERLY by land now or formerly of George H. and Shirley T. '
Clark;
Said premises are subject•t. building, building lines and zoning
restrictions of the Town of South Windsor and to taxes due the
Town of South Windsor on the List of October 1, 1993 and
t thereafter which the grantees herein assume and agree to pay as
part consideration for this deed.
CONVEYANCE IAX RECEwn
r- -- ay,nf STATEt(e4,S,-wms g)• Now_
TOWN CLFJiX Of SOUTH WWWDSOR
.w..w�y.Y�a.�n.waryi,.Mirw.:}t r....�r a.MwrcmlMl'.Ma,.�.yr/t vrw.
L'.
i t
Volume 597 Page N° 164
CERTIFICATE OF STATE OFCONNECTICUT Recorded: -
DEVISE.DESCENT
n
OR DISTRIBUTION COURT OF PROBATE r f�
PC-350 REV. 1/85
(PRC-58) I File cr lijimfe with town clerk
it-hem rml pr orwrt y is sitru:ted.I
Y
COURT OF PROBATE.DISTRICT OF Newington DISTRICT NO. 094 f`
ESTATE OF peter A. Winton, late of Wethersfield, DATE OF DEATH !
CT, deceased r
- xxxxxxat. March 30, 1989
i THIS CERTIFIES that a appears from the records of this Court said deceased died on the date nlsrve written and his estnte 4
has bttn duly settled in this Court:and the fulluwin{t real prolrerty is devised ur distributed.nr set out or dividtd ur descends to:
(iirr norm,plur.ql rrsidrrurandsh,t Idietriludr r:t/irr.1 rrr/uddrrssorlu!Nocal"rofrrnl prnprrll/,ur it uunr,nbrir/drrrripf iuu -
uflhe hoctrlhm.('.t%\jl::G•Ii I •✓.
TO: Joan W. Winton, 78 Clovercrvst, Wethersfield, CT; all such right, title and interest
as decedent had at the time of his decease in and tot Two (2) certain pieces or K -
parcels of land, together with any buildings thereon and appurtenances thereto,
located in the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut,
more particularly described as followst +
FIRST PIECE: An undivided one-half (212) interest in and to that certain piece or =-
parcel of land located in the Town of South Windsor, County cf Hartford and State
fiv K
of Connecticut, on the northeasterly side of Strong Road, so-called, being more
particularly bounded and described as follows, to wit:
CCP,VEYC'YG at a point set in the northeast boundary of said Strong Road which J2Q1= 41
is fifty-one (51) feet southeasterly as measured along the northeast boundary of said
,none Road, from the southeast corner of premises owned now or formerly by G. Herbert -„
sz
THENCE moving North 36 19' East along land now or formerly of Benjamin L, Bancroft, ;,
a .stance of two Nundred 1200) feet to a vointi
THENCE moving South 53 41' East along other land now or formerly of Benjamin L. sq
Bancroft, a distance of two hundred (200) feet to a point/
THENCE moving South 36 19' West along other land now or formerly of Benjamin L. Al
Bancroft, a distance of two hundred (200) feet to a point set in the northeast
t-
boundary of said Strong Roadt
THENCE moving North 53 41' West along the northeast boundary of said Strong Road a
distance of two hundred (200) feet to the point and place of beginning. • h='-
SECOND PIECE: An undivided one-half (112) interest in and to that certain piece or
parcel of land with any buildings thereon and appurtenances thereto, containing
approximately two and one half (2-112) acres of land, located in the Town of South
Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, being more particularly bounded '-
and described as follows:
Commencing at a point set in the north boundary of Strong Road, which point marks the
southeast corner of premises now or formerly owned by Julius Winton, Florence Winton
and Peter A. Winton, and which point is marked by an iron pipet thence moving in a
-
northerly direction in a straight line along the easterly boundary of said premises. r ,
now or formerly owned by Julius Winton, Florence Winton and Peter A. Winton, a distance ai
of five hundred one and fifteen one-hundredths (501.15) feet to a point marked by an
iron pipe set in the south boundary of premises now or formerly owned by Benjamin L.
' Bancroft, thence moving-southeasterly at an interior angle of 75 57' 50" along the
southerly boundary of said premises now or formerly owned by Benjamin L. Bancroft, a rt .-
distance of fifty-three and forty-three one hundredths (53.43) feet to a point marked
by an iron pipe set in the westerly boundary of premises now or formerly owned by f.
�•:.,, For a more particular description•reference should be made to the records of said Probate Court. `
'r • show First Piece is subject to Life Use of Florence M. Winton as of
= =cord appears.
:.S AT' IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of this Court on this
�f 3ea1 ttiS ? 8th daYof August .1990
4.\.Mt�rt. lAllfl i t
•r. are
.... Rnn Mannin \\tdwdxe sst..Clerk
FOR TOWN CLERKS USE ONLY I `
FOR COURT USE;UNLI'
RECFMVED FOR RECORD: Oribrinal to:
.,,�TF M 14 I""'TIME . U�—
f� t• '"!d`� Date Sent:
•t��
CERTIFICATE OF DEVISE.DESCENT Oft DISTRIBUTION
N23'18 O6'E
24.63'
t.L P• IRON PIPE
' c
S66 2O'47'E
/ °o 1. 78'
?-
52378'06"W �\
15.00'
S66 41'S4"E
0.77 �;'
' 11: IN
& CEK.dL Ul,b;. Al. K:'v 4fI=L
N/F- CHARME, /!
KE14N J & I /
LAURIE A.
N
i .7 '
N/f"
WNn N, fZORENCE
Cl
jr
R=30'
Nor iSIABLISHLD. 00
' AS DEPICI£D, IS TAKEN
' R£f E d NCE #1 AND IS ` Cj �
R
r
2,2'a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
FROM: Jerry C. Iazzetta, Town Engineer
DATE: February 2, 1999
RE: Shady Brook Village
We have reviewed the revised drawings dated 1-8-99 for the proposed Shady
Brook Village and have the following comments:
Sheet 4
1. Strong Road street line should be established by monumentation and deed along
the frontage of this project. This should be noted on this sheet and sheet 5.
Sheet 6
1. A catch basin should be placed on the west side of Bailey Circle at Strong Road.
2. WPCA approval is required.
Sheet 10
1. Profile from 0 + 51 to 3 + 50± should be revised to eliminate the changes in
grade between 2 + 00 and 2 + 50±.
2. Sanitary sewer is shown as .4% slope. Town standard indicates that the velocity
in a pipe should be greater than or equal to 2.5 FPS in the upper reaches of
sewers. Applicant must show that a minimum of 2.5 FPS flow is proposed.
Sheet 12
1. Pavement section should indicate that if the binder course is placed after October
15 or before April 15, the thickness of bituminous shall be 2". (This would make
the total pavement thickness 3 1/2" minimum).
2. Pavement detail should indicate that the section is the minimum and shall be
based on a pavement design based upon soil conditions present and as approved
by the Town Engineer.
JCl/sfg
\\TOWN_HALL\V0L2\ENGINEER\Proj.-P&Z Wetlands Applications\Shady Brook Village\Review Feb 2.doc
4o,NM a�,
0
Ci • U
-own aie
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE •SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074-2786
�NOSOR•co AREA CODE 860/644-2511
FAX 860/644-3781
February 26, 1999
CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Peter DeMallie
Design Professionals, Inc.
165 S. Satellite Rd.
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mr. DeMallie:
Re: Appl #98-58P, Shady Brook SRD
We regret to inform you that the Planning &Zoning Commission at its February
16, 1999, meeting, voted to deny the above-referenced application for a Senior
Residence Development on Strong Road. The reasons for denial include:
♦ Serious reservations about siting a high-density development directly
adjacent to an industrial zone with existing industrial uses, due to the
ongoing noise complaints from other residential developments abutting
industrial zones.
♦ Locating a multi-family development in the rural, historic Main Street area is
inappropriate. This would set a precedent for future high-density
development applications west of Route 5, which is an area whose rural
character the Commission desires to preserve and maintain. Commissioners
indicated that the density should be kept low in this area for both prevention
of noise complaints and preservation of rural character.
♦ This site is notwithin reasonable proximity to community facilities or
amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents.
♦ The proposed density is too high for the site.
Sincerely,.
�lGc�
Frank A. Castro, Chairman
FAQ/dlw
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
Assessor
Superintendent of Pollution Control
Fire Marshall
t
CITATION
TO THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF HARTFORD OR HIS DEPUTY WITHIN SAID
COUNTY, GREETING:
BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to
summon the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH
co
o WINDSOR in the County of Hartford and State of Connecticut to appear before the Superior
Z i
Court for the Judicial District of Hartford, to be held at 95 Washington Street, Hartford,
4 Connecticut, on 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon, on March 23, 1999, said appearance to be made
N OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR or
5 Y by the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
c
a its attorney by, entering a written statement of appearance with the Clerk of said Court on or
5 z before the second day following the return day, then and there to answer unto the following
= 3
`•' 2 complaint and appeal of BANCROFT BROOK, L.L.C., a Connecticut Limited Liability Company
U
09 with an office at 102 Lakewood Circle, Manchester, Connecticut 06040 and B
3 °
o ENTERPRISES, INC. a Connecticut Corporation with a place of business at 26 Pond Lane,
o`
South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 by leaving with or at the usual place of abode of the
z
m
Chairman of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH
WINDSOR, Frank Castro, 120 Murielle Drive, South Windsor, Connecticut 05074, and with
the Town Clerk of the Town of South Windsor, a true and attested copy of the complaint and
A23�Fi a\
HAR 1999 1
RECEIVED c,
s S00 WINDSOR
�' OS �;�
i
appeal and of this citation and summons at least twelve days before the return day, in the manner I
provided by law for the service of civil process. I hereby certify that I have personal
knowledge of the financial responsibility of the Plaintiffs and deem it sufficient to pay the cost of
I
this action.
Hereof fail not but of this writ with your doings thereon, make due service and return.
g Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut, this 2nd dav f March, 19
a
r d R. Cummings I
5 • Commissioner of the Superior Court
o �
zu
a
zo
� 3
U
U $
0
O
3 °
a
0
0
J
J d/J
W /
m ABRAH AN
DEPUTY SMERIFF.HTFQ.COUNTY
(8W)644.2124
RETURN DATE: MARCH 23, 1999 SUPERIOR COURT
BANCROFT BROOK, L.L.C.. I
AND B &M ENTERPRISES, INC. : J. D. OF HARTFORD
VS.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR MARCH 2, 1999
g
APPEAL
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD TO BE HELD
14
J � �
N AT 95 WASHINGTON STREET, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, ON MARCH 23, 1999, comes
z
BANCROFT BROOK L. L. C. of 102 Lakewood Circle , Manchester, Connecticut, 06040 and B
co
Z o &M ENTERPRISES, INC. 26 Pond Lane, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 appealing from
the denial of an application for a special exception for a Senior Residence District, subdivision and
Q8 site plan and the Plaintiffs complain and say:
o �
5 a 1. The Plaintiff,BANCROFT BROOK, L.L.C., is a Connecticut Limited Liability Company
and is the owner of a piece or parcel of land approximately 9.11 acres in size, located Northerly of
Z
W Strong Road and Easterly of Main Street in the Town of South Windsor.
0
m
2. The Plaintiff, B & M ENTERPRISES, INC., is a Connecticut Corporation, and has an
interest in the premises referenced in Paragraph 1 above, pursuant to a certain Option Agreement
between BANCROFT BROOK, L.L.C. and B & M ENTERPRISES, INC. dated June 1, 1998.
i
Pursuant to the terms of said Option Agreement, the Plaintiff B &BM ENTERPRISES, INC. has
the continuing right, at its option, to purchase the premises upon terms as more fully set forth in said
Option Agreement. The right of &M ENTERPRISES, INC. to purchase said premises continues
in full force and legal effect.
3. On or about October 7, 1998, the Plaintiff submitted an application for a re-subdivision,
Z
site plan of approval and special exception for a Senior Resident Development pursuant to Section
4.3.11 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations in order to construct 20 senior residence dwellings
Wi
� d '
4 R on the premises referenced in paragraph 1 and as more particularly set forth in said application. The
z
0 9 Plaintiff's land is in a residential district, zoned A-40.
a15
z 0 4. The Defendant, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF
8 SOUTH WINDSOR, hereinafter called the "Commission" is the agency empowered under the
rLX General Statutes to perform the functions of a Zoning and Planning Commission pursuant to
UL
0
3 0
.5 o Chapters 124 and 126 of the General Statutes. The Commission has the authority to approve
Plaintiffs' application for subdivision, site plan and special exception for a Senior Residence
w Development under the subdivision and zoning regulations. When acting on such applications, the
0
m
Commission is acting in an administrative capacity.
5. On or about November 18, 1998, the Commission commenced a public hearing on the
Plaintiffs' application. The public hearing was continued to January 12, 1999 and concluded on that
date.
6. At its meeting on February 16, 1999, the Commission voted to deny the Plaintiff's
application for a Senior Residence District and site plan of approval.
7. The Commission's denial of the application on February 16, 1999, was a final action. The
Commission published the notice of its denial in The .Iournal Inquirer newspaper on Saturday, I
Z
February 20, 1999.
8. The Commission gave four reasons for its denial:
J
N a. Serious reservations about siting a high density development directly adjacent to an
z �
a@ industrial zone.
a �
z 0 b. Locating a multifamily development in the rural, historic Main Street area.
2 3
c. The site was not within reasonable proximity to community facilities or amenities which j
i
a serve the needs of elderly residents.
09
3 a d. The proposed density is too high for the site.
0
o
9. The Commission's reasons for denying the Plaintiff's application were arbitrary, capricious
z
W and inadequate. The Commission failed to follow its own rules and procedures in denying the
m
Plaintiffs application.
10. The Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the Commission's decision, both as the present owner of
the property and as the prospective owner of the premises.
i
i
i
,
'nPlaintiffs' application, the Commission acted illegally, arbitraril and in I
11. In denying the y
i
abuse of the discretion vested in it by law as an administrative agency in that:
,
i
a) the Commission's decision was unsupported by the evidence of the record;
b)the reasons given for the denial were inadequate, improper and unsupported by the
i
record;
i
g
c) the Commission failed to grant the application even though the application fully
ts A complied with the applicable subdivision and zoning regulations;
J i
N d)the Commission considered or based its decision on factors and/or criteria beyond
z •
3 '
athe scope of the subdivision and zoning regulations;
z o e) The Commission violated the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Act 42 USCS
� 3
Section 3601, at et in arbitrarily den without just cause the Plaintiff's application to provide '
. $ �1• Y Y�� J � PP
o �UZ x housing for elderly, disabled and handicapped citizens. The Commission failed to make an
Sa appropriate accommodation for Plaintiffs' application which would have provided housing for 20 or
o
more senior, elderly citizens, including handicapped and disabled elderly citizens. f
Z
f) the Commission's action unfairly deprived the Plaintiffs of the lawful use of their
m
property and violated their due process rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the United States
Constitution and under Article One of the Connecticut Constitution. Under the above circumstance,
the Commission's action constituted an unlawful taking of the Plaintiff's property.
g) the application conformed to the subdivision and zoning regulations;
h) the Commission improperly interpreted its own regulations.
j
WHEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT:
1. The appeal be sustained and the decision of the Commission be set aside.
2. The Court approve the Plaintiffs' application and/or order the Commission to
approve the Plaintiff's application
3. Such other relief as may be allowed, both in law or equity.
DATED at South Windsor, Connecticut, this 2nd day of March, 1999. I)
. I
PL S: B &M ENTERPRISES, INC.
U �J BANC T BRO . .C..
d�
N
2 : B
zHar 1 Cummin s, of
a Cummings , Lanza and Purnhagen L.L.C.
z Their Attorneys
3 Please enter the appearance of
Cummings, Lanza.and Purnhagen L.L.C.
w ^ 1610 Ellington Road
u s P. O. Box 667
o S South' dsor, CT 06074
o Tele on : (860) 64�-3473
o Juris u ber: 10 9
H olc�R. Cu 'ngs
ssioner of the Superior Court
0
i
{
i
RETURN DATE: MARCH 23, 1999 SUPERIOR COURT
BANCROFT BROOK,L.L.C.
AND B &M ENTERPRISES, INC. J. D. OF HARTFORD
VS.
i
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
g TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR MARCH 2, 1999
N
RECOGNIZANCE WTTH SURETY
You, B & M ENTERPRISES, INC. , of South Windsor, Connecticut, as principal, and
z
g BRIAN EDWARDS of South Windsor, Connecticut, as Surety, acknowledge yourselves jointly and
c �
severally bound to the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH
WINDSOR,Defendant in this action, in a recognizance of$500.00 that the Plaintiffs in action shall
w prosecute to effect the appeal which they have taken against the PLANNING AND ZONING
us i
02 COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, brought to the Superior Court for the
Zt a
I
Judicial District of Hartford, on March 23, 1999, and that the Plaintiffs shall comply with the orders
z
z and decree of this Court, and shall pay any costs for which judgment may be rendered against them
J
W
in such case.
Taken and acknowledged at South Windsor, Connecti t, on the 2n day of March, 1999,
before me, a Commissioner of the Superior Court.
R. Cu ngs
�N ortissioner of the Superior Court
M N
5� OV
��GLH�fQ,G
• i
t
RETURN DATE: MARCH 23, 1999 SUPERIOR COURT
BANCROFT BROOK, L.L.C.
AND B &M ENTERPRISES, INC. J. D. OF HARTFORD
VS. i
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, j
z TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR MARCH 2, 1999 I
to
a
BOND
J
N Know all men by these presents that we, B & M ENTERPRISES, INC. of South Windsor,
z •
5 �
Z Connecticut, as principal and BRIAN EDWARDS of 26 Pond Lane, South Windsor, Connecticut,
a � i
z o as surety, are held and stand firmly bound and obliged,jointly and severally, unto the PLANNING
3 i
AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR in the sum of$500.00
to be paid to the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH !
02 i
a WINDSOR or its attorney, and we hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators
0
o`
§ to such payment by these presents.
Z
W The condition of this obligation is such that whereas the above bound principal has appealed,
0
m
from an order of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH
WINDSOR dated February 16, 1999, which denied the application of B & M ENTERPRISES,
INC. And BANCROFT BROOK, L.L.C. for Senior Residence Development and other approvals
as set forth in said application, to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford, on March
2 1999.
:i.
Now therefore, if the principal shall prosecute this appeal to conclusion, comply with the
orders of the court, and shall pay all costs if it fails to sustain such appeal then this bond shall be void,
otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut, on March 2, 1999.
m
PRINCIPAL:
N B &M ENTERPRISES, INC.
BYE-r
NBriadEdwards, President
z •
G SURETY:
Vl �
2 O
By
`•' Brian Edwards, Surety
U �
O
0
a:
0
O
z
t�
z
W
O
O
0
j
j
I
I
j
_ I
I
i
I
DOCKET NO: CV-99-0587531 S SUPERIOR COURT
BANCROFT BROOK LLC ET AL J. D. OF HARTFORD
VS. AT HARTFORD
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND
Q ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 2000 I
N
I
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF i
Z I FACTS:
v
Z I. The Plaintiff, BANCROFT BROOK, L.L.C. is a Connecticut Limited Liability
c = Company and is the owner of the 9.11 acre parcel of land which is the subject of this appeal
_ z 3
(copy of deed to be submitted in evidence at time of hearing).
z .
- 2. The Plaintiff, B & M ENTERPRISES, INC., is a Connecticut Corporation and is
v ,
z o
othe applicant to construct the proposed 20 units of senior housing pursuant to an
cc
option/purchase agreement with the owner(copy of agreement to be submitted in evidence at
J
J
time of hearing).
3. On October 7, 1998, the Plaintiffs jointly submitted applications to the Defendant,
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (hereafter
"Commission") for a resubdivision, site plan of approval and a special exception for a Senior
1
1
I
Residence Development (hereafter "SRD") pursuant to Section 4.3.11 and Section 4.1.12 of
the South Windsor Zoning Regulations in order to allow the construction of twenty (20) senior
residence dwellings on the property of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs property is located in a
s residential district, zoned A-40 (paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs citation, admitted by Defendant in its
Q
Answer dated August 19, 1999).
4. South Windsor zoning regulations allow, as a special exception, a senior residence
z Q development in any residential zone in South Windsor(South Windsor Zoning Regulations
• f
V �
Section 4.3.11, Return of Record MM, hereinafter referenced as "ROR").
Z U
f
e
Z 5. On November 18, 1998 the Commission commenced a public hearing on the
Z 3 `
Plaintiffs' application. The public hearing was continued to January 12, 1999 and concluded
Z .
on that date (Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs' citation as admitted by Defendant in its Answer dated
Z a
August 19, 1999).
C �
2
6. At its meeting on February 16, 1999, the Commission voted to deny the Plaintiffs'
J
0
application for a SRD and for a site plan of approval (Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' citation,
admitted by Defendant in its answer dated August 19, 1999).
7. The Commission's denial of the Plaintiffs' application on February 16, 1999 was a
final action. The Commission published the notice of its denial in the Journal Inquirer
2
I
r'
newspaper on Saturday, February 20, 1999 (Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs' citation, admitted by
Defendant in its answer dated August 19. 1999).
8. By letter dated February 26. 1999, the Commission set forth four reasons for its
denial of the Plaintiffs' application:
g
a) Serious reservations about siting a high-density development directly
adjacent to an industrial zone with existing industrial uses, due to the
ongoing noise complaints from other residential developments abutting
_= industrial zones.
z �
b) Locating a multi-family development in the rural, historic Main Street
area is inappropriate. This would set a precedent for future high-density
N o� development applications west of Route 5, which is an area whose rural
f r Vl
= e character the Commission desires to preserve and maintain.
z Z 3
Commissioners indicated that the density should be kept low in this area
for both prevention of noise complaints and preservation of rural
character.
= s
� g
Z o
o c) This site is not within reasonable proximity to community facilities or
& amenities which serve the need of elderly residents.
g d) The proposed density is too high for the site. (ROR HH).
W
O
O
9. The Zoning Data Block on Sheet 2 of 13 of the plans submitted by the Plaintiffs
lists the requirements of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations Section 4.1.12 for Senior
Residence Districts and the specific details.of the Plaintiffs' proposal (ROR LL Sheet 2 of 13).
3
10. As referenced on the Zoning Data Block, Sheet 2 of 13, ROR LL, the South
Windsor Zoning Regulations allow eight(8) senior residence units per buildable acre. The
Plaintiffs' proposal provided for 2.4 units per net buildable acre (ROR P, paragraph 3, ROR
LL, Zoning Data Block Sheet 2 of 13).
T 11. At the time of the hearing the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission
had capped, at 115, the total number of senior residence dwelling units which were allowed in
z" the town. If the Plaintiffs' application was approved, the total number of senior units
approved in South Windsor would be 72 (ROR P, Paragraph 5).
Z u
— o 12. The South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency approved the Plaintiffs' application
- c -
Z3
<' to conduct its proposed activities within the regulated wetlands on the site (ROR P, Paragraph
s x 4)
�
� g
Z o
— a 13. The Commission commenced a public hearing on the Plaintiffs' application on
G O<
November 24, 1998. The public hearing was continued to and completed on January 12, 1999
g
0
(ROR II and ROR JJ).
14. A number of South Windsor residents spoke in favor of the application and
submitted a petition in favor of the application(ROR II, ROR JJ and ROR Q.
15. Several persons, primarily people residing on Main Street in South Windsor, spoke
4
S .
in opposition to the Plaintiffs" application and submitted a petition in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' application (ROR II, ROR JJ and ROR M).
16. The site which is proposed for the Senior Residence Development is located east
s of Main Street and west of Route 5 in South Windsor(ROR LL, Sheet 1).
g
a 17. The Plaintiffs' application complied with and satisfied all of the applicable
A provisions of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations pertaining to applications for Special
Z Exceptions for Senior Residence Districts (ROR P, Paragraph 3 and ROR LL Sheet 2, Zoning
Data Block).
ZU
C
r
— 18. South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commissioner. Patricia Porter, resides at
Z 3 `
� x
Q 1533 Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut. Commissioner Porter's residence was listed
z
on the list of abutter property owners (within 500 feet of the subject premises) which was on
rj
Z a
o Sheet 2 of the plans submitted to the Commission. (ROR LL Sheet 2 of 13, Abutter List).
� 0
U .3 19. Commissioner Porter was aware, during the pendency of the application, that her
J
J
s
property was listed on the map as an abutter property. (ROR NN, p.39, Lines 16-19).
20. Commissioner Patricia Porter acknowledged receiving a letter, addressed to
abutting property owners, from the South Windsor Inland Wetlands and Planning and Zoning
Department advising her of the Plaintiffs' application(ROR NN, p.40 lines 5-11, 23, 24,p.41
5
t i
line 1)
21. South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commissioner Louise Evans also resides on
Main Street in South Windsor, Connecticut(stipulation of parties to be filed with Court at time
of hearing).
g
y 22. During the pubic hearing, on January 12, 1999 Commissioner Patricia Porter asked
the Plaintiffs' planner, Peter Demallie, questions as about Peter Demallie's conversation with
Z Sergeant Thomas Field of the South Windsor Police Department, concerning noise complaints
Z received by Sergeant Field as to the Preston Trucking terminal located near the subject
c �
_ premises. Peter Demallie stated the Sergeant Field could not recall any noise complaints
regarding Preston Trucking. Commissioner Porter then stated, "Well that is unusual because I
z .
a have made two calls lately. So I can't believe he has not received any calls."(ROR JJ pp.18.
rj rjS
0 19).
� o
UV
23. At her deposition on March 10, 2000, Commissioner Porter admitted that she did
g
J
not make the two such calls to the South Windsor Police Department as stated by her during
the public hearing(ROR NN, p. 19 lines 9-18, p.20 lines 5-7).
24. Commissioner Porter also admitted that she did, in fact, during the public
hearing, make the statement that she had made two calls (ROR NN p. 20 lines 8-11).
6
� 1
25. After further questioning, Commissioner Patricia Porter testified that the only time
that she complained about noise was on one occasion, approximately fourteen years ago. (ROR
NN, p. 20 lines 22-24, p. 21 lines 1-9).
26. Commissioner Patricia Porter also testified at her deposition, that, in her opinion,
g
the approval of twenty units of Senior housing would have no effect on the value of her house
at 1533 Main Street. (ROR NN P. 10 lines 19-24 and p. 11 lines 1-6).
z g 27. The Commission, during its deliberations on the Plaintiffs' application, stated a
r •
concern about "the appropriateness of locating a multifamily development in the rural, historic
Z u
o_ Main Street area. This would set a precedent for future high density development applications
_ Z 3
< west of Route 5, which is an area whose rural character the Commission desires to preserve and
z .
c�
S maintain." (ROR GG p.4)
z o
_2 a 28. At her deposition, Commissioner Porter was asked if she agreed with that
0
C �
.7 C
statement. Commissioner Porter stated " it has some merit". (ROR NN p.13 lines 6-16).
g
J
29. Later in her deposition, Commissioner Porter was asked "is it your understanding,
as a matter of policy, that the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission is opposed to
any multifamily high density development west of Route 5 in South Windsor?" Commissioner
Porter stated "I've never heard it before". (ROR NN p. 19 lines 4-8).
7
30. Commissioner Patricia Porter made the motion to deny the Plaintiffs' application.
Commissioner Louise Evans seconded the motion to deny the application(ROR GG p. 4).
31. The South Windsor Land Conservation Trust Inc., owns or has a conservation
easement over approximately 15 acres of land which abut the subject premises on the West,
Q
North and East. The 15 acres owned by the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust will be
available for use b the residents of the
Y development. The residents will be r � P able to use the
z' walking trails on the Land Trust property (ROR II p.2,3,13-14).
32. In addition to the applications which are the subject of this appeal, the Plaintiffs
Z u
r
C
c s also submitted an application for a Special Exception to allow an interior residential lot on the
- za
2.73 acre parcel of land identified as Parcel A on the Key Map (ROR P paragraph 1, ROR LL,
z .
a Sheet 2, Key Map).
Z a
zo 33. Parcel A is located to the east of the proposed SRD and abuts the industrial zone,
g
including the premises owned by Preston Trucking Company. Parcel A is therefore located
IU
between the industrial zone and the subject premises (ROR LL Sheet 2, Key Map).
34. At its deliberations on February 16, 1999, the Commission, in reviewing the
application for the approval of Parcel A as an interior lot, also raised the same concerns about
proximity to the industrial zone and the noise issue. Nonetheless, the Commission approved,
8
by a vote of 6 to1, Parcel A as a residential lot (ROR GG
35. The SRD site is heavily 'vvooded and the Plaintiffs propose extensive plantings to
supplement the existing trees and shrubs on the property(ROR II pp.8-10).
36. The Senior Residence unit closest to the industrial zone. is nonetheless still over
500 feet away from the zone boundary. (ROR II p.5)
37. The Town of South Windsor has enacted a noise ordinance by action of the Town
z Council as well as a noise ordinance adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the
zSouth Windsor Zoning Regulations. Both the Town of South Windsor Zoning Enforcement
C
o Officer and the Police Department have sophisticated instruments for measuring noise levels
z 3
(ROR II p.5,6).
z
s S 38. A local real estate agent, Cile Decker of Coldwell Banker & Decker Associates
Z o
co stated that there was a significant demand for Senior Residence projects in the Town of South
0
Windsor. She stated that she could provide the names of at least 20 people who are interested
J
0
in the project (ROR II pp.14-16, 20).
39. The Human Services Director submitted a memorandum referencing the need for
Senior Residence developments in South Windsor. (ROR H).
40. Recognizing the need for additional senior housing units in South Windsor, since
9
i
the date of the hearing on the Plaintiffs application, the South Windsor Planning and Zoning
Commission has amended Section 4.1.12 of its regulations to expand the number of senior
housing units from 115 to 150 (ROR MM Section 4.1.12(c) p,34).
II ISSUES:
g
1. IN ITS DENIAL OF THE PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATIONS, THE DEFENDANT
COMMISSION UNFAIRLY CONSTRUED THE SENIOR RESIDENCE DISTRICT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REGULATIONS AND THEN ACTED IN AN ARBITRARY AND
CAPRICIOUS MANNER.
z �
2. THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WAS BASED ON FALSE AND
MISLEADING STATEMENTS CONCERNING NOISE PROBLEMS IN THE AREA
Z u
3. THE BIAS AND MISCONDUCT OF PATRICIA PORTER"TAINTED"THE
z
COMMISSION'S DELIBERATIONS AND DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFFS OF A FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL HEARING
z .
S
v2
Z a
C �
L �
.7 C
U .
g III. JURISDICTION:
J
W
O
s A. AGGRIEVEMENT:
General Statutes Section 8-8 governs appeals taken from the decisions of a Planning
and Zoning Commission to the Superior Court. A statutory right to appeal may be taken
10
advantage of only through strict compliance with the statutory provisions by which it is
created. Bridgeport Bowl--Rama, Inc. vs. Zoning Board of Appeals I95 Conn. 276, 487
A2d 559 (1985).
"Pleading and proof ofagrievement are prerequisites to the trial courts jurisdiction
g
over the subject matter of a Plaintiffs appeal." Jolly, Inc. vs. Zoning Board of Appeals 237
Conn. 184, 192, 676 A2d 831 (1996). The Plaintiffs pled and will prove that they are both the
z' current owner and the prospective owner of the premises. Clearly the Plaintiffs are aggrieved
=_ within the meeting of General Statutes Section 8-8.
z `u
i C
Z B. TIMELINESS AND SERVICE OF PROCESS:
= z3
< General Statutes Section 8-8 provides that an"appeal shall be commenced by service of
z .
< g
process . . . within 15 days of the notice of the decision was published". General Statutes
z i
Section 8-8(b), see also General Statutes Section 8-26e (providing that notice of special permit
L <
�. s
is to be published within 15 days after such decision is rendered). The Plaintiffs have alleged
J
s
and the Defendant has admitted that the Commission voted to deny the Plaintiffs' applications
on February 16, 1999 and that the notice of that denial was published in the Journal Inquirer
newspaper on Saturday, February 20, 1999. The Plaintiffs' appeal, dated March 2, 1999, was
duly served on Theresa Samsel, Assistant Town Clerk for the Town of South Windsor and also
11
i
on Frank Castro, Chairman of the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission, on March
4, 1999 by Deputy Sheriff Abraham Glassman (See Return of Service of Deputy Sheriff,
Abraham, Glassman, on file). Therefore, the Plaintiffs' appeal of the Commission's denial of
its applications was timely and duly served on the Defendant.
g
V
IV. SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW:
z When a land use agency, such as the Zoning Commission, acts on a special permit, it is
U �
9 required to give a reason for its action. General Statutes Section 8-3c. When reasons are
zG
C e
o given, the Superior Court, on appeal, determines whether the reasons are reasonable, supported
Z ;
V by the record and whether they are pertinent to the considerations that the agency is required to
z .
x apply under the zoning regulations. Housatonic Terminal Corporation v. Planning and
a Zoning Board, 168 Conn. 304, 305, 306, 362 A2d 1375 (1975);DeMaria v. Planning and
0
2 0
Zoning Commission, 159 Conn. 534, 541, 271 A2d 105 (1970).
J
Where the Commission gives a reason for its action, the Court does not have to go
s
behind the official collective of the Commission to find other reasons which might have
influenced some or all of the members of the Commission to reach a final collective decision.
DeMaria v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 159 Conn 534, 541, 271 A2d 105.
12
i
When acting upon a special permit, a zoning commission acts in an administrative
capacity. Sheridan v. Planning Board, 159 Conn. 1, 16, 266 A2d 396 (1970). The
Commission should determine whether(1) the proposed use of the property is expressly
permitted under the zoning regulations; Weigel v. Planning and Zoning Commission 160
g
Conn. 229, 246, 278 A2d 766 (1971); (2) whether the standards in the relevant zoning
regulations are satisfied, Farina v. Zoning Board of Appeals. 157 Conn. 420, 422. 254 A2d
Z 492 (1969) and (3) whether conditions necessary to protect public health, safety, convenience
v •
and property values, as provided by General Statutes Section 8-2, can be established.
zG
� 8
Z Housatonic Terminal Corporation v. Planning and Zoning Board, supra at, 307.
Z 3
Z .
- s x It has no discretion to deny the special exception if the regulations and statues are
�
c: S
z o
satisfied; Westport v. Norwalk, 167 Conn. 151, 355 A.2d. 25 (1974). When a zoning authority
L
has stated the reasons for its action, a reviewing court may determine only if the reasons given
Uj
J
0
are supported by the record and are pertinent to the decision. Spectrum of Connecticut,Inc. V.
Planning& Zoning Commission, 13 Conn. App. 159, 163-164, 535 A.2d. 382, cert. denied,
207 Conn. 804, 540 A.2d. 373 (1988).
In light of the existence of a statutory right of appeal from the decisions of local zoning
13
authorities, however, a court cannot take the view in every case that the discretion exercised by
the local zoning authority must not be disturbed, for if it did the right of appeal would be
empty....In reviewing the action of the trial court, we have to decide whether it could in logic
and in law reach the conclusion that the [defendant] should be overruled. Suffield Heights
g
Corporation v. Town Planning Commission, 144 Conn. 425, 428, 133 A.2d. 612 (1957)."
:.i (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Daughters of St. Paul,Inc. v Zoning Board of Appeals,
z' 17 Conn. App. 53, 56-57, 549 A.2d. 1076 (1988).
n
The "general considerations such as public health, safety and welfare, which are
Z u
r C �
enumerated in zoning regulations, may be the basis for the denial of a special permit" Irwin v
z Planning& Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 627, 711 A. 2d. 675 (1988); Whisper Wind
s Development Corp. v. Planning& Zoning Commission, 229 Conn. 176, 177, 640 A.2d. 100
a (1994). "[B]efore the zoning commission can determine whether the specially permitted use is
� °
� 0
U .3 compatible with the uses permitted as of right in the particular zoning district, it is required to
tu
J
judge whether any concerns, such as parking or traffic congestion, would adversely impact the
s"
surrounding neighborhood." Barberino Realty& Development Corp. v. Planning& Zoning
Commission, 222 Conn. 607, 613, 610 A.2d. 1205 (1992).
" Connecticut courts have never held that a zoning commission lacks the ability to
14
' A
exercise discretion to determine whether the general standards in the regulations have been met
in the special permit process....If the special permit process were purely ministerial there
would be no need to mandate a public hearing." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation
s marks omitted.) Irwin v Planning& Zoning Commission, supra, 627.
Q
a "The evidence, however, to support any such reason must be substantial ...."
Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 20' Conn. 525, 539-540 535 A.2d.940
Z R (1987). " This so-called substantial evidence rule is similar to the sufficiency of the evidence
v •
_a standard applied in judicial review of jury verdicts, and evidence is sufficient to sustain an
Z u
c o
agency finding if it affords a substantial basis of fact form which the fact in issue can be
z3
<' reasonably inferred....[I]t must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to
z .
E $
direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury....
CA X
Z a
• The substantial evidence rule is a compromise between opposing theories of broad or de novo
L 0
U 0
review and restricted review or complete abstention. It is broad enough and capable of
g
UJ
0
sufficient flexibility in its application to enable the reviewing court to correct whatever
ascertainable abuses may arise in administrative adjudication. On the other hand, it is review
of such breadth as is entirely consistent with effective administration....Rt] imposes an
important limitation on the power of the courts to overturn a decision of an administrative
15
agency... and to provide a more restrictive standard of review than standards embodying
review of weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous action." (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Id., 541.
The zoning regulations which are in derogation of common law property rights should
g
not be construed to include or exclude by implication matters that are not clearly within their
expressed terms. Planning and Zoning Commission v Gilbert 208 Conn. 696, 705, 546
A2d 823 (1988). While the interpretation by a land use agency is entitled to some deference,
v �
Z
. U- the interpretation of provisions in the ordinance is a question of law for the Court. Danseyar v.
c �
Zoning Board of Appeals, 164 Conn. 325, 327 321 A2d 474(1973); Thorne v Zoning Board
Z 3
3 t
of Appeals 156 Conn. 619, 620 238 A2d 400 (1968).
z .
X Administrative regulations, must have adequate, fixed and sufficient standards to guide
S
Z o
the agency in their application to avoid decisions that allow the agency to interpret the
o
regulations in more than one manner and apply them arbitrarily. Glient v Planning
g
J
s
Commission, 219 Conn. 511, 517, 594 A2d 5(1991);Sonn v. Planning Commission, 172
Conn. 156, 162 374 A2d 159 (1976).
A property owner cannot be required to offer sufficient proof as the agency may require
to allow use of property while the agency's view is not guided by fixed standards. Helbig v
16
r
Zoning Commission 185 Conn. 294, 310 440 A2d 940 (1981).
The terms "special exception"and "special permit" are synonymous and may be sued
interchangeably. AP& iV holding Corp, v. Planning and Zoning Board, supra, at page 185.
s
0
g.
D
S
n
v
z V. ARGUMENT:
c �
Z U Issue #1
IN ITS DENIAL OF THE PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATIONS, THE DEFENDANT
< 3 COMMISSION UNFAIRLY CONSTRUED THE SENIOR RESIDENCE DISTRICT
z SPECIAL EXCEPTION REGULATIONS AND THEN ACTED IN AN ARBITRARY AND
< $ CAPRICIOUS MANNER.
� K
If, in denying the special permit, the zoning commission construed the special exception
ao
& regulations beyond the fair import of their language, then the zoning commission acted in an
arbitrary and illegal manner.Double I Ltd. Partnership v. Plan &Zoning Commission, 218
0
s
Conn. 65, 72, 588 A.2d. 624 (1991). In situations in which the zoning commission does state
the reasons for its action, the question for the court to pass on is simply whether the reasons
assigned are reasonably supported by the record and whether they are pertinent to the
17
considerations which the commission is required to apply under the zoning regulations. Zieky
v Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 265, 267-68, 1986 A.2d.758 (1963). The
agency's decision must be sustained if an examination of the record discloses evidence that
a
supports any one of the four reasons given. Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses
Agency, 203 Conn. 525, 539-540, 525 A.2d. 940 (1987) Irwin v. Planning& Zoning
Commission, supra, 244 Conn. 628-29.
z 7 The first reason given by the Defendant, referencing ongoing noise complaints, claims
z serious reservations about a high density development directly adjacent to an industrial zone.
r _ O
The dwelling unit in the proposed development closest to the industrial land is over 500 feet
Z 3
<
zwesterly of the boundary of the industrial zone. The Commission approved a residential lot
CA
$ between the SRD development and the industrial zone. The Town of South Windsor has
z o
a
o adopted a noise ordinance. The Commission cannot base its denial of the Plaintiffs'
U �
application on its failure to enforce Town ordinances or zoning regulations in general. The
LU
whole noise issue is a classic "red herring"without basis in fact. The Commission cannot
base its denial on vague unsubstantiated fears. Clearly, the noise issue fails to meet the
substantial evidence rule.
The second reason states that locating a multifamily development in the "rural, historic
18
Main Street area," is inappropriate. The Commission is clearly biased against any multi-
family development west of Route 5. A glance at the South Windsor zoning map (ROR MM)
shows that a large portion of South Windsor is located westerly of Route 5. A significant
0
portion of land located west of Route 5 is zoned residential. The Commission is acting
g
arbitrarily and capriciously by its blanket prohibition against any multi-family development in
' n
that area of town. The Commission, by its bias, prejudged the Plaintiffs' application, and
z denied them a fair hearing.
Z U Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' application was for a senior residence development which, by
z �
its terms, is limited to persons 55 and older. SRD's can be clearly distinguished from other
— z 3
Zforms of multi-family development including apartments and the like. The Commission had
< 8
c S "capped" the total number of senior residence units in South Windsor at 115. The stated
Z o
a
o reason is invalid on its face. The Commission also referenced the issue of noise complaints in
:r O
J �
the second reason, which has already been demonstrated to be a false and misleading issue.
J
UA
The Commission's second reason is specious at best and also fails to meet the substantial
evidence rule.
"A special permit allows a property owner to use his property in a manner expressly
permitted by the local zoning regulations . . . . The proposed use, however, must satisfy
19
s 1
standards set forth in the zoning regulations themselves as well as the conditions necessary to
protect the public health, safety, convenience and property values . . . . acting in this
administrative capacity, [zoning commissions] function is to determine whether the applicant's
s
proposed use is especially permitted under the regulations, and whether the standards set forth
2 -
in the regulations and the statute are satisfied." internal quotation marks omitted". Connecticut
Resources Recovery Authority v. Planning and Zoning Commission 46 Conn. . App. 566,
z 700 A2d 67 (1997).
N Generally it is the function of the zoning board or commission to decide within
_ e
_ 3 prescribed limits and consistent with the exercise of its legal discretion, whether a particular
- z
zsection of the zoning regulations applies to a given situation in a manner in which it does
$ apply. The court has to determine whether the board correctly interpreted the section of its
z0
z o regulations and applied it with reasonable discretion to the facts. Pascale v. Board of Zoning
a
Appeals, 150 Conn. 113, 116 186 A2d 377 (1962).
J
J
W
The third reason given by the Board is that"the site is not within reasonable proximity
to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents". The
Commission is failing to read its own regulations. Section 4.1.12(d)(8) states:
"the location,of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community facilities
20
or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents, or is within reasonable proximity to
indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close proximity to or contains permanent open
space land". (ROR MM p. 35).
During the course of its presentation, the applicant clearly stated that it was relying on
the third alternative subsection of paragraph 8 which provided that the SRD is "within close
proximity to or contains permanent open space land". The applicant demonstrated that it had
X access to and full use of the fifteen acres of open space land owned by the South Windsor
z' Land Trust, land which abutted the subject premises on three sides. In fact, as indicated, the
v
applicant had previously deeded the fifteen acres of land to the South Windsor Land Trust for
z u
e
'f.
that purpose. (ROR II, JJ).
Z ;
In addition, as also stated during the public hearing (ROR II and JJ) the proposed
z .
occupants of the senior residence district are highly mobile persons who would be fully capable
Z o
co of driving themselves to the various recreation and community facilities located throughout the
O
South Windsor area. To accommodate the residents vehicles, the Plaintiffs proposed 2.85
J
0
parking spaces per unit for a total 57 parking spaces, including an attached garage with each
unit(ROR LL, Sheet 2 of 13).
Therefore, the conclusion that the site is "not within reasonable proximity to
community facilities or services which serve the needs of elderly residents" is simply not
21
correct. In any event, proximity to community facilities is only one of three alternative
considerations set forth in subparagraph 8. During the course of the public hearing, the
Plaintiffs made it clear to the Commission that they were relying on the third alternative
consideration"or is within close proximity to or contains permanent open space land" (ROR lI
p. 17). The Commission ignored the Plaintiffs' presentation and based its decision on grounds
not relevant t the application. The Plaintiffs satisfied the provisions of paragraph 8. The third
Z reason given by the Commission also fails to support its decision.
Z While a zoning commission does not have discretion to deny a special permit when the
oproposal meets the standards, it does have discretion to determine whether the proposal meets
= z 3
< the standards as set forth in the regulations. If, during the exercise of the discretion, the
z .
4 $
X Zoning Commission decides that all of the standards enumerated in the special permit
z o
oregulations are met, then it can no longer deny the application. The converse is, however,
� o
C
`' equally true. Thus the Zoning Commission can exercise its discretion during the review of the
g
J
J
. a
proposed special exception as it applies the regulation to the specific application before it.
Irwin v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Litchfield, 244 Conn 619 711 A2d
675 (1998).
The final reason given by the Commission by its denial is that "the proposed density is
22
too high for the site". As described by the Plaintiffs in their presentation(see generally ROR
II and ROR JJ), the proposed site for the SRD is a level, heavily wooded, 9.1 acre parcel of
land. The parcel is surrounded on three sides by an additional 15 acres of open space land
owned and/or controlled by the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust. Under the South
g
Windsor Zoning Regulations, 8 SRD dwelling units are allowed per buildable acre. The site
contains 7.89 buildable acres. Therefore, using the allowable density ratio under the South
z Windsor regulations, 6-3 unitswould be allowed, on the premises, but for the further limitation
< that there may not be more than 20 units per SRD location (ROR LL Sheet 2, Zoning Data
zG
l r
c Z Block). Therefore, the Commission's conclusion that the proposed density is too high for the
= z3
br �
site is simply without foundation or supported by any evidence whatsoever in the record.
z .
Z a
C <
r 5
ISSUE #2
J
THE DEFENDANT COMMISSIONS DECISION WAS BASED ON FALSE
AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS CONCERNING NOISE PROBLEMS IN THE AREA
The Commission acted on false and misleading information concerning an alleged"noise
problems" in the area. As noted in the following discussion, one Commissioner, speaking as
23
an area resident, falsely claimed to have made complaints to the police about noise problems in
the recent past. The Police Department however, did not have any record of noise complaints
in the area of the subject premises. The only comn embers as to
noise problems in general, was with regards to apf `� �✓' �L�, ;hbors about a
g ,
H particular operation in another part of town(ROR 'South
Windsor has both a noise ordinance and a noise regulations LLB lions.
Z There is no "substantial evidence"of an existing noise problem in the area. Even
v �
—` accepting for the sake of argument, that there was a"noise problem" from a nearby industrial
Z u
"l.
use, that is still not a logical or legal basis to deny the Plaintiffs application. Applicants should
Z 3
not be denied a fair, reasonable permitted use of their property because of the wrongful conduct
z .
e �
c
S of another property owner. If the Town of South Windsor and/or its Planning and Zoning
Z a
Commission have a significant concern about an apparent violation of the law by another
., a
property owner, then the proper solution is for the Town and its agency to reasonably enforce
J
0
the law that exists as to the wrong doer and not to deny innocent parties fair use of their
property.
The noise issue was a significant factor in the Commission's deliberations in that noise
was referenced in two of the four reasons given.
24
1 1
"Therefore, it is necessary for the court to determine whether the Zoning Commission
abused its discretion in denying the Plaintiff's application. If the Commission construed the
special exception regulations beyond the fair import of their language, then the Zoning
Commission acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner." II Ltd Partnership vs. Planning and
g
Zoning Commission, 218 Conn. 65, 72, 588 A2d 624 (1991). "In situations in which the
Zoning Commission does state the reasons for sanction, the question for the court to pass on is
simply whether the reasons assigned are reasonably supported by the record and whether they
are pertinent to considerations which the Commission is required to apply under the zoning
zG
regulations." Zieky v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 265. 267 -68,
= Z 3
196 A2d 758 (1963).
z .
e �
$ "When considering an application for special exception a zoning authority acts in an
CA
Z 0
oadministrative capacity, and its function is to determine whether the proposed use is expressly
0
`' permitted under the regulations, and whether the standards set forth in the regulations and the
0
Z
J
J
0
statutes are satisfied A.P.&TV Holding Corporation v. Planning and Zoning Board, 167
Conn. 182, 185, 355 A2d 91 (1974); Daughters of St. Paul, Inc. v. Zoning Board of
Appeals, 17 Conn. . App. 53, 56, 549 A2d 1076 (1988)
25
4
The Irwin case held that the Planning and Zoning Commission can review general
issues of public health, safety and welfare in addition to the criteria specifically set forth in the
special exception regulations. The Defendant is not entitled to rely on that exception to the
general rule that Zoning Boards should approve special exception applications when all the
g
a criteria in the regulation are satisfied in this case. There are no issues of public health or safety
and welfare in the Plaintiffs' application. The Commission was clearly straining to develop
Z such an argument. The Commissions efforts clearly failed to rise to the level that would justify
their denial. The Commission was motivated to find specious argument to justify its
ZU�
'l.
e
prejudging of the Plaintiffs' application.
Z 3
a ��1
Z .
8
Cr �
Z a
G C
L Q
ISSUE #3
J
THE BIAS AND MISCONDUCT OF PATRICIA PORTER"TAINTED"THE
s COMMISSION'S DELIBERATIONS AND DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFFS OF A FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL HEARING
Commissioner Porter resides at 1533 Main Street. Commissioner Porter made false
statements concerning her filing two noise complaints during the public hearing. 1533 Main
26
Street, Commissioner Porter's residence, was also identified as an abutting property. In addition,
while the Commission, in its decision, specifically referenced an unwritten policy of opposition
to multifamily developments west of Route 5, Commissioner Porter, denied in her deposition that
such a policy existed, even while acknowledging that that statement was contained in the motion
g
that she made to deny the application. Both Commissioner Porter and Commissioner Evans,the
J maker and seconder of the motion to deny the Plaintiffs' application reside on Main Street. The
Z action of the Commission in denying the application was clearly based on prejudice and bias and
U
not on the merits of the Plaintiffs' application.
zG
z �
0
Z 3 "When ruling upon an application for a special permit, a planning and zoning board
acts in an administrative capacity.A.P. & W.Holding Corporation v Planning&Zoning
Board, 167 Conn. 182, 184- 85, 355 A 2d 91 (1974). Generally, it is the function of the
commission to decide within prescribed limits and consistent with the exercise of its legal
z o discretion, whether a particular section of the zoning regulations applies to a given
situation and the manner in which it does apply. The trial court has to decide whether the
& commission correctly interpreted the section and applied it reasonable discretion to the
U .9 facts. Pascale v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 150 Conn. 113, 116, 117 186 A2d 377
g (1962) (Emphasis added).
J
J
W
O
O
In situations in which the zoning commission does state the reasons for its action, the
question for the Court to pass on, is simply whether the reasons assigned are reasonably supported
by the record and whether they are pertinent to the situations which the Commission is required
27
-y
to apply under the zoning regulations.Zeihy v Plan and Zoning Commission, 151 Conn. 265,
267-268, 196 A2d 758 (1963).
Therefore, while great discretion should be given to the local agency in its reviewing and
determining the applicability of its own regulations, the reviewing court can not bound to blindly
g
accept the reasons stated by the agency on the face of its decision. To hold otherwise would
J nullify and render meaningless the entire appellate procedure set forth in Section 8-8 of the
Z Connecticut General Statutes.
An applicant appearing before a zoning commission, at a public hearing, is entitled to be
Z u
C
c = heard by a fair and impartial board. Neutrality and impartiality of members of the zoning board
z 3
'< are essential to the fair and proper operation of a zoning board. Public policy requires that
z .
US members of boards cannot be permitted to place themselves in a position in which personal
z o
Go interests may conflict with public duty. Zeigler v. Town of Thomaston, 654 A2d 392, 43 Conn.
� 0
13 Supp. 373, (1994). The appearance of impropriety created by public officials participation in
J
matters in which she or he has a pecuniary or personal interest is sufficient to require
s
disqualification. The test is not whether personal interest does conflict but whether it reasonably
might conflict. Nazarko v. Conservation Com'n of Town of East Lyme, 717 A2d 850, 50
Conn. App. 548. Section 8-11 of the Connecticut General Statutes specifically recognizes this
28
right and provides that "No member of any zoning commission or board and no member of any
zoning board of appeals shall participate in the hearing or decision of the board or commission of
which he is a member upon any matter in which he is directly or indirectly interested in a personal
n
or financial sense."
As indicated in the factual summary, Commissioner Patricia Porter resides with her
husband at 1533 Main Street, a property located within 500 feet of the subject premises and.
z therefore, shown on ROR LL, Sheet 2, classified as an abutting property. Both Commissioner
Porter and Commissioner Evans reside on Main Street. A number of Main Street residents
Z �
C ¢¢
° appeared in opposition to the Plaintiffs application and also filed a petition in opposition.
Z 3
a Q
Furthermore, as indicated in the transcript of public hearing, on January 12th,
Z .
S Commissioner Porter claimed to have filed complaints with the Town of South Windsor Police
Z o
Department concerning noise on Strong Road during the application period. That statement was
C <
."� ¢
false. Her action in making a false factual statement alone creates a strong presumption of a
personal interest or bias in the proceedings by Commissioner Porter. Clearly she and
s
Commissioner Evans significantly influenced the other commissioners
29
VI. CONCLUSION:
The Commission cannot require the applicant to meet conditions not contained in the
regulations themselves. DeMaria v Planning and Zoning Commission, supra, 340-41;
Powers v. Common Counsel, 154 Conn., 156, 160, 22 A2d 337 (1966), A special permit can
g
only be denied for failure to meet specific standards in the regulations, and not for vague and
general reasons. DeMaria v. Planning and Zoning Commission, supra, 541; See also
Z Kosinski v Lawlor 177 Conn. 420, 423, 418 A2d 66 (1979).
zU
On appeal, the Court reviews the Record before the agency and determines whether the
C z
reasons assigned are reasonably supported by the Record and whether they are pertinent to the
z 3
< considerations that the Commission is required to apply under the zoning regulations.
z .
< $
x Housatonic Terminal Corporation v Planning and Zoning Board, supra, 306;Holt-Lock,
� 8
z o
z o Inc. v. Zoning and Planning Commission, 161 Conn. 182, 190, 286 A2d 299 (1971).
Z Q
.7 C
u .8 In addition, a land use agency cannot deny an application for permitted use because of
g
J
o
off-site traffic considerations. TLC Development,Inc. v Planning and Zoning Commission,
215 Conn.527, 532 577 A2d 288 (1990);Sowin Associates v Planning and Zoning
Commission of South Windsor 23 Conn. App. 370, 374, 580 A2d 91 (1991)
Where none of the assigned reasons is valid, the Court can sustain the appeal and order
30
the special permit granted; DeMaria v Planning and Zoning Commission, supra,
541, 542; at least where there is no apparent problem of noncompliance with the zoning
regulations.
PLAINTIFFS:
g BANCROFT BROOK, LLC
B&M ENTERPRISES, INC
u By
_ PX
z' Harold R. Cummings
Cummings, Lanza& Purnhagen, LLC
v '
1610 Ellington Road
P. O. Box 667
:i
Z South Windsor, CT 06074
z 3 (860) 644-3473
z .
vi S
C7
Z a
L C
L Q
U
g
3
W
O
O
31
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed,postage prepaid, first class U.S.
Mail to all counsel and pro se parties of record at their respective addresses as listed below on this
2nd day of November, 2000.
Barry D.Guliano. Esq.
g Town Attorney-Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
v �
Z Harold R. ings
i • Commissi er of the Superior Court
C �rr
Z U
i L
IA
V
Z
ti
= O
/� 41
V
Z
t '
U �
J
J
W
O
O
32
DOCKET NO. CV-99-0587531-S J.D. OF HARTFORD
BANCROFT BROOK LLC, ET AL. AT HARTFORD
VS.
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND MAY 8, 2001
ZONING COMMISSION
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF
This appeal arises from the denial by the defendant, South Windsor
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "PZC" or "Commission") of an
application by the plaintiffs, Bancroft Brook, LLC and B 8s M Enterprises, Inc.
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Applicants"). The application was for
approval of a resubdivision, a special exception and a site plan of development
regarding property located off of Strong Road in South Windsor, Connecticut.
I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS AND FACTS OF CASE
The subject Application involves an 11.84-acre parcel, for which a
resubdivision is sought, creating one lot of 9.1 acres and an interior lot of 2.73
acres. (Record Ex. P). The Application also seeks a special exception to
Sections 4.3.11 and 4.1.12 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations and
approval of a site plan of development for a 20-unit Senior Residence
1
i 1
Development ("SRD") to be constructed on the 9.1 acre parcel. (Id.) A separate
application was filed seeking approval for the construction of a residence on
the 2.73-acre interior lot, which application is not part of the present appeal.
(Id.) The property is located in a residential A-40 zone (Record Ex. MM), with
existing single family residences to the south and west of the proposed SRD.
(Record Ex. P). Bordering on the east side of the SRD are industrially zoned
land and uses, including Preston Trucking. (Id.)
The South Windsor Zoning Regulations contain a section pertaining to
SRD s, the purpose of which is "to promote well-planned, innovative
developments which become aesthetically pleasing senior residential
environments; . . . and to foster small senior developments which can be
nestled into neighborhoods with minimal impact on surrounding properties."
(Record Ex. MM, section 4.1.12a)(emphasis added). Under these regulations,
"the Commission may, in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate
modifications and safeguards prescribed by it, grant a Special Exception/Site
Development Plan approval for a Senior Residence Development." (Id., section
4.1.12c)(emphasis added).
The Regulations further provide special exception review criteria, by
which "applications for SRD may be approved if the Commission determines
that: . . .
2. there will be minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area: . . .
6. the SRD proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Town Plan of Development; [and]. . .
2
J 1
7. the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to
community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly
residents, or is within reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor
activity centers, or is within close proximity to or contains permanent
open space land. . . .
(Record Ex. MM, section 4.1.12d).
The Town of South Windsor Plan of Development referred to in section
4.1.12d(6) of the Regulations provides that
the Rural land use category is reserved for three large areas to be
preserved and protected in recognition of their value for
agricultural, environmental, educational, historical and/or
recreational purposes . . . and these three areas include the Main
Street/Connecticut River corridor north of Interstate 291.
(Record Ex. 00, at X-2) The property in the present appeal is located within
this "corridor," which consists of residentially zoned property running along
both sides of Main Street. It is bounded on the east by Route 5, on the west by
the Connecticut River, on the south by Interstate 291, and on the north by the
East Windsor Hill historic district. (See Record Ex. 00, last map in Appendix
entitled "Future Land Use")(subject property depicted as "RP" on map and
outlined in pink).
The Plan of Development defines the "Rural" category as being
characterized by the Community's lowest intensity land use. The
primary land uses to be encouraged are: agriculture; open space;
nature preserves; and passive recreation. Residential land uses
would be limited to single family homes on large lots only, with
recommended minimum residential density far exceeding one acre
for every home.
(Record Ex. 00, at p. X-2) And speaking specifically of the Main Street/
Connecticut River corridor, the Plan of Development specifies that the most
appropriate land uses are "agriculture; low density housing; limited compatible
3
1 A
commercial uses, e.g. small gift shops, bed and breakfast homes; institutional;
and passive recreation." (Id., at pp. X-2, X-3).
On November 18, 1998, the PZC commenced a public hearing on the
plaintiffs' application. (Record Ex. II). During this hearing, the PZC received a
warning from Sgt. Tom Field of the South Windsor Police Department regarding
the proximity of the Preston Trucking terminal to the site. (Id. at 19; Record Ex.
Q. Sgt. Field reminded the Commission of the town's experience with noise
complaints in other parts of town where residential uses abut industrial uses
with no buffer zone. (Id. at 19; Record Ex. C).
The town has a Noise Ordinance, which sets maximum noise levels
similar to those established by the State Department of Environmental
Protection. (Record Ex. PP). It has been the town's experience, however, that
many noises emanating from industrial zones are offensive to abutting
residential owners even though they do not exceed the limits of the Noise
Ordinance, especially early in the morning or late at night. (Record Ex. II at 27,
35, 43-44; Ex. JJ at 25, 28-29, 38, 44; Ex. KK at 1, 2, 3). The Ordinance also
provides that
exclusions and exceptions shall be in accordance with regulations
of the state department of environmental protection. C.G.S.
Sections 22a-69-1.7, 22a-69-1.8.
(Record Ex. PP at 50-65(4). Among the many exclusions in the State
regulations is noise from trucks while their engines are running. (Record Ex.
QQ at section 22a-69-1.7(i). This exclusion has made it virtually impossible to
4
1 t
limit noise from trucks legally operating in an industrial zone. (Record Ex. II at
27, 31, 35, 43-44; Ex. JJ at 25, 28-29, 38, 44; Ex. KK at 1, 2, 3).
Three individuals spoke in favor of the application. (Record Ex. II at 22-
25). Each is a resident of Collins Crossing, another SRD built in South
Windsor by the plaintiff, which development is in a residential zone far from
any industrial zone. (Id.) One of the three residents submitted a petition
favorable to the application signed by thirteen (13) other residents of Collins
Crossing. (Id., Record Ex. L).
Four individuals spoke in opposition to the application, each being a
resident in or near the Main Street historic district. (Record Ex. II at 26-38). A
petition was submitted opposing the application which was signed by seventy-
two (72) residents, most of whom reside in or near the Main Street historic
district. (Id.; Record Ex. M). Two primary issues were raised by those in
opposition to the application at this first night of the public hearing. One was a
concern about the noise generated from the neighboring industrial zone by
three trucking companies: Preston Trucking, Tobacco Valley Sanitation and
Capital Moving and Storage. (Record Ex. II at 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38-41, 43,
44). And the second was a concern that the construction of multi-family
housing so near the Main Street historic district would destroy, or at least set a
precedent which would lead to the destruction of, the historic and aesthetic
value of this area. (Id. at 34, 36, 37).
The public hearing was continued on January 12, 1999. (Record Ex. JJ).
Three residents of Collins Crossing again spoke in favor of the application,
5
1 !
while six residents from in or around the Old Main Street historic district spoke
in opposition. (Id.) Much of the opposition again focused upon the noise issue
(Id. at 25, 27, 28, 29, 38, 44), and the issue of complying with the Plan of
Development in limiting residential development in the Main
Street/Connecticut River corridor to low-density single-family residences. (Id.
at 23, 24, 35). In addition, there was a concern about the lack of amenities in
the immediate area which serve the needs of elderly residents, such as banks,
pharmacies and shopping. (Id. at 24, 35). And in response to the Applicants'
contention that this lack was offset by the proximity of open space with walking
trails for seniors, residents noted that the land deeded to the land trust by the
Applicants
is too steep, too rugged. Full of dead, fallen trees and crossed by
two deep gully brooks that are not passable. I can't imagine
retirees hiking or walking there. Maybe teenagers. I tried walking
there and it was almost impossible. This is rough, steep non-
buildable and non-usable land. Does (sic) this nice gesture of open
land donation a method of avoiding land taxes by the developer or
the retirement community?
(Id, at 26. See also 41). Similar issues were raised by PZC members Montana
(noise and lack of nearby amenities at 9, 10), Evans (lack of nearby amenities
at 15), Larson (noise at 15, 16), and Porter (noise at 18, 19). The public
hearing was closed on January 12, 1999. (Record Ex. JJ).
At its meeting of February 16, 1999, the PZC discussed and ultimately
denied the application. (Record Ex. GG, Ex. KK). The motion for denial was
unanimously adopted by a 7-0 vote. (Id.). During their deliberations,
Commission members cited the same concerns as had been raised at the
6
public hearing. (Id.) Commissioner Porter expressed concern about the noise
from the several trucking companies in the abutting industrial zone becoming
"an unbearable nuisance" to the elderly residents of the proposed SRD. (Id. at
1). Commissioner Montana stated that the Commission should not allow the
noise problems that have plagued the Barbara Road area of town to be
repeated with this development. (Id. at 2). She also noted that multi-family
housing was not an appropriate use in an area so close to the Old Main Street
historic district. (Id. at 2, 3). Commissioner Mealy cited the noise problems in
the Barbara Road (Lou Miller) area of town and stated that he opposed
allowing an SRD to border an industrial zone. (Id. at 3). Commissioner Evans
emphasized that the noise issue was more critical where a densely developed
property is considered, such as the SRD in the present application, than with
a single residence. (Id. at 4). She also disagreed with the Applicants' argument
that the property was close to amenities serving elderly residents because they
were within driving distance. (Id.) Lastly, Commissioner Larson offered that she
felt the project was too densely developed for the proposed site. (Id. at 5).
The Applicants were formally advised of the Commission's decision by
certified letter dated February 26, 1999, in which it was stated that reasons for
denial included
• Serious reservations about siting a high-density development
directly adjacent to an industrial zone with existing industrial
uses, due to the ongoing noise complaints from other residential
developments abutting industrial zones.
• Locating a multi-family development in the rural, historic Main
Street area is inappropriate. This would set a precedent for
7
r r
future high-density development applications west of Route 5,
which is an area whose rural character the Commission desires
to preserve and maintain. Commissioners indicated that the
density should be kept low in this area for both prevention of
noise complaints and preservation of rural character.
• This site is not within reasonable proximity to community
facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents.
• The proposed density is too high for the site.
(Record Ex. HH).
Commission member Patricia Porter's husband received notice of the
pending application from the Applicants, as an owner of property within 500
feet of the site. (Record Ex. NN at 9-10). Both Zoning and Wetlands Regulations
ordinarily require only that actual abutting landowners be notified for
applications such as the present one. (Record Ex. MM at section 3.20). The
Applicants noted, however, that for the first time with this application, the
Inland Wetlands Agency requested that notice be provided to all property
owners located within 500 feet of the subject property. (Record Ex. II at 7).
Commission member Patricia Porter stated at deposition that she became
aware of the notice at some point, but believed the letter had been sent to her
by mistake. (Record Ex. NN at 40-41). As she explained, "I guess I thought that
there must be some mistake because this was so far away. I didn't realize there
were all the pieces of land that the Land Trust got and that kind of thing that
were part of it." (Id. at 40). She did not become aware that the notice was not a
mistake until after the deliberations and vote on the application, when she
8
I
learned of the situation in a conversation with Town Planner Marcia Banach.
(Id. at 39-42).
Commissioner Louise Evans lives on Main Street in South Windsor, but
is neither an abutter nor a property owner within 500 feet of the subject
property. At no time prior to the filing of this appeal did the Applicants or any
of their representatives ever request that Commissioner Porter or
Commissioner Evans recuse themselves or even raise the issue of any alleged
"conflict of interest." The Applicants were aware of the residences of
Commissioners Porter and Evans while their application was pending. (Record
Ex. NN at 9-10, Ex. LL Sheet 2, Ex. JJ at 31).
Commissioner Porter stated during the public hearing of January 12,
1999 that she had recently made two calls to the Police Department to
complain about the noise emanating from Preston Trucking. (Record Ex. JJ at
19). She testified at her deposition that she had, in fact, made only one such
call, and that was approximately 14 years earlier. (Record Ex. NN at 19-21).
She stated that the reason she had made the statement during the public
hearing was because she had overheard a neighbor, David Goodwin, state that
he had recently made two telephone calls to the police department to complain
about the noise. (Id. at 21-23). She wanted to put her neighbor's experience on
the record to show that complaints had been made without breaching her
neighbor's privacy.
9
r
II. ARGUMENT
A. JURISDICTION
The Defendant does not address the jurisdictional issues discussed in
Plaintiffs' Brief but leaves the plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof.
B. STANDARD OF REVIEW
It is well settled that it is the role of an administrative agency to
determine the applicability of the law and its own regulations to a particular set
of facts; the Court's function is to insure that such a determination is not
unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal. Caserta v. Zoning Board of Appeals 28
Conn. App. 256, 258 (1992). The decision of a planning and zoning
commission must be affirmed if an examination of the record discloses
evidence that supports any one of the reasons stated in the record. Housatonic
Terminal Corp. v. Planning and Zoning Board of City of Milford, 168 Conn. 304,
306 (1975); Samperi v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 226 Conn. 579, 587-88
(1993); Huck v. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525, 539-
40 (1987).
The evidence to support any of the stated reasons must be substantial,
which means that there must be sufficient evidence to justify the refusal to
direct a verdict on the issue, if the trial were to a jury and the stated reason
was an issue of fact for the jury. Huck V. Inland Wetlands & Watercourses
10
A enc , 203 Conn. At 540-41. Substantial and competent evidence is such
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion; it means something more than a trace of evidence and must do
more than create a suspicion of the existence of the facts to be established.
Board of Education of City of Hartford v. Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities 176 Conn. 533, 538 (1979). Contradictory evidence in the
record on an issue and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions
from the evidence does not prevent the agency's finding from being supported
by substantial evidence. Laufer v. Conservation Commission, 24 Conn. App.
708, 716 (1991).
There is a strong presumption of regularity in the action of municipal
land use agencies. Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Planning 8s Zoning Commission 206 Conn
554, 573s-4 (1988). The agency has discretion in most administrative actions
and the court may not substitute its judgment for the wide discretion of the
local agency. Whitaker v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 179 Conn. 650, 654 (1980).
The court must defer to that discretion, so the plaintiff challenging the decision
must show that it was clearly an abuse of discretion. This amounts to a
standard of at least clear and convincing proof, although not specifically so
stated in the cases. See Fuller, Land Use Law and Practice at section 34.4, P.
199.
The plaintiff has the further burden of establishing that the entire record
does not support the commission's decision. Red Hill Coalition, Inc. v.
Conservation Commission, 212 Conn. 710, (1989); Lawler v. Conservation
11
1 Y
Commission, 24 Conn. App. 708, 715 (1991). As described by the Supreme
Court in Samperi v.Inland Wetlands Agency:
The plaintiff must do more than simply show that another
decision maker, such as the trial court, might have reached a
different conclusion. Rather than asking the reviewing court
to retry the case de novo, the plaintiff must establish that
substantial evidence does not exist in the record as a whole to
support the agency's decision.
Samperi, 226 Conn. at 587 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
In evaluating whether an agency's conclusions meet the substantial
evidence test the court must recognize that issues of fact are to be determined
by the agency. Huck v. Inland Wetlands 8v Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn.-at
542. The credibility of witnesses is also within the province of the agency. Id.
at 540-41. As noted by the Supreme Court, "an administrative agency is not
required to believe any witness, even an expert." Id. at 542; Manor
Development Corporation v. Conservation Commission, 180 Conn. 692, 697
(1980). The agency may rely upon town professional staff to provide expert
evidence on issues not within the personal expertise or knowledge of agency
members. Laufer v. Conservation Commission, 24 Conn. App. 708, 713 (1991).
And the agency is not required to use the evidence presented to it in any
particular fashion, as long as the conduct of the hearing was fundamentally
fair. Bradley v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 28 Conn. App. 48, 54 (1992).
12
l Y
C. THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE APPLICATION
PURSUANT TO ITS SRD SPECIAL EXCEPTION/SITE PLAN
REGULATIONS IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
AS TO EACH OF THE FOUR REASONS GIVEN
Under South Windsor Zoning Regulations, the development of an
SRD requires approval of a special exception (or special permit) and a site
development plan. (Record Ex. MM section 4.1.12s). A zoning commission acts
in an administrative capacity when acting upon a special exception, as in the
present case. Irwin v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 627
(1998). Its function is to determine (1) whether the applicant's proposed use of
the property is expressly permitted under the regulations, (2) whether the
standards in the relevant zoning regulations are satisfied, and (3) whether
conditions necessary to protect public health, safety, convenience and property
values can be established. In each instance, the PZC responded in the negative
in considering the application herein.
The PZC listed four reasons for its denial of the application in its letter to
the Applicants. (Record Ex. HH). As noted in the Plaintiffs' Brief, the decision
of the PZC "must be sustained if an examination of the record discloses
evidence that supports any one of the four reasons given. Huck v. Inland
Wetlands 8v Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525, 539-40 (1987); Irwin v.
Planning 8s Zoning Commission, 244 Conn. 619, 628-29 (1998). Each of the
four reasons will be discussed herein in the order in which they appear in the
denial letter.
13
1. Serious Reservations About Allowing A High-Density
Development Directly Adjacent To An Industrial Zone With
Existing Industrial Uses
The South Windsor Zoning Regulations, at Section 4.1.12 (Record Ex.
MM), allow Senior Residence Developments in Residential Zones under certain
stated circumstances and where specific criteria are met. Among the stated
purposes for the SRD regulations are to promote "aesthetically pleasing senior
residential environments" and to foster SRD's "which can be nestled into
neighborhoods with minimal impact on surrounding properties." (Id. at section
4.1.12a). One of the criteria that must be met for approval is that there will be
minimal adverse effects on existing uses in the area." (Id. at section
4.1.12(d)(2).
The proposed SRD in the present case would abut an industrial zone in
close proximity with three trucking companies, one of which is on the eastern
border of the property. There is substantial evidence in the record by which
the PZC could reach the conclusion that the noise, activity and diesel smell
from these trucking companies would not promote an "aesthetically pleasing
senior residential environment." Even if the towns were able to restrict the
operations of the existing trucking companies to accommodate the senior
residents, such restrictions would clearly impact those companies in
conducting their business. This would contravene SRD regulations, both in
their stated purpose to allow SRD's in "neighborhoods with minimal impact on
14
1
surrounding properties" and in their criteria that there be "minimal adverse
effects on existing uses in the area."
The plaintiffs argue that the town has a noise ordinance that can be
enforced against the neighboring trucking companies that would allow senior
residents to live in an "aesthetically pleasing environment." This argument fails
for several reasons. First, even if the town was able to limit noise emanating
from the companies, this would restrict their conduct of business. It would,
thus, be contrary to the criteria that the SRD have "minimal impact on
surrounding properties."
Second, the record contains substantial evidence of the town's
experience with the noise ordinance in other parts of town over the last several
years. That experience has demonstrated that the noise ordinance cannot be
used to resolve most complaints involving noise from trucks operating in an
industrial zone. Many such noises are offensive to abutting residential owners,
but do not exceed the limits of the noise ordinance, especially early in the
morning or late at night. The noise ordinance also provides for exclusions and
exceptions identical to those in the regulations of the state Department of
Environmental Protection. Among the many exclusions in the State regulations
is noise from trucks while their engines are running. This exclusion has made
it virtually impossible to limit noise from trucks legally operating in an
industrial zone.
Plaintiffs argue that noise will not be a problem because the closest
residence in the SRD is 500 feet from the industrial zone. Many residents that
15
testified during the public hearing, however, stated that noise from the
trucking companies was a problem for them and their residences were much
farther from the industrial zone than 500 feet. Plaintiffs also note that the PZC
approved a residential lot that is closer to the industrial use than the SRD. The
Commission explained, however, that allowing low-density use of the abutting
property (i.e. one residence) reduced the number of families potentially affected.
This is a reasonable compromise between the interests of the town in
minimizing problems with noise and the interests of the Applicants in making
some reasonable use of their property.
Lastly, the plaintiffs argue that the Commission's concerns about noise
are based upon nothing more than "vague unsubstantiated fears." This
argument ignores the many references in the record to the PZC's long term
experience with similar situations in other parts of town and the comments of
many residents from the area that a noise problem already exists. This is the
evidence upon which the Commission based its decision and even a cursory
review of the record demonstrates that the evidence is substantial.
2. Locating A Multi-Family Development In The Rural
Historic Main Street Area Is Inconsistent With The Goals
And Objectives Of The Town Plan Of Development
The Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission has
adopted a Plan of Development pursuant to section 8-23 of the Connecticut
General Statutes. (Record Ex. 00). That Plan creates three categories of
residential uses and density throughout the Town: rural, low-medium density
16
residential and medium-high density residential. (Id. at II-6, section 6). The
Plan then makes recommendations for the distribution of these various
residential uses throughout Town, based upon criteria stated in the Plan. The
rural land use category is reserved for three large areas in Town, including the
Main Street/Connecticut River corridor north of Interstate 291. (Id. at X-2
section a; see also map appended as last page of Ex. 00). The property that is
the subject of this appeal is located within this rural Main Street corridor.
The identification of an area in the Plan as "rural" is meant to preserve
and protect the area in recognition of its value "for agricultural, environmental,
educational and historical purposes." (Id.) Once an area has been designated in
the Plan as "rural," it is to be "characterized by the Community's lowest
intensity land uses" with residential uses "limited to single-family homes on
large lots only." (Id.)
The South Windsor Zoning Regulations make specific reference to
the Plan of Development in their provisions regarding SRD's. Among the special
exception review criteria is the requirement that "the SRD proposal is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town Plan of Development."
(Record Ex. MM at section 4.1.12d(6)). In the present case, the Commission did
not feel that the application met this criterion because it did not involve single-
family homes on large lots or other low intensity land usage. The record has
numerous references, both by Commission members and residents from the
Main Street historic district area, expressing concern with the impact of a
multi-family SRD upon the historic district.
17
It is not entirely clear whether a commission can base its decision to
deny a subdivision application solely upon the failure of the subdivision to
comply with the Plan of Development. Some courts have responded to this
issue in the affirmative, upholding subdivision denials at least in part because
they did not comply with the Plan of Development. Forest Construction Co. v.
Planning 8s Zoning Commission 155 Conn. 669, 679 (1967), Aunt Hack Ridge
Estates, Inc. v. Planning Commission, 160 Conn. 109, 112-14 (1970). More
recently, however, the Supreme Court has held that the Plan of Development is
not controlling on subdivisions. Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 227 Conn.
71, 88 (1993).
A zoning agency reviewing a special permit, however, has greater
authority to consider whether the proposed use is consistent with the Plan of
Development than with a subdivision. Irwin v. Planning 8s Zoning Commission
244 Conn. 619, 680-1 (1998). The Connecticut Supreme Court has consistently
ruled that an application for a special permit can be denied for noncompliance
with a special exception regulation that references the Plan of Development. Id.
This is precisely the case at hand, where a special permit application has been
denied based upon noncompliance with a special permit regulation that
references the Plan of Development, i.e., section 4.1.12d(6).
The plaintiff argues that the PZC's denial represents a "bias" against
higher density or multi-family residential uses, which is arbitrary and
capricious. On the contrary, the denial is based upon a policy written into the
Plan of Development and the special exception criteria. A closer look at this
18
policy demonstrates that it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. The policy
disfavors such residential uses only in three specific areas of town and for very
sound reasons of preserving three unique and invaluable resources for the
benefit of all town residents and others. The policy is reasonable, rational and
sufficiently limited to allow higher density residential uses in the vast portion of
residential zones in Town. The policy represents sound planning, not bias.
Lastly, the plaintiffs argue that SRD's are distinguishable from other
forms of multi-family housing in that they are limited to persons over 55 years
of age and their numbers in Town are "capped" at 115 units. It is not clear how
these "distinctions" change the character of the use from "multi-family."
Regardless of age of occupants or number of units in Town, the proposed use is
clearly "multi-family" and just as clearly not "single family residences on large
lots." The special exception criteria, with their incorporation of the Plan of
Development, display a strong preference that SRD's and other multi-family
housing not be placed in the area of historic Main Street. There is substantial
evidence in the record, in the many concerns raised by Commission members
and the public, to support the PZC's decision that the proposed multi-family
use is inappropriate for the Main Street area.
3. The Site Is Not Within Reasonable Proximity To
Community Facilities Or Amenities Which Serve The Needs
Of Elderly Residents
The third reason given by the Commission for its denial of the
application is that the site is not within reasonable proximity to community
19
facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents. The special
exception review criteria which is relevant to this issue provides that SRD
applications may be approved if the PZC determines that
the location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity
to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of
elderly residents, or is within reasonable proximity to
indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close proximity to
or contains permanent open space land.
(Record Ex. MM at section 4.1.12d(8). There are numerous references in the
record from Commission members and the public noting that the subject
property is not within close proximity to any community facilities or to
amenities serving elderly residents such as banks, pharmacies and shopping.
Plaintiffs dispute this by noting that the proposed occupants of the SRD
would be "highly mobile" and able to drive themselves to facilities located
throughout South Windsor. The problem with this interpretation of the
regulation is that it renders the criterion meaningless, as noted by
Commissioner Evans in the following:
I disagree with the applicant who said that it was close to all
sorts of things.... Like the Community Center, the
convalescent home, the Congregational Church. Things of this
sort.... It's not exceptionally close to any of those. Two, three
miles. That's quite a bit.
Well or else it's a stupid regulation to have, requirement or
regulation. Because you could argue nothing is far away
within the town. And I think that's really true. But we, in
putting that into our regulations, have to mean something
more than that.
More than just that you can hop in your car and you can go
five miles, or three miles or whatever you need to do.
(Record Ex. KK at 4).
20
The obvious intent of the regulation is that at least some of the
amenities will be within reasonable walking distance for elderly residents. This
is the case with other SRD's which have been built in town. There is no such
reasonable proximity of the present development with any community facilities
or amenities serving elderly residents.
Plaintiffs next argue that the requirements of this criterion are met
because the proposed SRD is surrounded by fifteen acres of open space
conveyed by the developer of the SRD to the South Windsor Land Trust. They
argue that this satisfies the third prong of the criterion that the SRD be within
close proximity to or contain permanent open space land. Plaintiffs also argued
at the public hearing that the open space was beneficial to the proposed
occupants of the SRD because it could be used for hiking and walking along
trails throughout the area. There was evidence to the contrary, however, at the
public hearing. One of the residents from the area who is familiar with the
property which has been conveyed as open space stated that
The land trust deeded land is too steep, too rugged. Full of
dead fallen trees and crossed by two deep gully brooks that
are not passable. I can't imagine retirees hiking or walking
there. Maybe teenagers. I tried walking there and it was
almost impossible. This is rough, steep non-buildable and
non-usable land. Does (sic) this nice gesture of open land
donation a method of avoiding land taxes by the developer or
the retirement community?
(Record Ex. JJ at 26).
There is substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of
this criterion have not been met. There are no community facilities or amenities
21
within walking distance for elderly residents. And while there is some open
space contiguous to the SRD, it is of a type that is virtually unusable by the
elderly residents of the proposed SRD. There is no specific requirement in the
regulation that the open space be usable by the senior residents of the SRD,
but this is certainly a factor that the PZC can .take into account. This is
especially true where the applicant is using the open space as a means of
avoiding the requirement that the development be within convenient walking
distance of other amenities.
4. The Proposed Density Is Too High For The Site
The last reason given by the Commission for its denial of the application
is that the proposed density of the SRD was too high for this particular site.
The plaintiffs claim that the density is not too high because it is well within the
maximum density allowed under the regulations.
The regulations provide a formula that appears on the site development
plan indicating that the site in question would allow a maximum density of 8
units per buildable acre. (Record Ex. MM at section 4.1.12f; Ex. LL at Sheet 2).
The site allegedly consists of 7.89 buildable acres, so the regulations would
allow a maximum density of 63 units, but for the absolute maximum of 20 SRD
units contained in section 4.1.12f of the Zoning Regulations. (Record Ex. MM).
This is, however, a maximum density allowed and not a degree of
density that an applicant can rely upon as a matter of right. The actual density
22
r r
allowed is dependent upon many factors that are specific to each individual
site. As noted earlier, the ultimate purpose of the SRD regulations is to
promote "aesthetically pleasing senior residential environments" (Record Ex.
MM at section 4.1.12a) and this goal may have a bearing on the appropriate
density for each given site. The density would also be significantly greater than
that recommended in the Plan of Development for housing in the Main Street
corridor.
A question was also raised by Commission members as to whether
the proposed density would create drainage problems for the site. There was
evidence during the public hearing that this site is environmentally sensitive,
in that the soil is highly erodable and the topography is not conducive to
normal drainage. (Record Ex. II at 7-8, 22, 38, 40, 46-48, 56-57; Ex. JJ at 13,
14, 26-27, 33-35, 40, 45). The density of development proposed would merely
exacerbate these poor drainage conditions, requiring a less dense use or fewer
units. In any event, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the
PZC's denial of the application because the development was too dense for the
site.
D. NO EVIDENCE PZC'S DECISION BASED SOLELY OR IN PART
UPON STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER PORTER ABOUT
NOISE COMPLAINTS TO THE POLICE
The plaintiffs argue in their brief that the Commission's denial of the
application was based upon "false and misleading" statements by
23
Commissioner Porter. Without actually making the claim, they imply that the
decision should be invalidated for this reason. Commissioner Porter did
make a statement during the public hearing of January 12, 1999 that she had
recently made two calls to the Police Department to complain about the noise
emanating from Preston Trucking. At her deposition, she admitted that she
had, in fact, made only one such call, and that was approximately 14 years
earlier. She explained that she had made the statement during the public
hearing because she had overheard a neighbor, David Goodwin, state that he
had recently made two telephone calls to the police department to complain
about the noise. The applicants repeatedly stated during the public hearing
that the police had received no complaints involving noise. Commissioner
Porter wanted to put her neighbor's experience on the record to show that
complaints had been made without breaching her neighbor's privacy.
Despite the innocent reasons for her statement, Commissioner Porter
has conceded that she should not have made the statement in the form it was
made. Her only alternative may have been to say and do nothing and leave the
record with an inaccurate implication regarding noise complaints in the area.
That does not mean, however, that the decision of the PZC should be
invalidated as a result of her comment. Even where a commission receives
"illegal" evidence after the public hearing has been closed, a far more egregious
situation than the present one, this does not automatically invalidate the
commission's decision. Such a situation can be harmless error where the
commission's action is adequately supported by assigned reasons not based on
24
1 •
the improper evidence. First Hartford Realty Corp. v. Plan and Zoning
Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 545 (1973). See also Forest Construction Co. v.
Planning and Zoning Commission, 155 Conn. 669, 674 (1967) (separate
meetings between Commission and opponents without notice to or
participation by applicant did not invalidate denial of subdivision application).
The party seeking
p ty e ing to invalidate the decision has the burden of proving
that substantial prejudice to that party resulted from the receipt of the
evidence by the commission. Carlson v. Fisher, 18 Conn. App. 488, 504 (1989).
An important component in cases where prejudice has been established is the
lack of an opportunity to rebut the "improper" evidence. See e.g. Blaker v.
Planning and Zoning Commission, 212 Conn. 471, 478-80 (1989) appeal after
remand, 219 Conn. 139 (1991). And where the evidence is merely cumulative
to other evidence presented and discussed at public hearing, the commission's
decision should not be invalidated. Daniels Hill Development, LLC v. Planning
and Zoning Commission, 26 Conn. L. Rptr. 338, 2000 WL 125047 (2000),
certification granted on other grounds and appeal pending.
Applying these principles in the present case, the comment made by
Commissioner Porter was unfortunate but should have no bearing on the
Commission's decision. That decision is clearly supported by assigned reasons
not based on Commissioner Porter's comment. That comment dealt only with
the noise issue. The Commission based its denial on four reasons, three of
which had nothing to do with the noise issue. And the noise concerns were
substantiated by several Commission members and residents throughout the
25
proceedings, independent of any comment by Commissioner Porter. In fact,
each of the four reasons for denial was supported by substantial evidence that
was totally unrelated to the comment by Commissioner Porter. The comment
was merely cumulative of this other evidence and there is not even an
indication that it was relied upon by any Commission member in making their
decision.
No evidence has been introduced or identified which establishes any
prejudice to the plaintiffs. They had adequate opportunity to rebut the
comment, which was done immediately by their representative during the
public hearing:
He [Police Sergeant Thomas Field] didn't recall any [complaints]
when I spoke with him and that was [two months ago].... And he
indicated to me that they have a device for monitoring, in the event
they did receive a call. (Record Ex. JJ at 19).
They had a further opportunity to investigate and rebut Commissioner Porter's
comment in the 35 days from the date the comment was made to the date the
Commission ruled to deny the application. The plaintiffs were clearly aware of
the comment, unlike the parties in many of the cases cited above that involved
ex parte communications. The decision of the Commission should be affirmed
despite the comment by Commissioner Porter.
The plaintiffs make two or three offhand references in their Brief
suggesting that either the Commission, Commissioner Porter or both had
prejudged the plaintiffs' application. It is unclear from their brief whether the
plaintiffs are pursuing a claim for predetermination or predisposition and, if so,
26
the factual and legal bases for such a claim. The defendant will address this
issue, however, in the event that plaintiffs are pursuing such a claim.
Predetermination is a claim that agency members were so closed-minded
that they had made up their minds prior to the public hearing to deny the
application no matter what evidence was presented to support it. Woodburn v.
Conservation Commission, 37 Conn. App. 155, 175 (1995). This is a difficult
claim to prove because public officers are presumed to have acted legally and
properly. Jutkowitz v. Department of Health Services, 220 Conn. 86, 100
(1991). It is more difficult to establish where the commission is acting in an
administrative capacity rather than a quasi-judicial capacity. Clisham v. Board
of Police Commissioners, 223 Conn. 354, 362 (1992). The burden of proof is on
the claimant. Jutkowitz, infra at 100.
To prove predetermination, it must be shown that the agency members
were irrevocably committed to the particular action no matter what evidence
was produced. Furtney v. Simsbury Zoning Commission, 159 Conn. 585, 594
(1970). It is not enough that agency members may have tentative opinions or
points of view on an application before the public hearing. Cioffoletti v.
Planning and Zoning Commission, 209 Conn. 544, 555 (1989). Where a
claimant has met his burden of proof that a member has predetermined an
application, yet has participated in the deliberations and vote, the decision of
the commission may be invalidated under certain limited circumstances. This
ordinarily requires a showing that none of the reasons given for denial are
valid, Marmah, Inc. v. Town of Greenwich, 176 Conn. 116 (1978), or that
27
virtually no evidence was offered to support the commission's decision. Kloter
v. Zoning Commission, 26 Conn. Supp. 495, 500 (1967). The decision will
ordinarily not be invalidated where the vote of the commission is unanimous,
so the vote of the member in question did not affect the result. Murach v.
Planning and Zoning, 176 Conn. at 204-06 (1985).
In the present case, there has been no evidence offered to establish
predetermination. This is despite the fact that the plaintiffs took the deposition
of Commissioner Porter and made every attempt to establish that she had
prejudged the application. Commissioner Porter may have had a point of view
on many of the issues involved in the application, but there is no evidence that
she was closed-minded. This is especially true where one considers the high
threshold for establishing predetermination where a commission member is
sitting in an administrative capacity, as in the present case.
And even if predetermination had been proven, the participation of
Commissioner Porter would not invalidate the Commission's decision. The vote
of the Commission was unanimous, so Commissioner Porter's vote had no
bearing on the outcome. Valid reasons were given for denial of the application
and a great deal of evidence was presented during the public hearing that
supported the decision of the Commission regardless of any point of view by
Commissioner Porter. Given these circumstances, the Commission's decision
should not be invalidated even if predisposition by one member could be
established.
28
E. COMMISSIONER PORTER DID NOT HAVE A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AND IF SHE HAD, PLAINTIFFS HAVE WAIVED ANY
CLAIM TO INVALIDATE THE COMMISSION'S DECISION BY
THEIR FAILURE TO RAISE THE ISSUE DURING THE PUBLIC
HEARING
The plaintiffs appear to claim in Issue #3 of their Brief that
Commissioner Porter had a conflict of interest by virtue of her owning property
within 500 feet of the subject parcel. They further contend that her
participation so "tainted" the proceedings as to deprive plaintiffs of their right
to a fair and impartial hearing, requiring that the decision of the Commission
be invalidated. These arguments are flawed for several reasons.
Defendant is aware of no statute, regulation or case law that provides
that ownership of land within 500 feet of a property creates an automatic
conflict of interest as to an application pertaining to that property. Plaintiffs
have cited no such statute, regulation or case law in their Brief. While
proximity to property involved in the application is a factor in deciding if there
is a conflict of interest, it is not controlling. Fuller, Land Use Law and Practice
Section 47.3 at 439. Whether a conflict of interest exists is largely a question
of fact and depends upon the circumstances of each case. Armstrong v. Zoning
Board of Appeals, 158 Conn. 158, 171-72 (1969). However, the courts have
admonished that local governments would be seriously handicapped if conflicts
of interest were defined too broadly because it could require the disqualification
of zoning officials in most instances. Armstrong v. Zoning Board of Appeals,
158 Conn. 158, 171 (1969). This is especially true in small communities like
South Windsor.
29
In the present case, there is no basis for a finding that a conflict exists
because Commissioner Porter's property is within 500 feet of the subject
property. Both the Zoning and Wetlands Regulations require notice of an
application only to those owners of properties that abut the property involved
in the application. Notice was provided in the present case only because the
Inland Wetlands Agency specifically requested the expanded notice. The edge of
the plaintiffs' property is 500 feet from the edge of the Porter property and
cannot even be seen from the Porter property. The notice was addressed to
Commissioner Porter's husband and while Commissioner Porter did become
aware of the notice, the record is not clear when she became aware.
If any distance should be used to determine an automatic conflict it
should be the distance in the definition of aggrievement because that term
denotes a substantial interest in the proceedings. The standard for
aggrievement is within. 100 feet of the property or within 90 feet of a wetland.
The Porter property is more than 5 times this distance from plaintiffs' property,
with the properties being separated by a major roadway and woods, so one
cannot even be seen from the other. While Commissioner Porter lives in the
general area of the application, it is not clear that she had an obligation to
disqualify herself. This is especially true where she was not aware of the actual
proximity of her property during the proceedings.
More importantly, the plaintiffs should not be heard now to complain
about Commissioner Porter's participation in their application when they made
no effort to raise the issue during the proceedings. The Connecticut Supreme
30
Court has consistently held that persons knowing of the facts supporting a
conflict of interest claim must raise it in a timely manner at the public hearing
or risk waiver of the claim. New England Rehabilitation Hospital of Hartford
Inc. v. Commissions on Hospitals and Health Care, 226 Conn. 105, 152 (1993);
Fletcher v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 158 Conn. 497, 504-08 (1969).
The plaintiffs were aware of the proximity of the Porter residence to their
property at the time their application was filed. They mailed notice to the
Porters as property owners within 500 feet of their property in October of 1998,
three months before the close of the public hearing. Their representatives
demonstrated no surprise when Commissioner Porter indicated during the
public hearing that she had made noise complaints in the area. They
apparently chose not to complain so they could get a "second bite of the apple"
if their application was denied. But this strategy is prohibited just as it is
where one chooses not to raise an issue of a judge's recusal until after the case
is over. In both instances the law requires the claimant to raise the issue as
early in the proceedings as they become aware of the basis for the claim to
allow the situation to be corrected if necessary.
III. CONCLUSION
The decision of a planning and zoning commission must be affirmed if an
examination of the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the
reasons stated in the record. The PZC listed four reasons for its denial of the
31
application in its letter to the Applicants and each is supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
The first reason involved concern about the location of the
proposed SRD in an area abutting industrial uses. There is substantial
evidence in the record by which the PZC could reach the conclusion that the
noise, activity and diesel smell from these trucking companies would not
promote an "aesthetically pleasing senior residential environment." If the town
was able to restrict the operations of the existing trucking companies to
accommodate the senior residents, this would contravene SRD regulations,
both in their stated purpose to allow SRD's in "neighborhoods with minimal
impact on surrounding properties" and in their criteria that there be "minimal
adverse effects on existing uses in the area."
The second reason is that multi-family housing is not appropriate in the
historic Main Street area. The special exception criteria, with their
incorporation of the Plan of Development, display a strong preference that
SRD's and other multi-family housing not be placed in the area of historic Main
Street. There is substantial evidence in the record to support this reason for
denial.
The third reason given is that the site is not within reasonable proximity
to community facilities or amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents.
There is substantial evidence in the record that the requirements of this
criterion have not been met. There are no community facilities or amenities
within walking distance for elderly residents. And while there is some open
32
space contiguous to the SRD, it is of a type that is virtually unusable by the
elderly residents of the proposed SRD.
The last reason given by the Commission for its denial of the application
is that the proposed density of the SRD was too high for this particular site.
Although within maximum density guidelines, the actual density allowed is
dependent upon many factors that are specific to each individual site. The
ultimate purpose of the SRD regulations is to promote "aesthetically pleasing
senior residential environments" and there was sufficient evidence in the record
to support the conclusion that the proposed degree of density would not create
such an environment at this site. There also was evidence that the density of
the development would exacerbate the poor drainage conditions in this
environmentally sensitive site.
The Commission's decision should not be invalidated because of the
comment by Commissioner Porter about noise complaints. The comment was
unfortunate but should have no bearing on the Commission's decision. The
Commission based its denial on four reasons, three of which had nothing to do
with the noise issue. And the noise concerns were substantiated by several
Commission members and residents throughout the proceedings, independent
of any comment by Commissioner Porter. No evidence was introduced or
identified which establishes any prejudice to the plaintiffs, who had adequate
opportunity to rebut the comment, which they did during the public hearing.
There has been no evidence offered to establish predetermination by
Commissioner Porter. This is despite the fact that the plaintiffs took the
33
r a
deposition of Commissioner Porter and made every attempt to establish that
she had prejudged the application. Even if predetermination had been proven,
the participation of Commissioner Porter would not invalidate the
Commission's decision. The vote of the Commission was unanimous, so
Commissioner Porter's vote had no bearing on the outcome. Valid reasons were
given for denial of the application and a great deal of evidence was presented
during the public hearing that supported the decision of the Commission
regardless of any point of view by Commissioner Porter.
The plaintiffs' claim that Commissioner Porter had a conflict of
interest by virtue of her owning property within 500 feet of the subject parcel
has no basis in fact or law. There is no statute, regulation or case law that
provides that ownership of land within 500 feet of a property creates an
automatic conflict of interest as to an application pertaining to that property.
While Commissioner Porter lives in the general area of the application, it is not
clear that she had an obligation to disqualify herself. This is especially true
where she was not aware of the actual proximity of her property during the
proceedings.
More importantly, the plaintiffs should not now be heard to complain
about Commissioner Porter's participation in their application when they made
no effort to raise the issue during the proceedings.
34
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Commission should be
affirmed and the Plaintiffs'Appeal should be dismissed.
DEFENDANT
BY
Barry D. Guliano, Esquire
South Windsor Town Attorney
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
(860) 644-2511
Their Attorney
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid
this 8th day of May, 2001, to:
Harold R. Cummings, Esquire
Cummings, Lanza and Purnhagen, L.L.C.
1610 Ellington Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
Barry D. Guliano
Commissioner of the Superior Court
35
South
• •
Planning Department
Me o
To: Planning&Zoning Commission
From: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning
CC: Barry Guliano,Town Attorney
Date: 08/22/01
Re: Shady Brook Litigation--Defendants Brief
Attached for your information is a full copy of the brief filed by Town Attorney Guliano in the above-
referenced litigation. We are providing this so that Commissioners don't have an incomplete picture,
based solely on newspaper reports, of the litigation arguments made by each side before Judge
Maloney.
1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 PH 860-644-2511,ext.253 Fax 860-644-7280
e-mail banach(a)-southwindsor.org
9 Page 1
CV 99 058 75 31
BANCROFT BROOK LLC :SUPERIOR COURT
ET AL : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD
V. : AT HARTFORD
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, : OCTOBER 5, 2001
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Plaintiffs Bancroft Brook LLC and B do M Enterprises, Inc. appeal the decision of
the defendant planning and zoning commission of the town of South Windsor denying the
plaintiffs' application for a special exception/site development plan approval for the
construction and operation of a Senior Residence Development(SRD) on their property
in that town. The commission acted pursuant to General Statutes § 8-3, 8-3c and
applicable plan and zoning regulations of the town. The plaintiff appeals pursuant to § 8-
8. The court fmds in favor of the plaintiffs.
O C3
'T7 �
7_ r
I1tA /S
OFFICE
1
The facts essential to the court's decision are undisputed and fully reflected in the
record. Plaintiff Bancroft Brook LLC is the owner of a 9.11 acre parcel of land in South
Windsor. Plaintiff B & M Enterprises, Inc. holds an option to purchase the property. The
land is in a Rural Residential district,zoned R40.Applicable zoning regulations allow
the construction and operation of a Senior Residence Development providing housing for
the elderly upon the obtaining of a special exception and site plan approval from the
defendant commission.
In October 1998, the plaintiffs applied for a special exception/site plan approval
for an SRD consisting of twenty dwelling units on their property as well as a
resubdivision. The requested resubdivision would carve out a single family residential lot,
which would be adjacent to the SRD parcel. The commission convened a public hearing
on November 18, 1998, which was continued to January 12, 1999, and concluded at that
time. On February 16, 1999, the commission met and voted to deny the plaintiffs'
application for SRD approval. The commission approved the resubdivision creating the
single family residential lot.
In its decision denying the SRD, the commission cited four reasons, set forth
below verbatim:
"1. Serious reservations about siting a high-density development directly adjacent
to an industrial zone with existing industrial uses, due to the ongoing noise
complaints from other residential developments abutting industrial zones.
2. Locating a multi-family development in the rural,historic Main Street area is
inappropriate. This would set a precedent for future high-density development
applications west of Route 5,which is an area whose rural character the
Commission desires to preserve and maintain. Commissioners indicated that the
density should be kept low in this area for both prevention of noise complaints
2
and preservation of rural character.
3. This site is not within reasonable proximity to community facilities or
amenities which serve the needs of elderly residents.
4. The proposed density is too high for the site. "
It is this decision which is the subject of this appeal.
It is stipulated by the parties that the plaintiffs are owners of the property which is
the subject of the commission's decision. They are, therefore, aggrieved by that decision
and have standing to bring this appeal.
In their brief and at oral argument on this appeal, the plaintiffs advance essentially
three arguments in support of their appeal: 1) that the commission misinterpreted and
illegally applied the applicable regulations; 2) that there was insufficient evidence of
excessive noise emanating from the industrial zone; and 3) that one of the commissioners
was biased and acted so as to deprive the plaintiffs of a fair hearing.
Before addressing the specific issues raised by this appeal, it will be helpful to
restate several general principles of the law relating to the role of the commission and the
court in special permit cases. If an application for a special permit satisfies the
requirements of applicable regulations and statutes, the commission must grant it. But
this does not mean that the commission's review of the application is a mere formality.
" We previously have recognized that the special permit process is, in fact, discretionary
.. (We have also) concluded that general considerations such as public health, safety and
welfare, which are enumerated in zoning regulations, may be the basis for the denial of a
special permit. Also, we have stated that before the zoning commission can determine
3
whether the specially permitted use is compatible with the uses permitted as of right in
the particular zoning district, it is required to judge whether any concerns, such as parking
or traffic congestion, would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood ... Although
it is true that the zoning commission does not have discretion to deny a special permit
when the proposal meets the standards, it does have the discretion to determine whether
the proposal meets the standards set forth in the regulations. If during the exercise of its
discretion, the zoning commission decides that all of the standards enumerated in the
special permit regulations are met, then it can no longer deny the application. The
converse is, however, equally true. Thus, the zoning commission can exercise its
discretion during the review of the proposed special exception,as it applies the
regulations to the specific application before it. ... In situations in which the zoning
commission does state the reasons for its action, the question for the court to pass on is
simply whether the reasons assigned are reasonably supported by the record and whether
they are pertinent to the considerations which the commission is required to apply under
the zoning regulations ... The agency's decision must be sustained if an examination of
the record discloses evidence that supports any one of the reasons given. (Citations and
internal quotation marks omitted.) Irwin v. Planning& Zoning Commission, 244 Conn.
619, 626-629 (1998).
The first reason cited by the commission as a basis for its decision is that noise
from the nearby industrial zone might engender complaints from residents of the SRD.
The principal flaw in this reasoning is that there is nothing in the regulations that supports
it. All of the regulations that might be considered even remotely pertinent to the proposal
4
in this regard are focused on potentially adverse effects that the project might have on the
existing neighborhood, not on potential problems that the neighborhood might have on
the SRD. Thus, for example, Regulations sec. 4.1.12.d.1. requires that "traffic impacts
will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood." So, although the
commission is "required to judge whether any concerns, such as parking or traffic
congestion, would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood," Irwin v. Plannina
and Zoning Commission supra, 244 Conn. 627; even if noise is in the same category as
parking and traffic congestion,the commission has no authority to reject a special permit
application on the ground that the applicant's property would be adversely impacted.
Although noise that already exists in the neighborhood might very properly be a concern
of the applicant and later of someone contemplating moving into one of the units, it
would seem to be none of the commission's business in its consideration of this
application.
The commission's concerns are expressly based on "ongoing complaints from
other residential developments abutting industrial zones." This would be relevant to the
plaintiffs' application only if there was substantial evidence that there is also significant
and undue noise emanating from the industrial property that is near the plaintiffs'
proposed project. Such evidence as there is,however, is at best vague and
unsubstantiated. The most egregious indication of the unreliability of this evidence is the
statement made during the public hearing by one of the commissioners, Patricia Porter,
who said that she herself had made two recent complaints about noise generated by a
trucking company on the property nearest the plaintiffs' SRD. Later, when questioned
5
under oath at a deposition called by the plaintiffs, Commissioner Porter admitted that her
statement at the public hearing was false.
Further, and most significantly, on the noise issue, the court notes that South
Windsor has enacted an ordinance establishing a "noise pollution standard," the purpose
of which is to control the volume of noise emanating from a.particular site. The ordinance
sets noise limits for the different zones in the town, including the industrial zones, and it
prohibits an individual or a business from emitting noise beyond its own boundary in
excess of the applicable limit. This ordinance applies to the industrial zone nearest to the
plaintiffs' property in the residential zone, which is the subject of this appeal. There is no
evidence in the record that the noise emanating from the industrial zone into the
plaintiffs' property is in excess of the applicable limit or that any of the businesses
generating noise in that industrial zone have been the subjects of enforcement action
pursuant to the ordinance. It is noteworthy in this regard that the commission's stated
reason for denying the plaintiffs' application is that the commission anticipates noise
complaints, not noise violations.
The defendant commission argues that the ordinance would not adequately protect
the residents of the SRD because the many exceptions to the enforcement provisions
mandated by state law and regulations allow a legal but nonetheless bothersome level of
noise. In effect, the commission says that the noise justifies the denial of the plaintiffs'
application even though the noise level complies with the applicable regulations. This
argument illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in the town's reasoning in rejecting the
special permit. The commission concedes that the application conforms to the
6
requirements of existing regulations, in this case the noise ordinance, but nevertheless
rejects the application on the basis that the regulations are inadequate. In essence, the
commission seeks to establish a higher or different standard for the current application
than that already established by existing regulations. The law does not afford the
commission such discretion in considering an application for a special permit that
complies with the current regulations. If the town is not satisfied that current regulations
accomplish its goals, the proper course is to change the regulations.
The commission also argues, apparently in the alternative, that if it were forced by
complaints from SRD residents to enforce the noise ordinance against businesses in the
industrial zone, that would be contrary to the requirement in the regulations that the
project have "minimal impact on surrounding properties." The commission's
interpretation of this requirement is plainly erroneous. "Impact," in this context,
obviously does not mean the effect that due enforcement of the law might have on a
violator. The commission's reasoning, if adopted, would logically require it to reject any
application for an SRD on the basis that the residents might insist that the government
enforce laws that restrict the conduct of business -pollution prevention, traffic control,
outdoor advertising, are just some examples that come to mind. The short answer to the
commission's argument in this regard is that the government should enforce duly enacted
laws without waiting for citizen complaints and without regard for the "impact" that such
enforcement might have on the violator.
Finally, the plaintiffs point out that the commission's approval of the new
residential subdivision lot, which is directly adjacent to the industrial zone, is inconsistent
7
with its assertion that noise emanating from that industrial zone will be annoying or
harmful to residents. In its brief to the court,the commission in effect concedes that the
residents of the new lot might be just as adversely affected by the noise as the SRD
residents, but since there will be at most only one family on the lot, the commission
claims that its actions are "a reasonable compromise between the interests of the town in
minimizing problems with noise" and the interests of the plaintiffs in the use of their
property. The point that the commission seems to miss is that its actions should be based
on the protection of all its citizens,that the protection of just one individual from illegal
noise, or any other illegal activity, is as necessary as is the protection of many. If the
commission was truly acting to protect its citizens from the harmful effects of noise from
the industrial zone, it would not have approved a residential subdivision directly adjacent
to the source of the noise even if only one person would be a victim. (It's entirely likely,
of course, that a whole family will occupy the new lot,perhaps even a family that
includes elderly people.) In approving the subdivision as a "compromise," however, the
commission undermines its entire argument that excessive noise emanating from the
industrial zone is a problem that can legitimately be a basis for official action; that is, can
be a basis for denying the plaintiffs' application.
For the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that there was insufficient
evidence to support the commission's finding that there was noise in excess of the legal
limit emanating from businesses in the industrial zone to the plaintiffs' property. Further,
the commission abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' application on the basis
that noise from such businesses would harm or annoy SRD residents in the absence of
8
evidence that such noise exceeds the legal limit.
The second reason given by the commission for denying the plaintiffs' application
is that a multi-family development is "inappropriate" in the Main Street area of town. In
its brief, the commission cites section 4.1.12.d.6. of the regulations in support of this
reason. That section requires that the SRD proposal be "consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Town Plan of Development." One of the goals of the Plan of
Development is to establish a "Rural land use category" of certain land in the town zoned
for residential use. This "category" is "characterized by the Community's lowest intensity
land uses. The primary land uses to be encouraged are: agriculture; open space; nature
preserves; and passive recreation. Residential land uses would be limited to single-family
homes on large lots only, with recommended minimum residential density far exceeding
one acre for every home." The plaintiffs' land is located within this geographical
"category." The town's zoning regulations do not, however,provide these limitations on
the plaintiffs' property, which is located in a residential A-40 zone. In addition to the
single family homes on large lots endorsed by the town plan, the regulations currently in
force for that zone permit professional offices, boarding houses, two family dwellings,
and SRD's by special permit. That is to say,the town's duly enacted regulations have not
caught up with the vision of the area set forth in the town plan.
In Irwin v. Planning&Zoning Commission, supra, 244 Conn. 631, the Supreme
court reaffirmed the general rule that "because the overall objectives contained in the
town plan must be implemented by specific regulations, the plan itself can operate only as
an interpretive tooI," citing_Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals 227 Conn. 71 (1993). In
9
the Irwin case, the court approved the administrative agency's reliance on the town's plan
of development but "only as an aid for interpreting the standards in the regulation."
In the present case, in rejecting the SRD permit as "inappropriate" in the "rural
Main Street area," the commission is not using the town plan as a tool for interpreting the
existing zoning regulations, which allow SRD's by special permit, but rather, the
commission is seeking to implement the goals of the town plan in the absence of specific
zoning regulations accomplishing those goals. Such action exceeds the authority of the
commission
The third reason cited by the commission for denying the application is that the
project would not be "within reasonable proximity to community facilities" for elderly
people. The applicable regulation is section 4.1.12.d.8.,which requires that:
8. The location of the SRD facility is within reasonable proximity to community
facilities or amenities which serve the needs or elderly residents, or is within
reasonable proximity to indoor/outdoor activity centers, or is within close
proximity to or contains permanent open space land. (Emphasis added.)
It is undisputed that the plaintiffs'project includes the donation of fifteen acres of
land surrounding the SRD to be designated as permanent open space. Thus, the
application complies with this section of the regulations, which requires reasonable
proximity to community facilities only as an alternative to open space. The commission's
argument that the open space must be suitable for hiking by possibly fragile or unstable
elderly citizens finds no support in the plain language of this regulation.
The last reason cited by the commission for denying the application is that "the
proposed density is too high for the site." It is undisputed that section 4.1.12.f., as
10
applied to the project set forth in the plaintiffs' application, sets the maximum density at
eight units per buildable acre, subject to an overall limit of twenty units. The site contains
7.89 buildable acres, and the proposal calls for twenty units. This is a "density" of 2.53
units per acre, well within the requirements of the applicable regulation.
The commission argues that it has the discretion to impose tighter density limits
within those contained in the regulations. In this case, the commission contends that its
conclusion that the density of the plaintiffs'project is excessive is justified by evidence in
the record of"poor drainage conditions." The court has examined the record in this
regard . The record discloses, first, that the project was approved by the town's Inland
Wetlands and Watercourses and Conservation Commissions. During the course of the
public hearing before the defendant commission, the subject of drainage received some
comment from town officials, the public, and the plaintiffs' engineer. There is
considerable evidence in the record indicating that all drainage concerns were adequately
addressed by the plaintiffs' final construction plans and to the satisfaction of the town's
professional staff. The fact that the subject was discussed and that some members of the
public were not satisfied with the final plans is not substantial evidence which would
support the commission's decision in this regard. The court concludes that the
commission's reasoning in rejecting the application insofar as it is based on the "density"
of the project has no support in the regulations or in the evidence.
In Irwin v. Planning&Zonina Commission, supra 244 Conn. 628, our Supreme
Court states the familiar rule setting the high bar that a plaintiff must scale in order to
overturn a decision of the commission: "In applying the law to the facts of a particular
{
11
case, the (commission) is endowed with a liberal discretion, and its action is subject to
review by the courts only to determine whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal."
In the present case, for the reasons set forth above, the court concludes that the
commission's stated reasons for denying the plaintiffs' application for a special
exception/site development plan approval are not supported by evidence in the record or
by provisions of applicable law or regulations. The commission's decision may not,
therefore, be affirmed.
The appeal is sustained,
Maloney. J.
12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marcia Banach
Director of Planning
FROM: Barry D. Guliano
Town Attorney
DATE: December ?, 2001
RE: Bancroft Brook v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Attached is a copy of the Order on Petition for Certification to Appeal
with regard to the above-captioned case. Please advise Kevin McCann of the
denial and distribute copies of this document to the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
BDG/mpg
Attachment
r
APPELLATE COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT by R
TORN OF
SO wooso
etc c i �AD1
101yk TORS s
AFF�
BANCROFT BROOK LLC, ET AL c�
V.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
December 5, 2001
ORDER ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION TO APPEAL
ON CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION BY THE DEFENDANT
FOR CERTIFICATION TO APPEAL, IT IS HEREBY 0 R D E R E D THAT SAID
PETITION BE, AND THE SAME HEREBY IS DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
*SIST4ANT CLERK-APPELLATE
NOTICE SENT: 12/5/01
CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT, JD, HARTFORD, CV99 058 75 31
CUMMINGS, LANZA & PURNHAGEN, LLC
BARRY D. GULIANO
d m
c
y
r
LAW OFFICES
CUMMINGS,LANZA AND PURNH.
1610 ELLINGTON ROAD
POST OFFICE BOX 667 d
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.060i
(860)644-3473 "
FAX(860)644-3347
HAROLD R.CUMMINGS
MICHAEL J.LANZA lll___ ,
VINCENT J.PURNHAGEN
Februa
Attorney n'Y Ba Guliano GV�
Town Attorney
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT. 06074
RE: Bancroft Brook, LLC— Shady Brook Development, Strong Road
Dear Barry:
Just a note to follow up the message which I left on your voicemail the other day.
I reviewed the draft approval letter for the Shady Brook Senior Residence district. I have no
problems or objections to the language as set forth in paragraphs one through ten on the first
page. With respect to the first paragraph, on the second page, I request that the phrase "of this
letter" be added after"30 days".
In addition, I also enclose for your reference, a copy of the approval letter for the one lot
subdivision that was granted on February 26, 1999. Since the Commission approved the one lot
single family residential subdivision, no appeal was taken of that approval. At the same time,
since the denial of the Senior Residence District for the remaining land, was under appeal, my
clients never proceeded to file the plans and complete the subdivision mapping as required by the
letter. Therefore, I believe it would be appropriate, for the Commission to also reissue the
approval letter for the lot so that the original plan of development, as approved, can be carried
out. Please give me a call after you've had a chance to review the enclosed.
Sin y yours,
Hbl/jR mings
HRC/lr
Enclosure
cc: Brian Edwards, David Lynch, Marshall Taylor, Attorney Ben Dowe
' ,to af.l
ci • G
S �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
soe•co TELEPHONE (860) 644 2511
1
CERTIFIED MAIL X
�-F.fti- c u Wk-
June 24, 2002
Mr. Brian Edwards
B &M Enterprises
P. O. Box 1060
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Re: Appl #98-58P, Shady Brook SRD Special Exception and Site Plan
In accordance with the order from the Hartford Superior Court (docket#CV 99 058 75 31), the Planning &
Zoning Commission hereby approves with modifications the above referenced application for a Special
Exception to Section 4.1.12 and Site Plan of Development.
This approval is for the construction of a 20 unit senior residence development on property located on Strong
Road, A-40 zone, as shown on plans prepared by Design Professionals, Inc., Job No. 98-1123, dated 10/7/98, as
revised. This approval is subject to the following modifications:
1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office.
3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation
Commission, including a bond in the amount of$10,000 for erosion and sediment control.
4. Quantity estimates must be submitted to the Town Engineer(on the enclosed form) for the purpose of
determining site bonding, and all bonds shall be posted prior to issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy.
5. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.10 of the Zoning
Regulations.
6. Footing drains are required if the buildings have basements.
7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of
South Windsor.
S. WPCA approval is required.
9. The building street numbers must be included on the final plan.
10. Engineering comments dated February 2, 1999, must be addressed to the Town Engineer's satisfaction.
A
Black and white transparent mylars of Sheets #4 and#5 with the above modifications, together with three
blueprint copies of the entire set of plans must be submitted to this Commission within 30 days of this letter to
be stamped and signed. The letters of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands
Agency/Conservation Commission must be reproduced on the mylars.
After the mylars have been signed by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in the Office of the
Town Clerk. After filing these plans, a copy of the receiptnust be submitted to the Planning Department.
The attached Special Exception form must be completed and filed in the Town Clerk's office. The special
exception will take effect upon filing.
Very truly yours,
Kevin McCann, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
KMcC/kag
Enclosures
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
Assessor
Superintendent of Pollution Control
Fire Marshal
Town Attorney
I, Kevin McCann, Chairman of the South Windsor Planning &Zoning Commission, hereby certify in
accordance with the order from the Hartford Superior Court (Docket#CV 99 058 75 31), the Planning and
Zoning Commission granted to B &M Enterprises a Special Exception to Section 4.1.12 of the Zoning
Regulations and Site Plan on property located on northerly side of Strong Road, A-40 Zone as shown on plans
prepared by Design Professionals, Inc., Job No. 98-1123, dated October 7, 1998, as revised.
Assessor's Map and Parcel Number: Map #96 Parcel#11
More particularly bounded and described as follows: See attached
OWNER OF RECORD: Bancroft Brook, LLC
Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this.
In accordance with CGS Section 8-3d
Kevin McCann, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Received for record this day of , 19 , at
South Windsor, Connecticut ATTEST:
B & M Enterprises
Shady Brook SRD
Strong Road
South Windsor,Connecticut
DPI Project No. 98-1123
Beginning at a point in the southeast corner of the property herein described, said point
being on the north side of Strong Road and further described as being a monument to be
set; thence, N23°-43'-07"E along property now or formerly of Florence Winton, a
distance of 200.00 feet to an iron pipe; thence,N66°-20'-4T'W along property now or
formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust,Inc., for a distance of 1.78 feet to a
point; thence, N23°-18'-06"E along property now or formerly of South Windsor Land
Conservation Trust, Inc., a distance of 24.63 feet to a point;thence along a curve to the
left having a central angle of 24°-42'47"and a radius of 85.00 feet along property now
or formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc., a distance of 36.66 feet to a
point, said curve being subtended by a line of bearing 10°-56'-43"and distance of 36.38
feet;thence,N18°-16'-31"W along Lot 2, a distance of 141.22 feet to a point;thence,
N66°-20'-47"W along Lot 2, a distance of 112.53 feet to a point; thence, N34°-01'-46"W
along Lot 2,a distance of 109.95 feet to a point;thence,N23°43'-07"E along Lot 2,a
distance of 329.47 feet to a point;thence, S67°-00'-03"E along Lot 2,a distance of 20.00
feet to a point;thence,N23°-43'-07"E along property now or formerly of South Windsor
Land Conservation Trust,Inc.,a distance of 80.01 feet to a point;thence,N67°-00'-
03"W, along property now or formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust,Inc.,
a distance of 208.30 feet to a point;thence, S23°-03'-09"W along property now or
formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc., a distance of 95.00 feet to a
point;thence,N67°-00'-03"W along property now or formerly of South Windsor Land
Conservation Trust, Inc., a distance of 406.66 feet to a point;thence, S5°-00'-45"E along
y property now or formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc., a distance of
228.78 feet to a point;thence, S23°-05'-29"W along property now or formerly of South
Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc., a distance of 104.58 feet to a point;thence,
N65°-28'-30"W along property now or formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation
Trust, Inc., a distance of 158.56 feet to a point; thence, S24°-31'-30"W along property
now or formerly of Edward T. Sunderland, III, a distance of 405.55 feet to a point;
thence, S63°-I F-07"E along the north side of Strong Road, a distance of 199.08 feet to a ..
point;thence,N23°-05'-29"E along property now or formerly of Robert G. &
Chamberlain Hunt, and property now or formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation
Trust,Inc.,partly by each, in all a distance of 315.03 feet to a point;thence, S63°-11'-
07"E along property now or formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc., a
distance of 315.03 feet to a point;thence, S23°-05'-29"W along property now or
formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc., a distance of 149.06 feet to a
point;thence, S66°-52'-47"E along land now or formerly of South Windsor Land
Conservation Trust,Inc., a distance of 393.90 feet to a point;thence, S23°-18'-06"W
along land now or formerly of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc.,for a
distance of 15.00 feet to a point;thence, N66°-41'-54"W along property now or formerly
of South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc., a distance of 0.77 feet to a point;
thence, S23'-07'-14"W along property now or formerly of Kevin J. & Laurie A.
Charette, a distance of 150.00 feet to a point; thence, S66°-52'-46"E along the north side
of Strong Road, a distance of 50.61 feet to a point, said point being the point and place of
beginning.
1OWM Be
SotdA W)
O
�i"• v
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
°sOR'c°N� TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
September 17, 2002
Mr. Brian Edwards
B & M Enterprises
P.O. Box 1060
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mr. Edwards
Re: Appl #98-58P Shady Brook Village SRD—Construction of Model Homes
Dear Mr. Edwards:
We are pleased to advise you that the Planning &Zoning Commission voted on
September 10, 2002, to approve the construction of one model home for application
98-58P, Shady Brook Village SRD, subject to the following conditions:
♦ All normal building procedures still apply, e.g., provision of emergency access,
building permit procedures, etc.
♦ The model home[s] will not be offered for sale and cannot receive certificate of
occupancy until the site bond is posted and final plans are filed in the Town
Clerk's office. All normal certificate of occupancy procedures remain in effect.
Sincerely,
Kevin McCann, Chairman
Planning&Zoning Commissioner
KMcC/kah
cc: Chief Building Official
Town Engineer
Zoning Enforcement Officer
5
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
♦ A potential for a transition from a retirement community to lower cost
housing due to a noise factor
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
IV
A,
-71
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
♦ A potential for a transition from a retirement community to lower cost
housing due to a noise factor
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down-to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
l Ct YI d�c �tJ
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
a
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
♦ A potential for a transition from a retirement community to lower cost
housing due to a noise factor
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down-to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
We, the undersigned residents of Main Street strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
�.ti9i r
r �
'► �-- 1`-�5 IA z tom« f
�IILi� �
� 1 has"
We, the undersigned residents of Main Street strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
N ME ADDRESS
We, the undersigned residents of Main Street strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
IZ 6-
/3v 0 (I-ta A 5 }
�14�/15
t 1 � 3c, 06,1,
We, the undersigned residents of Main Street strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
VE ADDRESS
� 7 0/10 LX -
4 �I
4z' L 1305- -
G
l zlfr . .
a
We, the undersigned residents of Main StreeAstrongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME E� ADDRESS
i
Oar
n � 1
_13 yQ-3 �
We, the undersigned residents of Main Street strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
G �
4"" S 1 � �-
� ,q qT t
We, the undersigned residents of Main Street strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
t
We, the undersigned residents of Main Street strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the"land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
>��� m kL6
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
♦ A potential for a transition from a retirement community to lower cost
housing due to a noise factor
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
a r �r�
C� I� S� Dr.
ell-
We, the undersigned residents of South Windsor strongly oppose the
construction of Shady Brook, a retirement community that is proposed to be
built north of Strong Road, extending to the Oxbow Road area. We feel that
it would pose:
♦ Significant problems to the existing Bancroft Brook flooding and
pollution situation;
♦ A restriction against the use of the land;
♦ A permanent disturbance of the natural inhabitants of the area creating
displacement of the wildlife existing there;
♦ An unwanted alteration to the historical geography of Main Street;
♦ An unsightly change to the natural aesthetics of the area
♦ A potential for a transition from a retirement community to lower cost
housing due to a noise factor
We urge any commissions, boards or committees meeting to discuss these
plans to consider the above concerns and vote this proposal down to ensure
the continuance of the fine quality of life on Main Street for our children and
all future generations.
Thank You.
NAME ADDRESS
1 A
TOWN
OF SOUTH WINDSOR
STATE AND FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES
AND SIGNIFICANT NATURAL COMMUNITIES
LEGEND
V01111111IZZ1//////1=11. NDDB
State Boundary
County Boundary
/ ^ / Town Boundary
City/Borough Boundary
Primary Route
Secondary Route
Local Road
Unpaved Road or Old RR Grade
" Trail or Old RR Grade.
X' Railroad
Stream/Ditch/Shore
Intermittent Stream
Intermittent Shore
C1i1,,Pr(7Pd \trp n-1 / Chnr�
i
,k
Illl
f
NO
TA
F 3 Tida�.l/Sand Flats
r Dam/Rock in water
Covered Reservoir
TO USE MAP
Locate project boundaries and any additional affected areas on the map. If the project is not within
a shaded area; or overlapping a lake, pond or wetland that has any shading; or upstream or downstream
(by less than 1/2 mile) from a shaded area, the project is unlikely to affect any known occurrence of
listed species or significant natural community. If any part of the project is within a shaded area;
or overlapping a lake, pond, or wetland that has any shading; or upstream or downstream (by less than
1/2 mile) from a shaded area, then the project may have a potential conflict with a species or natural
community. Complete a Data Base Request Form and submit to the Natural Diversity Data Base along
with a project description and'a copy of a map clearly showing the project boundaries.
DATA SOURCES
BASE MAP INFORMATION—Political boundaries, roads, trails, railroads, and hydrography originally
derived from 1:24,000 scale 7.5 Minute U.S. Geological Survey Digital Line Graphs and enhanced
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. The data is neither complete nor
current and based on 1:24,000 scale Topographic Quadrangle maps published between 1969 and 1984.
Annotation derived in part from U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System and
information on file at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
NDDB INFORMATION—Locations of species and natural communities are based on data collected by the
CT Geological & Natural History Survey, other units of DEP, private conservation groups and the
scientific community and compiled by the Natural Diversity Data Base. The information is not
necessarily the result of comprehensive or site-specific field investigations; in some cases locations
have been derived from literature or museum searches or historic records. Exact locations have been
buffered to produce generalized locations. The exact species or community location falls somewhere
within the shaded area and not necessarily in the center. Information on this map does not include
Natural Area Inventory Sites, designated wetland areas or wildlife concentration areas.
SCALE 1 : 24 , 000
v n o
, MI LE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
1000 0 1000 2000 0000 4000 l000 •000 7000 FEET_ DEPARTMENT OF
It 2 , K 1 L OME T E R ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
79 Elm Street
State Plane Coordinate System of 1927,Zone 3526 1 inch e q u, 1 s ?, 0 0 0 f e e t Hanford,Cr 06106-5127
.r Lambert Conformal Conic Projection
North American Datum of 1927
Traffic Engineering Solutions,P.C.
193 Lexington Road
Glastonbury, CT 06033
(860) 657-3579
August 27, 1998
Brian Edwards
B &M Enterprises, Inc.
Hunter Drive
P.O. Box 1060
South Windsor, CT 06074
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Traffic Engineering Solutions, P.C. is leased to submit the findings of our Traffic
g g P g
Impact Study for the proposed Brookside Landing Senior Residential Development on
Strong Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. If you have any questions during your
review of the attached report, please call me.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project.
Very truly yours,
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, P.C.
Bruce A. Hillson, P.E.
Enclosure
r
c:\business\B&M\1tr0827.doc
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
for
BROOKSIDE LANDING
PROPOSED FOR STRONG ROAD
by
B & M ENTERPRISES INC.
Prepared By
Traffic Engineering Solutions
g g
193 Lexington Road
Glastonbury, Connecticut
(860) 657-3579
August 1998
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................1
ExistingConditions 1
.................................................................................................
1998 Traffic Volumes ..........................................................................................2
Accidents.............................................................................................................2
Project Generated Traffic .......................................................................................3
CapacityAnalyses...................................................................................................4
SiteAccess..............................................................................................................5
Conclusions.............................................................................................................7
List of Tables
Table 1 Trip Generation -20 Senior Residential Units & 2
SingleFamily Homes...............................................................................................4
Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analyses ........................................5
Table 3 Available Intersection Sight Distances vs. ConnDOT
Guidelines................................................................................................................6
CAB USINESS\B&M\REPO RT.DOC I
!
Introduction
B & M Enterprises, Inc. proposes to construct Brookside Landing, a 20-Unit
Senior Residential Development (condominiums) on 6.42 acres and a 2-Lot
Single Family Home development on 2.73 acres located along the northerly
side of Strong Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. The condominiums will
be occupied by "Seniors"who are at least 55 years old and remain able to
care for themselves, but are seeking a home with lower maintenance
requirements. This report was prepared by Traffic Engineering Solutions to
address the traffic impact on roadways surrounding this Senior Residential
and Single Family community. The following scope of work was included in
this study:
■ Making 24-hour directional machine counts on Strong Road in the
vicinity of the site. The count included a speed study to determine
the 85th percentile speed of travel in each direction on Strong Road
(85th percentile speed was used to determine the intersection and
stopping sight distances needed for vehicles entering and leaving the
site);
■ Obtaining from the Town of South Windsor traffic accident data for
the latest three year period for Strong Road in the vicinity of the site;
■ Making Visual Observations of roadways and land use conditions
along Strong Road;
■ Determining the number of trips expected to be added to the
roadway system by the proposed 20 Senior Residential Units and 2
Single Family Homes;
■ Completing morning and afternoon peak hour capacity analyses for
the intersection of Strong Road and the site access road to
determine the anticipated operating Level of Service (LOS) for the
traffic volumes expected upon completion of Brookside Landing;
■ Field measuring the sight distances available for drivers entering and
leaving Brookside Landing and comparing these distances with the
Connecticut DOT Guidelines for Intersection and Stopping Sight
Distances for the 85th percentile speeds along Strong Road;
Existing Conditions
The proposed Brookside Landing is a Senior Residential Development with
20 condominium units and two Single Family homes. The development is
proposed for approximately nine acres (6.42 acres for the multi-family
portion and 2.73 acres for the single family homes) located along the north
side of Strong Road in South Windsor, Connecticut. The majority of the site
is situated behind existing single family homes along the northerly side of
Strong Road. The site has 200 feet of frontage along Strong Road at the
westerly end of the site, a 12-foot frontage at the center of the site and a 50-
foot frontage at the easterly end of the site. Access to Brookside Landing
will be provided within the 50-foot frontage which is located midway between
Bancroft Lane and Gorski Drive. The access road will be constructed to
C:IBUSINESSIB&MXRE PORT.DOC
Town standards and is proposed to become a Public Road. The property is
presently undeveloped. Visual observations were made and traffic counts
obtained for the Strong Road in the vicinity of the site.
Strong Road runs west to east with one lane of travel in each direction.
The road begins at Main Street and continues easterly for about three and
one half miles to its intersection with Pierce Road. West of Main Street a
single lane road continues through agricultural fields to the Connecticut
River. The site is located about midway between Main Street and John Fitch
Boulevard (Route 5). Strong Road is typically 25 feet wide in the vicinity of
the site with 12.5-foot lanes and no shoulders in each direction. A double
yellow center line separates the two directions of travel. The posted speed
limit on Strong Road is 30 miles per hour(mph). Land use from Main Street
to just west of Ident Road is single family residential. From just west of Ident
Road to Route 5, there is a mixture of industrial and commercial uses.
Strong Road intersects Main Street approximately 700 feet westerly of the
site and John Fitch Boulevard (Route 5) approximately 800 feet easterly of
the site. The intersection of Strong Road at Main Street is STOP controlled
on all approaches and the intersection of Strong Road with Route 5 is
controlled by traffic a signal.
1998 Traffic Volumes
Twenty -four hour automatic traffic recorder (ATR) counts were made on
July 8, 1998 along Strong Road for this study. The counts were done near
the intersection with Gorski Drive and included the traffic count and speeds
of each vehicle traveling on Strong Road.
The ATR count indicates there are 511 vehicles traveling Strong Road near
the site. During the morning peak hour(7:15 AM to 8:15 AM) 34 vehicles
traveled Strong Road (28 eastbound and 6 westbound). The highest hour
during the afternoon period occurred from 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM. During this
hour, the traffic volume on Strong Road was 53 vehicles (28 traveling
eastbound and 25 traveling westbound).
The speed study indicates that the 85th percentile speed (the speed at
which 85 percent of all vehicles travel at or less than) is 40 miles per hour
(mph) for vehicles traveling in the westbound direction and 41 mph for
vehicles traveling eastbound. The 85th percentile speed was used to
determine the required intersection and stopping sight distances.
Accidents
The South Windsor Police Department provided a summary of traffic
accidents for Strong Road between Main Street and John Fitch Boulevard.
The accident information covered the three and one-half year period from
January 1, 1995 through June 30, 1998. During this period there were
seven accidents reported along this 1,500-foot section of Strong Road. The
police Department indicated that there is no pattern of accidents at any
location that would suggest the need for remediation along Strong Road.
CAB USINESS\B&M\REPORT.D0C 2
Project Generated Traffic
New trips to the roadway system generated by the proposed Brookside
Landing were determined from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) reference, Trip Generation. The ITE reference has established
mathematical relationships based on studies of various land uses to
determine their trip generation rates. These trip generation relationships
have been standardized and published in the Trip Generation reference.
The proposed 20 Senior Residential Units are condominiums being
developed for"Seniors"who are at least 55 years old. The ITE reference
provides trip generation information for several related land uses including:
"Residential Condom in i u m/Townhouse", "Retirement Community", and
"Elderly Housing —Attached. The trip generation information for Retirement
Communities and Elderly Housing developments reported in the ITE
reference are based on a limited number of studies (five for each land use),
and indicates the number of trips generated on a daily basis and during the
peak hours is considerably less than the number of trips generated by
condominium communities that have no age restrictions. Because many
people continue working well past their fifty-fifth birthday, and since the trip
generation information for Residential Condominium/Townhouse
developments is higher(more conservative) and based on a larger number
of studies (57 studies), Trip Generation estimates for the proposed 20 Unit
Senior Residential Development were calculated based on ITE Land Use
Code 230 - "Residential Condominium/Townhouse". The trips generated by
the 2 Single Family Homes were calculated based on Land Use Code 210-
"Single Family Detached Housing". The following trip generation
relationships were used to determine the number of daily, and morning and
afternoon peak hour trips that would be generated by the Senior Residential
Development and Single Family Homes. The results are summarized in
Table 1.
Senior Residential Development
Average Weekday Trips Ln(T) = 0.850Ln(X) + 2.564
Morning Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.790Ln(X) + 0.298
Afternoon Peak Hour Ln(T) = 0.827Ln(X) + 0.309
where T is the number of trips and X the number of condominium
units
Single-Family Detached Housing (Average Rates)
Average Weekday Trips 9.57 per dwelling unit
Morning Peak Hour 0.75 per dwelling unit
Afternoon Peak Hour 1.01 per dwelling unit
Trip Generation Sixth Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997
C:\BUSINESS\B&M\RE PO RT.DOC 3
1 Table 1 -Trip Generation -20 Senior Residential Units and 2 Single
Family Homes
Trips Entering Trips Leaving
Senior Single Total Senior Single Total
' Residential Family Residential Family
Daily 83 1-9 102 83 19 102
Morning Peak 3 1 4 12 1 13
Hour
Afternoon Peak 11 2 13 5 1 6
Hour
Capacity Analyses
Capacity Analyses were done to determine the anticipated quality of traffic
operations at the intersection of Strong Road at the site access road. Letter
designations from A to F are used to represent the Levels of Service (LOS)
for the traffic operation at each intersection or roadway, with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Typically,
LOS D is considered acceptable by ConnDOT for design peak hour
conditions. The Level of Service for unsignalized intersections with STOP
control on the minor street assumes that through and right-turning traffic on
the main street is not affected by traffic on the side street(s). Thus, the LOS
designation is for the movements on the side street (site access road) and
the left-turn movement from the main street (Strong Road) onto the side
street. Levels of Service are defined by the average delay per vehicle as
indicated below.
Unsignalized Intersections
Level of Service Avg. Delay/Vehicle (in Seconds)
LOS A < 5.0
LOSB > 5.0 and < 10.0
LOS C > 10.0 and < 20.0
LOS D >20.0 and < 30.0
LOS E > 30.0 and < 45.0
LOS F > 45.0
Level-of-service capacity analyses were conducted for the 2000 Build
conditions for Strong Road at the site access road. The year 2000 analyses
assumes a two year buildout for the Senior Residential Development and
Single Family Homes. The 2000 No Build traffic volumes were determined
by applying a two percent compounded annual growth factor(totaling
1.0404% growth for two years) to the 1998 traffic volumes to account for
growth that may occur in the Town of South Windsor and surrounding
communities. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 2.
C:\BUSIN.ESS\B&M\RE PORT.DOC 4
1
Table 2: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
2000 Build
Location Peak Hour Delay LOS
Strong Road at Site AM 1.3
Access Road
E-Bd Left Turn AM 2.1 A
S-Bd Site Road 3.2 A
Strong Road at Site PM 0.7
Access Road
E-Bd Left Turn PM 2.2 A
S-Bd Site Road 3.3 A
Delay = Average stopped delay, in seconds, to all vehicles entering the
intersection or to vehicles making the specified turn.
Table 2 shows that the new intersection created by the site access road and
Strong Road will operate at an excellent Level of Service A for vehicles
entering and leaving the residential development.
Site Access
The proposed access road to Brookside Landing will be located along the
north side of Strong Road midway between Bancroft Lane and Gorski Drive.
It is important to provide adequate intersection sight distance for vehicles
turning left or right from the site access road onto Strong Road to assure
that they are able to safely enter the flow of traffic. It is equally important to
provide adequate stopping sight distance along Strong Road for drivers
turning left onto the site and for drivers approaching from both directions
along Strong Road to observe these left turning vehicles. This sight
distance allows the driver making the left turn to decide if there is time to
initiate and complete the turn before a vehicle approaching from the
opposite direction would present a risk. For vehicles approaching from the
opposite direction along Strong Road, the sight distance should be
adequate to allow them to proceed at their current speed without
endangering themselves or passengers in the turning vehicle, and if
necessary, provide them with the time to recognize the need to stop, react to
that need, and stop before encountering the problem. Similarly, it is
important to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles approaching the
left turning vehicle from the rear to allow them to stop before reaching the
turning vehicle.
The access road has been designed to provide a positive grade (increased
elevation) for the first fifteen feet before dropping at a one percent grade
into the site. This grading improves the sight distances available to drivers
CAB US INESS\B&M\REPORT.DOC 5
leaving the site, particularly when looking toward the left (east) from the site.
Visual observations were made at the location of the access road along
Strong Road. Using the field measurements and a profile of Strong Road
prepared by Design Professionals, Inc. we found that the sight distance
looking toward the right from the site access road will be 470 feet. This sight
distance is achieved by trimming the shrubs in front of No. 90 Strong Road
below three feet or removing them from the edge of road. A sight distance
beyond 470 feet is restricted by the hill on Strong Road west of Gorski Drive.
Looking toward the left from the site access road, a distance of greater than
' 500 feet will be available for vehicles leaving the site. This distance is
achieved by clearing or thinning the trees and shrubs immediately east of
the access road along the northerly edge of Strong Road. The posted
speed limit along Strong Road is 30 miles per hour(mph). As previously
stated; the 85th percentile speeds on Strong Road are 40 mph westbound
and 41 mph eastbound. Table 3 presents the intersection sight distances
that will be available to drivers leaving the site, and the minimum and
desirable sight distances presented in the Connecticut DOT Guidelines for
Highway Design for the 85th percentile speeds for traffic traveling Strong
Road.
Table 3 -Available Intersection Sight Distances vs. ConnDOT
Guidelines
Connecticut DOT Design
Guidelines2
Field Measured Minimum Desirable
Intersection Sight Intersection Sight Intersection Sight
Distance Distance Distance
Looking Right 470 Feet 385 Feet 530 Feet
' Looking Left > 500 Feet 365 Feet 505 Feet
Table 3 shows that the sight distance looking toward the right will fall
between the minimum and desirable intersection sight distances for the
observed 85th percentile speed of 41 mph for eastbound traffic. The sight
distance looking toward the left will meet the desirable intersection sight
distance for the 85th percentile speed of 40 mph for westbound traffic. The
intersection sight distances for drivers leaving Brookside Landing is more
than 150 feet greater than the existing intersection sight distance of 305 feet
looking left from Gorski Drive onto Strong Road.
The stopping sight distance to and from the west exceeds 450 feet which is
greater than the upper limit (desirable distance) presented in the ConnDOT
reference for design speeds of 45 mph (4 mph greater than the observed
85th percentile speeds) The stopping sight distance to and from the east is
Z Interpolated from the ConnDOT guidelines for 40.0 mph westbound and 41.0 mph eastbound as
determined from the July 8. 1998 speed study.
CAB USINESS\B&M\REP0 RT.DOC 6
i
305 feet which falls between the lower and upper limits for design speeds of
40 mph (the observed 85th percentile speed). Therefore, the available
intersection and stopping sight distances combined with the low volume of
traffic on Strong Road will allow vehicles to safely enter and leave the
residential development.
Conclusions
Brookside Landing, a 20-unit Senior Residential Development
' (condominium) and 2 Single Family Homes is proposed for a nine-acre site
located along the north side of Strong Road in the vicinity of Bancroft Lane
and Gorski Drive. The development is proposed to provide housing for
Seniors who wish to move from a larger single family home to a new home
with lower maintenance requirements. The trip generation information
included in the ITE Trip Generation reference contains information for
Retirement Communities and Elderly Housing developments. Because the
trips generated by these land uses is less than the trips generated by
Residential Condominium/Townhouse developments, and many people
continue to work beyond their fifty-fifth birthday, the traffic impact from
Brookside Landing was determined by using the trip generation information
for Residential Condominium/Townhouse developments and for Single
Family Detached Housing. This provides the most conservative approach
for evaluating the impact from the proposed Brookside Landing.
The study assumed that the residential development would be constructed
1 over a period of two years. Capacity analyses were done for the
intersection of Strong Road at site access road for the year 2000 Build
conditions. Levels of Service are expected to LOS A for all movements
entering and leaving the site. Sight distances looking right from the access
road will fall between the minimum and desirable intersection sight distances
for the 85th percentile speeds on Strong Road, and the sight distance
' looking toward the left will meet the desirable intersection sight distance.
Additionally, the stopping sight distances west of the site access road will
exceed the upper limit for stopping sight distance for design speeds of 45
mph (4 mph greater than the observed 85th percentile speed) and will fall
between the lower and upper limits for stopping sight distances east of the
access road.
Since traffic operations are expected to be an excellent Level of Service A at
the new intersection of Strong Road and the site access road, and the
intersection and stopping sight distances exceed the minimum criteria
established by ConnDOT for the 85th percentile speeds on Strong Road, no
offsite improvements are suggested as a result of the added traffic
generated by the proposed Brookside Landing with 20 Senior Residential
units and 2 Single Family Homes.
CAB USINESS\B&M\REPO RT.DOC 7
x
cl
Z
W
CL
Q
r ■r ■r r► �r ■r rr r� rr � r r r r r r r�r rr rr
1
� 1998 TRAFFIC VO
LUMES
Location : Strong 191' West of Bancroft Accurate Counts
City/State: So Windsor, CT 978-664-2565 Site Code : 39700001
Counter : 20 860-282-0223 Start Date: 07/08/98
JANUS File: 39700001 File I.D. 397SPWBI
Westbound Page 1
Begin 1- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 50th 65th
Time 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 999 Totl Pct. Pct.
12:00 07/08 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 31 32
01:00 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 33 43
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 43
03:00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 18
04:00 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 32 33
05:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 33
06:00 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33 38
07:00 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 35 42
08:00 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 40 43
09:00 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 30 33
10:00 0 0 0 2 4 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 33 37
11:00 0 0 3 3 6 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 16 30 37
112:00 pm 1 0 0 2 6 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 32 37
01:00 0 0 1 0 7 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 32 42
02:00 0 0 0 0 4 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 35 38
�03:00 0 0 0 0 6 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 33 38
04:00 0 0 2 4 7 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 31 41
05:00 0 1 0 2 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 33 37
06:00 0 1 0 2 3 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 33 42
07:00 0 0 0 1 4 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 17 36 42
08:00 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 38 42
09:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 38 43
10:00 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 35 41
�11:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 41 43
.Day Totals 2 3 8 21 77 58 40 5 2 1 * * * 217 33
Totals 2 3 8 21 77 58 40 5 2 1 0 0 0 217
S eed Statistics.
15th Percentile Speed 28 MPH
Median Speed (50th percentile) : 33 MPH
' Average Speed - All Vehicles 35 MPH
85th Percentile Speed 40 MPH
95th Percentile Speed 43 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed 30-39 MPH
Number of Vehicles in Pace 135
Percent of Vehicles in Pace 62.50%
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH 1
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .46%
Location : Strong 191' West of Bancroft Accurate Counts
t
ity/State: So Windsor, CT 978-664-2565 Site Code : 39700001
City/State:
: 20 860-282-0223 Start Date: 07/08/98
JANUS File: 39700001 File I.D. 397SPEB1
Eastbound Page 1
egin 1- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65- 70- 50th 85th
ime 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 69 999 Totl Pct. Pct.
12:00 07/08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�01:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 31 33
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 * 43
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�05.00 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 28 38
06:00 0 1 0 6 6 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 30 40
07:00 0 0 2 2 10 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 24 32 38
08:00 1 0 1 5 2 4 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 23 37 43
9:00 0 0 1 2 2 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 35 38
0:00 0 1 0 2 6 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 32 42
11:00 0 0 1 5 2 11 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 26 36 41
2:00 pm 0 0 2 4 6 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 32 38
101:00
0 1 2 5 6 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 31 40
02:00 0 0 0 5 5 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 17 31 41
3:00 0 0 0 5 5 6 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 23 35 42
4:00 0 0 0 7 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 31 37
05:00 0 0 1 4 3 9 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 35 41
06:00 0 0 0 1 5 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 33 41
17:00 0 0 1 1 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 32 36
8:00 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 30 33
09:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 33 48
0:00 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 31 43
1:00 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 36 38
Way Totals 2 3 12 57 82 73 46 17 1 1 * * * 294 33
Totals 2 3 12 57 82 73 46 17 1 1 0 0 0 294
11peed Statistics.
15th Percentile Speed 26 MPH
Median Speed (50th percentile) : 33 MPH
' Average Speed - All Vehicles 34 MPH
85th Percentile Speed 41 MPH
95th Percentile Speed 45 MPH
' 10 MPH Pace Speed 30-39 MPH
Number of Vehicles in Pace 155
Percent of Vehicles in Pace 52.90%
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH 1
' Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .34%
i
� UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
' CAPACITY ANALYSES
� WITH BROOKSIDE LANDING
1
1
1
1
1
' HCS : Unsi nalized Intersections Release 2 .1f AMPEAK.HCO Page 1
g g
Traffic Engineering Solutions
193 Lexington Road
Glastonbury, CT 06033-6585
' Ph_- (860) -657=3579_____________________________________________________
Streets : (N-S) Site Access Drive (E-W) Strong Road
' Major Street Direction. . . . EW
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 60 (min)
Analyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BAH
Date of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 8/6/98
Other Information. . . . . . . . . Year 2000 Traffic Volumes with Senior R
esidential Dev. AM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 4 29 6 4 13 13
PHF . 85 . 85 .85 . 85 . 85 .85
Grade 3 -3 0
MC' s M 0 0 0
' SU/RV' s (o) 0 0 0
CV' s (%) 0 0 0
PCE' s 1 .30 1 . 00 1 .00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
' Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
' Maneuver ---------------------Gap- (tg) ------------Time- (tf)
Left Turn Major Road 5 . 00 2 .10
Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 .60
' Through Traffic Minor Road 6 .00 3 .30
Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40
HCS_-Unsignalized-Intersections
_-_Release_2 .1f_---AMPEAK.HCO Page-2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
-
-----------------------------------------
--------------
Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB
--------------------------------------------------------
' Conflicting Flows : (vph) 10
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1369
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1369
' Prob. of Queue-Free State- 99
--------------------------0_--
Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 12
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1692
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1692
' Prob. of Queue-Free State: 1 . 00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue-Free State: 1 .00
-
-------------------------------------------------------
Step 4 : LT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) 48
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 993
' Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: 1 .00
Adjusted Impedance Factor. 1 . 00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
' due to Impeding Movements 1 . 00
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989
--------------------------------------------------------
' Intersection Performance Summary
' Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ----- ---------
SB L 15 989 >
1148 3 .2 0 . 0 A 3 .2
' SB R 15 1369 >
EB L 6 1692 2 .1 0 . 0 A 0 .3
Intersection Delay = 1 .3 sec/veh
HCS : Unsi nalized Intersections Release 2 .1f PMPEAK.HCO Page 1
g g
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic Engineering Solutions
193 Lexington Road
Glastonbury, CT 06033-6585
' Ph: (860) 657-3579
Streets : (N-S) Site Access Drive (E-W) Strong Road
Major Street Direction. . . . EW
Length of Time Analyzed. . . 60 (min)
Analyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BAH
Date of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 8/6/98
' Other Information. . . . . . . . . Year 2000 Traffic Volumes with Senior R
esidential Dev. PM Peak
Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection
' Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ----' ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield N N
Volumes 13 29 26 13 6 6
PHF .85 .85 .85 . 85 .85 . 85
Grade 3 -3 0
MCI (%) 0 0 0
SU/RVIs (a) 0 0 0
CVIs M 0 0 0
PCE' s 1 .30 1 .00 1 . 00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle Critical Follow-up
' Maneuver ------------------Gap (tg) Time- (tf)
-------------------- -----------------------
Left Turn Major Road 5 .00 2 .10
Right Turn Minor Road 5 .50 2 . 60
Through Traffic Minor Road 6 . 00 3 .30
Left Turn Minor Road 6 .50 3 .40
HCS : Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 .1f PMPEAK.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1 : RT from Minor Street NB SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 38
' Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1325
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1325
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99
Step 2 : LT from Major Street WB EB
--------------------------------------------------------
' Conflicting Flows : (vph) 46
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1630
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1630
Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 99
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
-of-Queue_Free-State: 0 .99
Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows : (vph) 88
Potential Capacity: (pcph) 942
Major LT, Minor TH
' Impedance Factor: 0 .99
Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 .99
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements 0 . 99
Movement Capacity: (pcph) 931
--------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
SB L 7 931 >
1094 3 .3 0 . 0 A 3 .3
SB R 7 1325 >
EB L 19 1630 2 .2 0 . 0 A 0 . 7
Intersection Delay = 0 . 7 sec/veh
e T
f
LAW OFFICES
JAN 11 2006
CUMMINGS, LANZA AND PURNHAGEN,L.L.C.
1610 ELLINGTON ROAD SOUTH WIivDSOR PLANIN111IN'G DEPT.
POST OFFICE BOX 667
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074-0667
HAROLD R.CUMMINGS (860)644-3473
MICHAEL J.LANZA FAX(860)644-3347 OF COUNSEL
VINCENT J.PURNHAGEN EDWARD R.KUEHN
EMILY OLSON
January 9, 2006
Ms. Marcia Banach
Planning Director
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Mr. Jeff Folger
Town Engineer
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Shady Brook Village Condominiums—Bailey Circle
Dear Marcia and Jeff:
I am writing in my capacity as attorney for the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc.
Bruce Edwards recently delivered to me a copy of the Improvement Location Survey prepared
for Shady Brook Village Condominiums by Gardner&Peterson Associates, LLC dated October
14, 2005.
Apparently, a question has arisen with regards tu-the px,7ed driveway located on th.e-
southwesterly corner of the property adjoining property, now or formerly, of Edward T.
Sunderland III. Apparently,this driveway provides access from Strong Road to the Sunderland
property.
I have enclosed for your immediate reference,with this letter, a copy of the title block from that
map and the section of the map showing the paved drive referenced in this letter. As indicated,
the driveway accessing the Sunderland property is located on land which is subject to a
conservation easement in favor of the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Inc.
Page 2
January 9, 2006
The conservation easement in favor of the South Windsor Land Conservation Trust was created
on January 12, 1999, by deed when the Land Trust conveyed the parcel of land in question to
Bancroft Brook, LLC, predecessor in title to Shady Brook Village.
Apparently,the.Sunderland driveway was already in existence at that time.
South Windsor Land Conservation Trust,Inc. originally acquired the parcel in question by deed
from Bancroft Brook, LLC dated January 14, 1998, and recorded in Volume 1032, Page 104 of
the South Windsor Land Records.
Apparently,the driveway in question was constructed years before by Edward T. Sunderland III
or his predecessors in title, for purposes of accessing what is now shown on the map as the
Sunderland property.
Since the driveway and fence in question apparently predate the conveyance of the conservation
easement, therefore, the existence of the driveway and fence do not violate any conservation
restrictions as reserved in the January, 1999 deed.
Please advise if you have any questions with regards to the above.
Sincerel y urs,
Haro R. Cummin
HRC:es
Enclosure
cc: South Windsor Land Conservation Trust, Board of Directors
Bruce Edwards
` [ 73.1' Lro
IRON PIN SET 15.00' I
rob TI
FROM PROPERTY CORNER G
I I I I
a0 9
\ N 65'28 30 W 158.56' I / x�/ x62; 9
N / INV.�61.11l
FLARED END
L] I �• -Y� C •10 SIDE,YARD
o
CONSERVATION 1 _
Lil EASEMENT
Z \ IN FAVOR OF THE
I , SOUTH WINDSOR
V LAND
I CONSERVATION f
I TRUST, INC/ �..
3
I I
M I
N F
HYUNG B. &
1 \ KUM R. LEE
0
I
J I \ \ M
POOL 3 1 ` w
AREA
N
\ Z \ z
PAVED I
DRIVE K \ I
xl `
EXISTING BARN �.'
z
OFF PROP. LINE I W
S 63'1 1/1O�" E 199.08'
_x x IRON PIN SET
STRONG ROAD
40 20 40. 80 1 0
GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=40'
x
,p
O
�Y
IT) ' .
I
N/F
GLEN A. "
IKNAFEL � t:
I � ,
j Cs 3
TF-67.55
FL-61.55 (15" S)
FL-81.45 (15" N)
D=24'42'47"
R=85.00'
L=36.66'T=18.62'1,04
EDGE' OF £AS£M NT
r ANKE£ GAS"
a1
04
N 23'18'06" E 24.63'
N 66'20'47" W 1.78'
F b Yt!
g 15 MPH
SPEED LIMIT SIGN
50' R.O.W. IN FAVOR OF
LAND N/F GLEN A. KNAFEL
SMH 3
TF=67.81
y.,
dBe =54.46 �
a NSF r ;
KEVIN & LAURIE
CHARETTE
CB 2
o TF=67.04
sB.OS R FL-63.13 (W) r
o FL=62,93 (5)
FL-62.83 (N)
w'6
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION SURVEY
" RECORD DRAWING
x
B89 SHADY BROOK VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS
FENCE BAILEY CICLE x
s , 1
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT �
TF 68.41 GARDNER & PETERSON ASSOCIATES, LLC
69.11FL-64,e6 178 HARTFORD TURNPIKE
MONUMNEN SET TO LLAN D, CO N N ECTI C UT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS
2 TEL. 860 871 -0808 FAX. 860 875-2086
38.25 �? BY SCALE DATE SHEET NO. MAP NO.
,3'S9 ROAD
B.D.C. 1"=40' 10-14-2005 1 OF 1 10061-REC
REV.12-7-2005