HomeMy WebLinkAboutVariance (819) TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR Application#
APPLICATION FOR Date
ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS Receipt#
IMPORTANT. This application must be submitted to the Planning Department by the second Thursday of the
preceding month to insure being heard at the next meeting.
ALL ITEMS MUST BE ANSWERED AND ALL SUPPLEMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED.
1. The application and supplements must be filed in duplicate, typed or printed in ink.
2. A Class D or better survey of the property in question must be submitted with the application showing
streets, lot lines,building lines, zone boundary lines, dimensions, and buildings present or proposed and
buildings on adjacent properties and distance from subject property.
3. If a variance is being requested, a legal description and deed of the property must be submitted with the
application. This description can be obtained from the land records.
4. The sign from the Planning Department must be displayed on the property at least 10 days prior to the public
hearing in a location visible from all abutting streets.
• The applicant,or a representative must be present for the public hearing. The time,date and place of the
hearing will be advised by mail.
• Inquiries on this application maybe directed to the Planning Department at the South Windsor Town Hall.
5. No application shall be a complete application unless it shall be in such form and contain such
information as necessary for a fair determination of the issues. Incomplete applications may be
denied.
1. Applicant: Elaine D. Gerlt
2. Mailing Address: c/o Wayne C. Gerlt, Esquire
P. O. Box 1132, South Windsor, CT 06074
3. Telephone#: 860-644-2565
4. Owner of record of property in question: Elaine D. Gerlt
5. Location of property in question: 318 Felt Road, South wndsor, CT
Assessor's Map# 65 Parcel# 77 Zone �kA-30
6. Is applicant a corporation or co-partnership? (If corporation, submit a list of officers. If co-partnership,
submit a list of owners). N/A
7. Please indicate if the applicant is owner, lessee, or prospective tenant: Owner
8. Check one of the following:
(X) Request Variance to Section X of the Zoning Regulations to allow a ,3-10t conventional
subdivision with lot 2 having frontage of 135' (150' required)and width as shown up
plan dated 7/8/04 and an area of 24,800 s.f. 30,000 s. . require all shown upon the
( ) State hearing under Section of the General Statutes for map or plan dated 7/8/ 4.
( ) An appeal from the Zoning Officer's decision involving ,
9. Is this a request for a sign variance? If yes, complete and submit the sign checklist information.
10. If application is for a variance to Section 3.12, are there any liquor outlets within the restricted area,
(500 feet)? YES or NO If yes, submit a list of liquor outlets,their locations and distances from the
property in question.
11. Is this property within 500 feet of another town line? No
12. Is this property within the Connecticut Water Aquifer area? Yes or No. If yes, application must be filed
with the Connecticut Water Company by the applicant.
13. If requesting a variance state clearly the unusual hardship or exceptional difficulty on the property that
prompts this application and indicate why other options are unacceptable. Use a separate sheet of paper if
necessary.
Attached
I hereby declare that the data&information contained herein is accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Dated this f 8th day of July year 2004
Applicant:
(Sign e)
OWNER:
(Si kture)
Approv a Denied:
Revised 12/04/98
13. The property at 318 Felt Road, which is the subject of this application, is the only
property in South Windsor to which the zoning regulations are being applied in the manner set
forth below. 318 Felt Road is the last parcel or part of the original Ridgefield Estates Open
Space Subdivision approved on March 4, 1985. The Ridgefield Estates Open Space Subdivision,
and all others approved or pending approval before September 10, 1985 were "grandfathered"
and allowed to be treated in all subsequent phases under the open space subdivision regulations
in effect before September 10, 1985. The Planning & Zoning Commission adopted that policy
on September 10, 1985 because of a letter from Joseph LaCava, the developer of the original and
second,third sections of Ridgefield. (Exhibit A). 9/10/85 Minutes at Exhibit B.
Therefore, Ridgefield and other existing open space subdivisions were to comply with the
regulations which required 17,500 square feet and frontage of 100 feet.
That grandfather policy as applied to this subdivision consistently allowed new sections
and extensions of the subdivision to be treated under the regulations in effect prior to September
10, 1985. For example, at the April 12, 1988 hearing on a subsequent section to add 25 lots to
the Ridgefield Open Space Subdivision, Town Planner, Marcia Banach stated, "Previous phases
of this subdivision were approved under the old open space requirements. At the time that the
new open space regulations were adopted (9-10-85) it was stated in the PZC minutes that any
developments currently under way would still be governed under the old regulations for future
phases,thus this subdivision falls under old requirements...".
"The minimum lot size for this open space subdivision is 17,500 square feet." (Exhibit C
- Planning&Zoning Commission Minutes of April 12, 1988).
In reliance upon that policy, and having briefly discussed the matter with the town staff
and being given a copy of page 158 of the previous South Windsor Zoning Regulations, which
along the margin have hand written by the staff"for O. S. Subdivisions approved prior to 8/l/99,
& Deming Hill Estate (all phases)". The applicant purchased the property and submitted a
subdivision application for an open space subdivision which exceeded the requirements of the
regulations in effect prior to September 10, 1985. All these lots had more than 17,500 sq.ft. and
a lot width in excess of 100 ft. with a lot depth in excess of 125 ft. The front side and rear yards
also exceeded the regulations which were applied to this subdivision consistently throughout its
existence in all phases since March of 1985. (Exhibit E and F).
However, at its meeting on June 22, 2004,the Planning&Zoning Commission denied the
application for the following reasons "The proposal does not comply with the current regulations
for open space subdivision" (Exhibit D).
In discussing the application, the Commission, for the first time, applied a time limitation
and change in developer standard to this subdivision"out of the blue" and with no prior warning.
In deviating from its previously stated and religiously followed grandfather policy, the
Commission treated this parcel of property differently from any other parcel located in a AA-30
open space zone because it is the only parcel remaining in town that was grandfathered. This
change is more unfair when you realize the last the last approved section of Ridgefield Estates
was submitted by a different developer, William Krawski,not LaCava.
No other parcel originally included in an open-space subdivision that was commenced
prior to September 10, 1985 has been denied application of the old regulations. The applicant
believes there is no other parcel which could be so affected since we believe this is the last parcel
of a grandfathered subdivision that could be submitted for approval under the old regulations.
The application of the new regulations prevents a subdivision into 3 lots; therefore, this
property is unduly burdened by the application of the current regulations without any prior
warning, and since no other parcel in a similar circumstance in a AA-30 open space zone which
existed prior to September 10, 1985 has been or will be so treated.
In this circumstance, the application of the regulations imposes an unduly harsh and
unfair burden upon the property and the applicant. In eliminating 1 lot, the regulations greatly
decrease the value of the property, and the burden bears so little relationship to the purposes of
zoning, that for this particular property, the regulations have a confiscatory and arbitrary effect.
This property was continuously intended and zoned to have 3 building lots and 3 residences upon
it since March 4, 1985, but the arbitrary and capricious application of the current zoning
regulations eliminates one of those residences and one of those lots unfairly. The application of
the regulation in this manner burdens only this parcel.
Granting this variance will not, in any way, destroy the harmony or general purpose of the
regulations of the comprehensive plan. The proposed lots are in harmony with the other lots in
the Ridgefield Estates Open Space Subdivision as to size, frontage and setback lines.
The application of the zoning regulations to this parcel, without any prior notice of a
change in policy by the Planning & Zoning Commission, was beyond the control of the applicant
and could not possibly be foreseen by either the applicant or the town staff. This property was
purchased with the knowledge that it was an existing AA-30 open space zone which was subject
to the waiver policy and could be developed under the previously adopted regulations, and did
not have to comply with the current regulations.
The application of the current open space regulations being shown to cause undue and
unusual hardship unnecessary to carrying out the general purpose of the zoning regulations, and
the granting of the variances to permit a 3-lot open space subdivision as shown upon the
submitted plan having been shown not to substantially affect the comprehensive plan, the
applicant requests that the variances from the current conventional subdivision regulations be
granted.
Legal Description for ZBA Variance Application
That certain piece or parcel of land located on the easterly side of Felt Road in the
Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut and being shown
as "Parcel 1" on a map entitled "Property to be conveyed to William Krawski, Felt Road,
South Windsor, Connecticut, Scale 1"—40' Date 2-20-85, Sheet No. 1 of 1, Close,
Jensen & Miller, Consulting Engineers, Land Planners and Surveyors, 449 Silas Deane
Highway, Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109"which map is to be filed in the South
Windsor Town Clerk's Office. Said property being more particularly bounded and
described as follows, to wit:
NORTHERLY: By land now or formerly of William A. Carroll, et al,
two hundred and ninety-five one-hundredths (200.95)
feet;
EASTERLY: By land now or formerly of The LaCava Construction
Company, four hundred sixteen and seventy-two one-
Hundredths (416.72) feet;
SOUTHERLY: By Ridgefield Drive, one hundred seventy-five (175)
feet;
SOUTHWESTERLY: By a curved line connecting the northerly highway line
of Ridgefield Drive, with the easterly highway line of
Felt Road, thirty-nine and twenty-seven one-
hundredths (39.27) feet; and
WESTERLY: By Felt Road, four hundred eleven and twenty-nine
one-hundredths (411.29) feet.
Said premises are subject to restrictive covenants, agreements and easements for a
pole line and drainage facilities appearing of record.
CONVEYANCE TAX RECEIVED
7
STATE $ l LOCALS No.
-------------
-'-OWN CLERK Or SOUTH WINDSOR
"EXHIBIT All _ • -- _ __ E.�s' u i
Y. 185 SILAS DEANE HIGHWAY
CONS TRUC TION CO. WETHERSFIELD, CONNECTICUT 0610'
BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS TELEPHONE: (203) 563-3711
May 20, 1985
Mr. Peter R. DeMallie
Director of Planning
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT. 06074
Dear Mr. DeMallie:
f _
I have reviewed your proposed zoning amendments outlined
in your Memorandum dated April 18, 1985.
Although I have no strong objections to your proposed
changes, they do cause some concern on how they affect
subdivisions such as Ridgefield. i
We have already received approval on Sections I and II,
and we hope to proceed on our final Section III very
shortly.
We have proceeded under a given set of guidelines. To
change the zoning rules in the middle of the project would
not be in the public interest.
I urge you and the Commission to consider allowing any
subdivisions that have already received approval on the
initial sections to proceed under the current zoning
regulations.
I would appreciate notification of the pending Public Hearing
regarding this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
LACAVA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Joseph P. LaCava
cc: Chairman, Town Planning & Zoning
Pb
1
!�!� t,05014 lanning & Zoning Commission -6- 9/10/85 ,.--
Planning & Zoning Commission -5- 9/10/85 �"
#r y
r„
ay include Mountainview, Pleasant Valley Homes II, Blue Spruce Estates, :- :...
c..;
Mr. Martel said the 100 year storm does not affect the site and should itted
eechwood. The secretary noted that Morgan Farms has been wassub finally
(
be noted on the plans, and the proposed 12" ductile iron pipe should
to the office, but not yet received by the Commissibn. It was finally Fw:•
be increased to 15" to be consistent with the Subdivision Regulations. ggreed that anything which has actually been submitted to the office, or
applications for subsequent phases of developments underway, would ram`
Mrs. Klenke made a motion to approve the above application for a till be governed by the old regulations. The Town Engineer asked ri(
site plan of development for property located on the north side of pecifically about Windshire Abbe, Phase III. The Commission agreed that ^
Sullivan Avenue, as shown on the plans prepared by Meehan Associates, that phase had never really been shown on plans when Phases I, II,
dated '9-29-84, revised to B-7-B5, File No. 841159, in an Industrial V and V were submitted. Therefore, if and when an application for a
Zone, subject to the following modifications: hase III is submitted, it should be governed by the new regulations. ya"
1. The plans should note that the 100 year storm does not r. Hallowell made a motion to amend the Zoning Regulations, effective -fir
affect this site. eptember 20, 1985, as follows:
a"3
I; 2. The proposed 12" ductile iron pipe should be increased to 15" ection 5.2 - Schedule of Areas, Yards and Hei ht Re uirement s
u?
to be consistent with the.Subdivision Regulations. inimum Lot Width in an A-30 zone is reduced from 150 feet to 120 feet.
inimum Each Side Yard in an A-30 zone is red
uced from 20 feet to 15 feet.
3. No building permits will be issued until the final plans are
on file in. the Town Clerk's Office. Section 5.3.b is deleted as written and shall now read as follows:
4. Prior to commencement of site work, a meeting must be held
with Town Staff. 'Lots approved under this section shall conform to the following � +
j schedule, rather than the schedule in section 5.2: tee-
Within 90 days from the date of approval (b December 9th) black , Minimum Minimum ="
y pP Y Minimum r�^7
and white transparent mylars, with the letter of approval of this Lot Area Lot Width th
Lot Dep
Commission reproduced thereon, together with three paper prints, Zone
must be submitted to be stamped and signed by the Commission. 20,000 s. f. 100 ft. 150 ft.
L50 ft.
After signing, they will be filed in the Town Clerk's Office. �-40 30,000 s. f. 120 ft. 125 ft. `
A-30 25,000 S. f. 120 ft. ;
Mr. Sorenson seconded the motion and it was unanimously voted in favor 125 ft.
-30 20,000 s. f. 100 ft• 110 ft.
and so ordered. 90 Et.
_20 15,000 s. E. c
Mr. Hallowell suggested that perhaps the guidelines should be changed (inimum Minimum
regarding the 100 year storm, since it appears lately we've been having Minimum Rear Yard Side Yard x
a lot of storms of that severity. Mr. Conde said he thinks the Zone Front Yard
State uses a 300 year storm guideline, and the Corp of Engineers 50 Et. 10 ft. ?�
use 500 years. Mr. Martel explained that in August there was a 9�R 50 Et. 50 ft. 15 Et. cr
short duration 100 year storm in the northern part of Town. About '�_40 50 ft. 15 ft.
2 inches fell in less than one hour. He said the definition of a AA-30 50 ft. 40 ft.
I falling. A -30 50 Et. 40 Et.
100 year storm is that storm which has a 1% chance of 10 ft.
discussion ensued, and Chairman Gilligan said that this should be an -20 40 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft.
agenda item since it will take some discussion. The secretary was Maximum Maximum HeiSht Miximum X r
instructed to place the item on the agenda when possible. Lat Coverage
Zone Stories
6. Zoning Amendment - Lot Sizes - Open Space
R, A-40
The Planning Director reviewed the proposed changes. A public hearing AA-30, 30 Et. 15%
'I had been held on the proposed amendments on July 2, 1985. A-30, A-20 24
f
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding whether or not projects which 'All other requirements of Sections 5 and 6 shall be complied with."
l were underway should be required to conform to the new regulations
for subsequent phases. Mrs. Montana said she thinks projects which s. Montana seconded the motion, and it was unanimously voted in favor.
are in 'the works whould be under the old regulations, even if there are
j. 50 phases. Mr. Gilligan pointed out that the Commission is not looking
I to punish developers. It was noted that currently the projects under ,
: I -
1
UUvv-s..
U i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 =3r
pIiNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 APRIL 12, 1988
ApRI
L
�j four acres would be given over as open apace land, bringing t ,"8 extended up to Ridgefield Drive. Town staff are in agreement
open apace property in the area -- including adjacent parcelahe_t0t°192 that the engineering difficulties involved in an extension of
approximately 24 acres. The two parcels would be deeded to the°'Tto„'. is Ridgefield Drive through to Foster Street are overwhelming, and
Atty. Alter roposed that this was in accordance with the xo,,n.pl ?r eet support theIt applicants,
d be requhowevert that the aTownt not staffbdo not
with Town regulationsernshad for open spaces. at continued on to Be thnt, , d", ,, feel that a through street it unnecessary -- a road is clearly
drainage concerns had been addressed that sidewalks could be
throughout if that was the wish of the Commission; and that maintaga�`' necessary but is impractical at this location.
of the open apace parcels couldbe provided by a gravel-base access:t!,!.� The site will be serviced by Connecticut water and town sewers,
road. In conclusion ...Att Alter said he believed that the To
wn 9'end N$+ 4.
S E A Engineers' concerns had either been addressed already or could' ':s ; The Superintendent of Pollution Control has indicated that WPCA
addressed] and that subdivision regulations had been met or, ifcoul,�K approval is required.
could be met through further discussions with the engineers.
S, There is no 100-year floodplain on the site, nor are there
4 Town Planner Marcia Hanach presented her reportr LL'-' inland wetlands. This application has been heard and approved
k.i
by the IWA/CC with the following conditions:
1. This request is:for an open apace subdivision in an AA-3O Zone.,,;-
that would create 25 lots on 22.4 acres. Previous phases of a. Road must be paved before construction begins.
the subdivision were approved under the old open space 1 a, ?:.' b. A $15,000 bond must be posted to ensure compliance with
requirements. At the time that the new open space regulations >.: ",: Erosion and Sedimentation measures.
were adopted (9-10-85) it was stated in the PZC minutes thaL;i';r;i: c. It is recommended to the PZC that the Commission accept
any developments currently under way would still be governed;,;:,:,: x`' Parcels #90 and 92 as open space.
under the old regulations for future phases, thus this
subdivision. falls under the old requirements. 6, Only two driveways will be cut onto the cul-de-sac on
F Ridgefield Drive. A note should be added that the driveways
2. The minimum lot size for this open space subdivision is 17,Soo will be spaced widely apart to facilitate snow storage.
square feet. The proposed lots range from 17,500 to 62,301 .
square feet (1.4 acres), with 4 lots under 1/2 acre, 16 lots` .;:',". 7. Sidewalks are proposed on the north side of Ridgefield Drive
between 1/2 and 3/4 acre, and 5 lots over 1 acre in size.',`Thal'' �„ and on the east side of Summerwind Drive. The Town would like
appear to meet all the zoning requirements with respect to ' ;Y'' to see sidewalks on both sides of the interior stresta, and
dimensional requirements; however, we do need verification that ',I also on Foster Street to close the gap across the 50' right-of-
all lots conform to the 10,000 sq. ft. buildable area _4 way.
requirement. The open space to be donated to the Town as a .. �-
result of these 25 lots appears to be that land identified as 8. The eight line at the intersection of Ridgefield Drive and Felt
Lot 90 on the key map, totalling just over four acres. (This 's. Road appears to be adequate. The Town has a State grant to
information came from the approved subdivision map for Phase eliminate the sight line problem at Felt Road and Oakland Road
II, not from the plan currently under review. Clarification is involving a treed bank.
needed as to what open space goes with which phase, since the
topographic maps for this application indicate two arcels are z'". 9. Lots shown on the key map as previously approved Lots #20 and
to be deeded to the Town.) This open space is adjacent to the.. 21 at the east end of Krawski Drive are in actuality not
open space previously donated from earlier phases at the east approved lots, per Phase II approval letter.
end of the site plus other subdivisions. An accounting should
be provided of open space for all phases of Ridgefield so we If approved, the Planning Department would like to see the following
can determine that the open space dedication requirements are modifications in addition to items already noted:
fully met. No open space improvement plan has not been
provided at this time and one should be. A 50' right-of-way *1 Key Map
has been left at the northeast end of the cul-de-sac to provide .1
access into this new open space area. C? - Arrows indicating direction of drainage flow shown on legend.
3. The road network to be built will be an extension of Ridgefield Plot Plan
Drive of approximately 400 feet ending in a cul-de-sac, and a
road stub off of Krawski Drive, Summerwind Drive, will be - Note is needed that all lots conform to 10,000 sq. ft.
buildable area requirement.
I! .
Ar'
EXHIBIT D
tOW N Sf4
Ole S_0� ?d&2&0t
G -
y �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
l�OSOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
i
CERTIFIED MAIL
July 1, 2004
Mrs. Elaine D. Gerlt
P.O. Box 1132
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Appl #04-35P, City Vista Resubdivision
Dear Mrs. Gerlt:
We regret to advise you that on June 22, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to
deny the above-referenced application for resubdivision. The Commission reason is as follows:
1. The proposal does not comply with the current regulations for an open space subdivision.
Sincerely,
Timothy H. Wentzell, Chairma
Planning and Zoning Commission
THW/kak
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
Assessor
Superintendent of Pollution Control
Fire Marshal
Design Professionals, Inc.
. � f
South Windsor Zoning Regulations + if
For the purpose of providing site flexibility for building arrangement, conservation of land L
resources and greater efficiency of utility systems,a subdivider may be allowed to reduce the
lot requirements in RR, A40, AA-30, A-30, and A-20 zones, provided the following
requirements are met. C
a. The maximum number of lots to be permitted on a given piece of land is determined by
1� reducing the total acreage by 10 percent for street right-of-way, and by dividing the
remaining area by the minimum lot requirement of Section-10.2 for the zoning district in
which the subdivision is to be located. For the purposes of determining the maximum
number of lots to be permitted, the combined areas of regulated inland wetlands and
watercourses, waterbodies, detention areas,utility easements,rights-of-way, or areas with
slopes at or ih excess of fifteen percent(15%) shall not be considered as part of the gross
acreage. r
Vb. Lots approved under this section shall conform to the following schedule, rather than the L
(� schedule in Section 10.2:
w Zone Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Depth
.1 Width
RR 20,000 s.f. 100 ft. 150 ft.
A40 30,000 s.f. 120 ft. 150 ft.
�. AA-30 25,000 s.f. 120 ft. 125 ft.
A-30 20,000 s.f. 100 ft. 125 ft.
A-20 15,000 s.f. 90 ft. 110 ft.
Zone Minimum Front Minimum Rear Minimum Side Yard
•� Yard Yard
RR 50 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft.
A-40 50 ft. 50 ft. 15 ft.
AA-30 50 ft. 40 ft. 15 ft.
A-30 50 ft. 40 ft. 10 ft.
A-20 40 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft.
Zone Maximum Maximum Height Maximum % Lot
c� Stories Coverage
RR,A40,AA-30, 2 %2 30 ft. 15%
A-30,A-20
All other requirements of Sections 10 and 11 shall be complied with.
• Each approved residential lot shall contain a contiguous buildable area ("buildable"
defined as exclusive of regulated wetlands and watercourses, waterbodies, detention
• areas, utility easements, rights-of-way, or areas with slopes at or in excess of 15%) of at
least 10,000 square feet, into which a square of ninety feet by ninety feet (90' x 90') can
be located,and on which the dwelling must be located.
•t
15$
r
NOTES AND POINTS FOR DELIBERATION ON APPLICATION 2623-04
December 2, 2004
These notes concern Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)Application 2623-04.
This is a very complicated application, and a number of issues have been raised. To help
the board in its deliberations, I have outlined some points to consider. I am sure this is not
the final word, and I have provided space at the bottom of each section for notes. I have
also provided two draft motions for our consideration—one for approval and one for
denial.
Stephen Wagner
Chairman, South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals
Jurisdiction of the ZBA
Since the applicant is making a claim of confiscation, it is appropriate for the ZBA to
take up this issue, even in the face of a recent Planning and Zoning decision not to grant a
three-parcel subdivision. The PZC ruled against the application because"The proposal
does not comply with the current regulations for open space subdivision."Confiscation is
a basis for a variance setting aside the regulation causing the confiscation provided that
the variance would not materially affect the effectiveness of the zoning regulations as a
whole. Hence it is appropriate for the ZBA to take up this issue.
Subdivision Regulations vs. Zoning Regulations
Town Subdivision Regulations are separate from Town Zoning Regulations. The PZC
denied a subdivision application. We are being asked to vary the Zoning Regulations.
The two regulations are, however, connected. Paragraph 4.B.La of the Town Subdivision
Regulations states, "All portions of any subdivision shall conform to the health and
public safety regulations of the Town of South Windsor and the State of Connecticut, the
Town Zoning Regulations, and the Public Improvement Specifications manual."A
zoning variance would thus remove one impediment to the applicant's subdivision
application.
1
Arbitrariness of Planning and Zoning Actions
The applicant claims that the actions of PZC were arbitrary and capricious in not
i continuing to apply pre-1985 regulations. However, arbitrary actions of PZC, if indeed
.)that claim is valid are not a basis for a hardship and hence not a basis for a variance.
ey ma owever, speak to the issue of confiscation. -
The January 10, 1989 Superior Court decision on Krawski vs. South Windsor Planning
and Zoning Commission included two statements bearing directly on the issue of
arbitrariness and confiscation.
• The court stated, "A planning and zoning commission acts in an administrative
capacity in approving a subdivision application and acting in such a capacity, it
has not discretion or choice but to approve a subdivision if it conforms to the
regulations adopted for is guidance."The PZC was committed to apply its current
regulations.
? • It can be argued that the original "grandfathering" of developments planned and
underway in 1985 was necessary to avoid an issue of fairness and confiscation at
that time.
• The court also stated, "There is nothing in the subdivision regulations of the
Commission which deals with any concept plan or which permits the Commission
to impose, as a condition of approving a prior application, conditions on the
submission of and approval of any subsequent subdivisions of remaining parcels
of land owned by the developer."While this statement resulted in a ruling
favoring applicant Krawski, it bears directly on the validity of the concept plan as
binding on either party.
• Current Town Subdivision Regulations deal directly with the concept plan and in
Paragraph 3.B.3.c state, "The applicant shall not be bound by any concept plan for
which review is requested,nor shall the Commission be bound by any such
review."
• This also rules ouf-any-comsiderahon.pf the note on applicant Gerlt's Exhibit E
that reads sor O.S. Subdivisions approved prior to 8/1/99, "ion a page of
regulations whiff went mto eff6 6ff TseceifiF T 1986. The parcel under
consideration exists as three lots only under the concept plan, not as an approved
subdivision or regulation.
• (The existence of a note on a page of superseded regulations in a notebook in the
planning office of the town is, of course, appropriate and should not be construed
as misleading in any way. When land, such as the above mentioned subdivisions
is subject to superseded regulations, it is an important function of the planning
department to remain mindful of this fact.)
2
f
4 • Arbitrariness could also arise if the applicant is being treated differently than
similarly situated property owners. It can be argued that in this case there are no
v similarly situated property owners. There were projects under way 19 years ago
"= i that at the time might have been considered similarly situated. But this project
was not among them and the parcel lay undeveloped and undivided for the 19
year period.
• Furthermore, in 1999, seven years after the last subdivision action grandfathered
to the pre-1985 regulations, Town Zoning Regulations affecting this parcel were
again revised and the current application does not conform to these newer
regulations.
It can be argued that the PZC, in its June 22, 2004 denial, was acting in accordance with
court rulings and its own regulations and was not arbitrary or capricious in its actions as
applied the issues of confiscation and the balance test(discussed below).
Confiscation
The concept of inverse condemnation must be considered as a hardship because this is a
denial of a subdivision application. Confiscation arises when the right to use has been
abridged or destroyed. There are two tests,practical confiscation and the balancing test.
In between discussing these two tests, we also need to discuss the issue of maximum
possible enrichment as a lead into the second test.
Practical Confiscation (Denial of Use)
Practical confiscation by a regulatory action involves restricting the use of the property to
such an extent that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose. That is not an issue here.
The owner has not been denied an economically viable use of the land. In fact a house
has been built and, given an approved subdivision, another house could be built. There is
also no denial of expectation of development; two houses could be developed on the land
if it were subdivided into two parcels.
3
Maximum Possible Enrichment
Aside from a consideration of confiscation, this application amounts to a claim that the
maximum possible enrichment of the property owner has been substantially reduced.
That is not a valid hardship. In the context of confiscation, the maximum possible
enrichment could be a factor in establishing the value of the property and, hence, the
diminution of value due to a zoning action.
The property owner has been able to build a house and could subdivide into two
properties and build another. "O
• By the applicant's own estimates, the land alone, which was purchased at
$299,000, would be worth two times $195,000 if divided into two parcels or three
times $185,000 if divided into three.
e If we accept the estimates, the maxi ossible enrichment of the property
rp
owner has been reduced by about 165,000 A h ypot�ietical profit
from building three vs. two houses on eland and it is clear that the maximum '
possible enrichment of the property owner is lower than it would be if three
parcels were allowed.
• Note that the applicant has provided no evidence to support the above figures,but
it seems we can accept at least some larger value to the property subdivided three
ways rather than two.
• Maximum possible enrichment is not a controlling consideration in determining
confiscation, especially where the property owner derives reasonable use.
However, if the cost of the property is based on a reasonable expectation of
development, and that development is denied, then there is a case to be made that
the value of the property was reduced by that action.
• It can be argued that the action that reduced the value of the property for
development occurred at one of the prior revisions of the Town Zoning
Regulations and not at the denial of the applicant's subdivision application.
• It can be argued that the applicable restraints on development are reasonable and
typical of zoning regulations adopted throughout the town.
Balance Test
In the balancing test, the degree of diminution of value of the land must be weighed
against the degree of public harm to be prevented and to the alternatives available to the
land owner.
4
• Using the applicant's estimates, the value of the property actually increases over
the purchase price if it is subdivided into two parcels. Hence, it can be argued that
there has been no diminution of value.
• The applicant also has the burden of presenting some evidence that the cost of the
property was not based upon the reduced value caused by the hardship. The
applicant stated that there was-a competitive bidding situation. One might
presume that all parties were aware of current zoning regulations and, therefore,
that the market value would reflect those regulations. No evidence has been
presented to the contrary.
• On the public harm side of the balancing test,while there must be some public
value attributed to zoning regulations that control the number of lots in the town,
their size and dimensions, granting a variance would not materially affect the
effectiveness of the zoning regulations as a whole, especially if weighed against
claimed(but unsubstantiated)losses on the order of$100,000 to $200,000 and the
history of zoning of the Ridgefield project.
• Hence, it would be the diminution of value side of the test that fails,not the public
interest side.
Conditions beyond the Control of the Party Involved vs. Self Created Hardship
A hardship that justifies the ZBA to grant a variance must be one that originates in the
zoning ordinances, and arises directly out of the application of the ordinance to
circumstances or conditions beyond the control of the party involved. The ZBA cannot
properly grant a variance when the hardship is self-created.
• Given the applicant's attorney's experience with land use regulations as both an
attorney and developer, it is certain that he had the ability and obligation to
understand the applicable zoning regulations at the time the subject property was
purchased.
• He also discussed past planning and zoning actions in the Ridgefield project with
town officials prior to the purchase. While he became aware of"grandfathering"
of older regulations for projects underway years ago, he also understood current
regulations applicable to the property and that the future actions of the zoning
agencies could not be guaranteed by town officials.
• Neither the questions asked nor the responses given by staff were recorded.
Hence, the board is in no position to judge the extent to which those responses
were misleading or tended to commit the town agencies to any action.
• If we consider staff discussions to have risen to the level of a pre-application
conference, Town Subdivision regulations state in Paragraph 3.A.2.d that, "The
5
applicant shall not be bound by staff recommendations at the pre-application
conference, nor shall the Commission be bound by any such review."
• The applicant's attorney is limited to placing reasonable reliance on any responses
from staff to verbal inquiries. Such inquiries and their responses are subject to
misinterpretation or to being interpreted in a manner which was not intended.
Hence the applicant had an obligation to be aware of the current zoning and
subdivision regulations and risks of assuming any given action by the PZC.
• While it might have been prudent to make the purchase contingent on the desired
zoning and subdivision action by town agencies, the applicant's attorney reported
that there was a bidding war to acquire the property, and he believed that the
property would go to other bidders were that approach taken. Nonetheless, the
applicant had choices: 1) take the risk of unfavorable regulatory action, 2) insist
on such a provision at the risk of losing the deal, or 3)walk away from the
transaction. It could be argued that it is fair to assume that the worst that could
happen, subdivision into two parcels, was an acceptable risk to take.
If a hardship exists, it can be argued that it is self-created and not a proper basis for a
variance.
6
Possible Motion for Approval
Approve Application 2623-04 for a variance to Section of the Zoning Regulations
to allow a 3-lot conventional subdivision with lot 2 having frontage of 135' (150'
required) and width as shown upon plan dated 7/8/04 and areas of 24,800 s.f. (30,000 s.f.
required) all shown upon the map or plan dated 7/8/04, contingent upon Planning&
Zoning Commission approval of the subdivision plan subject to the as-varied Zoning
Regulation.
The hardship for this variance is [POSSIBLE HARDSHIP TO CONSIDER] the
diminution of land value as a result of applying the current zoning regulations to the one
remaining parcel in the Ridgefield area that otherwise conforms to pre-1985 regulations.
This diminution of value is considered to outweigh the public interest in the zoning
regulation as applied to this parcel.
LA
V�,,
._
Aooli
1
iV
7
Possible Motion for Denial
Deny Application 2623-04 for a variance to Section of the Zoning Regulations to
allow a 3-lot conventional subdivision with lot 2 having frontage of 135' (150' required)
and width as shown upon plan dated 7/8/04 and areas of 24,800 s.f. (30,000 s.f. required)
all shown upon the map or plan dated 7/8/04 because there is no hardship and even if a
hardship exists it is self-created. In particular[POSSIBLE REASONS TO CONSIDER]:
I.. Practical confiscation does not apply as a hardship because there is no denial
of use of the subject parcel. Current zoning regulations support subdivision
into two parcels and construction of two homes on these parcels.
2 The balance test for a confiscation hardship does not support a claim of
confiscation because
a. There is no objective evidence of diminution of value relative to the
cost of the land if it is subdivided into two parcels.
b. The applicant's estimates stated in the public hearing indicate that the
value of the land increases over the cost paid if the land is subdivided
into two parcels.
c. There is no objective evidence that the cost of the land paid by the
applicant did not reflect the zoning subdivision regulations in effect at
the time of purchase.
3. Aside from the issue of confiscation, any perceived diminution of value
caused by the current zoning regulations is a reduction of the maximum
possible enrichment of the applicant, which is not the basis of a hardship.
4. The applicant is not being treated unfairly with respect to similarly situated
property owners because there are no similarly situated property owners.
Conditions under which pre-1985 regulations were extended to other property
owners through 1992 do not apply to the current application.
5. Any perceived hardship is self created because
a. The concept plan cited in the application is not binding on either the
applicant or the Planning and Zoning Commission.
b. Any pre-application conference between the applicant or the
applicant's attorney and the town staff is not, in accordance with Town
Subdivision Regulations,binding on either the applicant or the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
c., There is no objective evidence that the applicant's attorney was
intentionally or unintentionally misled by conversations with Town
staff.
d. The applicant's attorney is sufficiently experienced as both a
developer and an attorney practicing in Town to understand, when
purchasing the land, the risks of assuming an exception to current
regulations by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
8
Town of • • •
Planning Department
Memo
To: Stephen Wagner, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Date: 11/04/04
Re: Appl. 2623-04, Gertt variance application
I have received your questions dated 10/5/04 and offer the following:
1. Exhibit E has a notation referring to August 1, 1999. What is the significance of
that date?I see Section 10.3 was revised, but what was the impact on this
parcel?I assume that was the date the current 10.3 became effective.
The PZC adopted new open space subdivision regulations on August 1, 1999 which
significantly changed the requirements for open space subdivisions. These changes
included amount of open space required to be set aside as well as changes to the
bulk requirements.
There was no direct impact on this parcel. Without specific PZC approval, it did not
meet either old open space regulations or the new ones.
2. What is the date that page 158, as supplied in Exhibit E, went into effect?(Is it
9/20/85?)
The regulations included in Exhibit E went into effect on 12/15/86.
3. Please provide details(minutes)of the W1lliam Krawski application for the five lots
approved in 1993. This appears to be related to the 5118192 Plot Plan supplied by
the applicant.
The applicant had originally applied to PZC and was denied by the Commission on
September 1, 1987. The applicant appealed the decision and the decision was
overturned by the Court. The applicant reapplied to the PZC in 1992 and was
approved.
•Page 1
AOL.COM ( Message View Page 1 of 2
Subj: Questions re Application 2623-04
Date: 10/5/2004 12:46:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: SWAGK
To: lipe@southwindsor.org
Ms. Lipe and Attorney Guliano:
Barry, first, I hope you are feeling better. The last thing you probably need is a
raft of questions from ZBA.
I've been struggling to put together questions for you both, so I apologize for
their late arrival. I have divided them into two categories based on my best guess
as to who should answer them. The first set tends to be factual questions, and the
latter set, opinions.
I have no problem showing these to Attorney Gerlt in advance of the meeting, but
perhaps Attorney Guliano would like to pass judgement on that. Also, is there
anything that should go into executive session?
If the answer to the second question for Attorney Guliano is that all the issues
relating to grandfathering are outside our jurisdiction and we have no authority to
overrule Planning and Zoning, then we may not need all the answers below, but we
should be prepared anyway.
If Attorney Guliano agrees that we need to talk to whomever spoke to Attorney Gerlt
and wrote the note on Exhibit E, then that needs to be arranged.
Steve Wagner
Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
South Windsor, CT
Questions for Planning Department (Michelle Lipe)
1. Exhibit E has a notation referring to August 1, 1999. What is the significance
of that date? I see Section 10.3 was revised, but what was the impact on this
parcel? I assume that was the date the current 10.3 became effective.
2. What is the date that page 158, as supplied in Exhibit E, went into effect? (Is
it 9/20/85?)
3. Please provide details (minutes) of the William Krowski application for the five
lots approved in 1993. This appears to be related to the 5/18/92 Plot Plan supplied
by the applicant.
4. How did the applicant's parcel in its current shape (sum of all 3 lots) come
into existence? Was the current lot created as part of a similar phase plan? Under
which phase was the open space for the lot donated to the town? In other words, is
this a new phase or is this reopening an existing phase? If the former, does it
meet all other requirements of the open space regulation in force on March 4, 1985?
If the latter, provide details (minutes and plot plan) of the application and
approval of that phase.
5. Exhibit C shows discussion but not the actual approval. Please provide
additional pages of the minutes to show what was approved.
6. Exhibit C refers to lots ranging in size from 17,500 to 62,301 square feet. Is
there anything clear cut in the record that shows that "this lot was continuously
zoned to have 3 building lots and 3 residences upon it since March 4, 1985?
Questions for Town Attorney (Attorney Guliano)
httr)://webmaii .aol .com/fmsoview.adD?folder=U2F2ZWQ=&uid-10253007 10/5/2004
AOL.COM ( Message View Page 2 of 2
1. Applicant claims that the current "regulations have a confiscatory and arbitrary
effect" for this property. Any change in zoning regulations that reduces the number
or size of dwellings or increases the required lot sizes could have an adverse
economic effect on a property owner. If any such change is deemed confiscatory,
then Planning and Zoning Commissions might be powerless to shape future the land
use of the town. Please comment, as applies to hardship for this application.
2. A number of exhibits are aimed at showing that the Planning and Zoning
Commission had set a policy to grandfather pre-1985 regulations for projects
underway. In 2004, the Commission, apparently interpreting its own historical
commitments and current regulations, determined not to apply that policy in this
situation. While ZBA has the authority to rule on zoning enforcement officer
rulings, what authority do we have to overrule such a specific Planning and Zoning
Commission decision as their July 1, 2004 letter (Exhibit D) provides? If the
answer is none, then doesn't this remove all of these issues from our consideration
in establishing hardship?
3. If there is a hardship related to the unique history of this parcel, does the
note on Exhibit E and any representation by planning department personnel support a
determination that the hardship was not self-inflicted? Wouldn't Attorney Gerlt be
expected to know that the applicant's intentions were in conflict with current
zoning regulations, that the planning department cannot commit the ZBA and PZC to
specific rulings and that there was substantial risk in making any assumption about
what these agencies might decide? Didn't the applicant have the ability, as we have
seen in the past at ZBA, to make a purchase of the property contingent upon
approvals by Planning and Zoning? Finally, if the claim is made that this is not
self-inflicted, based on representations by the planning department, I will want to
hear from those personnel who made these representations before accepting that
argument.
4. If we take the note on Exhibit E literally, i.e. "For O.S. subdivisions approved
prior to 8/1/99...," is this actually an O.S. subdivision approved prior to 8/1/99?
httr)://webmaii .aol .com/fmsoview.adD?folder=U2F2ZWQ=&uid=10253007 10/5/2004
NO. 38921 : SUPERIOR COURT
WILLIAM KRAWSKI : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND
VS. AT ROCKVILLE
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING & : JANUARY 10, 1989
ZONING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an appeal from the denial by the South
Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) of
pl:aintiff's application for approval of a five (5) lot open
space subdivision. -
On or about April 28, 1987, plaintiff filed an
application with the Commission seeking approval of a five
lot open space subdivision for property owned by the
plaintiff and situated on the east side of Felt Road and the
south side of Ridgefield Drive in the Town of South Windsor,
said subdivision to be known as Ridgefield III A. A public
hearing on the application was held on June 9, 1987. After
requesting of the plaintiff and receiving approval for an
extension of forty-five days (Record 6 and 7) , the
Commission denied plaintiff's application on September 1,
1987 for the following reasons:
1. At least one lot does not meet the requirements of
.e
n, `
j ..
-2-
Section 5.1.a of the Zoning Regulations (10,000 square
feet of contiguous buildable area with no slopes in
excess of 15%) .
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
concept plan with a prior Ridgefield submission which
contained four lots; the Commission expects that this
approved concept plan will be reflected in any
subdivision approval on the subject parcel. - (Record 9)
Plaintiff, alleging that he is aggrieved by the
Commission's decision, takes the instant appeal pursuant to
Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 8-28. Plaintiff claims that the
Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its
discretion in denying plaintiff's application.
Essentially plaintiff claims that (1) the alleged
concept plan referred to and relied upon by the Commission
as one of its grounds for denying his application is not.
contained in any South Windsor subdivision regulation and
state statute, (2) that Section 5.1.a of the zoning
regulations requiring that slopes be not more than 15% was
not part of the subdivision regulations but, nevertheless,
was satisfied by oral consent, during the public hearing of
June 9, 1987, to reduce the slope of the lot involved from
17% to 15% and (3) that the decision was unsupported by and
contrary to the record.
-3-
The defendant denies that the plaintiff is an
aggrieved person. Further, the defendant alleges that the
concept plan was a viable ground for dismissing the
application as plaintiff was the owner of the entire
Ridgefield project property at the inception of the approval
and development processes for the entire Ridgefield Project,
including all of its various phases; and although plaintiff
did orally agree to reduce the slope of the one lot
involved, such grading must comply with a conservation plan
as is required by Section 3.2.a(ll) of the subdivision
regulations, and must be approved as part of the application
submitted. This provision for grading was not included in
plaintiff' s application.
I
Plaintiff must be an aggrieved party in order to
bring this appeal. . Therefore, whether the court has
jurisdiction to hear- this appeal must be determined
is initially. Bakelaar v. West Haven, 193 Conn. 59, 65 (1984) .
Pleading and proof of aggrievement are a prerequisite to the
trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of
plaintiff's appeal.—Hartford Distributors, Inc. v. Liquor
V
Control Commission, 177 Conn. 616, 622 (1979) .
A
j
t
-4-
The question of aggrievement is a jurisdictional
one and claims of aggrievement present an issue of, fact for
the determination of the trial court with the burden of
proving aggrievement resting upon the plaintiff who has
alleged it. Bakelaar v. West Haven, supra, 65; Hall v.
Planning Commission of Ledyard, 181 Conn. 442, 444 (1980) ;
Hartford Distributors, Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission,
supra, 622. The party claiming aggrievement must first
successfully demonstrate a specific, personal legal interest
in the subject matter -of the decision, as distinguished from
a general interest, and second, that his specific personal
and legal interest had been specially and injuriously
affected by the decision. Huck v. Inland Wetlands &
Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525, 530 (1987) ; Bakelaar v.
West Haven, supra, 65.
Aggrievement is established if "there is a
possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some
legally protected interest has been adversely affected.
Ibid. Plaintiff's 'status as owner of the property
establishes that he has a specific personal and legal
interest in the subject matter of the Commission's decision.
The fact that Commission's decision resulted in a denial to
the plaintiff of the ability-to use his property as proposed
-5-
establishes that "this specific personal and legal interest
W has been specially and injuriously affected. " Accordingly,
laintif f is, £oundY to_.be.,�aggrieved by.; the _ denial of_ his
subdivision application.
:� II
La Cava Construction Company had obtained
subdivision a
- pproval of a section of proper -ty knownn. as
Ridgefield II subject to conditions that
•.. , prior to
submitting applications for subsequent phases of Ridgefield,
a conceptual plan must be submitted to the Commission
indicating a road going through from Felt Road to Foster
Street and that Lots #40, #41, A42 and #43, in a subsequent
phase, may not be approved in their present configuration.
The Commission was expecting to see not more that three lots
on the subject parcel. (Record 5)
Although La Cava Construction Company had
-- submitted the concept plan, it had not been reviewed by the
Commission as of June 9, 1987. (Record 5)
The Commission was of the opinion that the
plaintiff was the actual owner of the property previously
subdivided (Ridgefield II) and the proposed subdivision, .
notwithstanding that the application for Ridgefield II was
-�i
d
t
r
i
submitted by La Cava Construction Company. Therefore, the
Commission, deciding that the plaintiff was bound by the
aforesaid conditions, denied plaintiff's application on the
ground that the concept 'plan was not reflected in the
present subdivision application.
There is nothing in the subdivision regulations of
the Commission which deals with any concept plan or which
permits the Commission _to impose, as a . condition of
approving a prior application, conditions, on the submission
of and approval of any subsequent subdivisions of remaining
parcels of land owned by the developer. Further, there is
nothing in Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 8-26 which . allows for the
imposition of conditions upon planning and zoning
commission's approval of a subdivision plan. "The statute
merely provides for the Commission to approve, modify and
approve, or disapprove a subdivision application. " Moscowitz
v. Planning & zoning Commission, 16 Conn. App. 303, 308
(1988) .
The subdivision met *the requirements of the
subdivision regulations. Therefore, the .Commission-, acted
illegally in denying plaintiff's application because of the
lack- of a concept plan.
i
� S
■
-7-
III
The next issue is whether the Commission properly
denied the plaintiff's application on the ground that at
least one lot (#45) did not meet the requirements of Section
5.1.a of the zoning regulations (10,000 sq. ft. of
contiguous buildable area with no slopes in excess of 15%) .
The record discloses that Lot #45 has a slope of
approximately 17%. However, there is no regulation in the
Town of South Windsor Subdivision Regulations such as
Section 5.1.a of the Town of South Windsor Zoning
Regulations. Accordingly, the Commission cannot justify
denial of plaintiff's application on that ground. If such a
regulation did exist, it would be applicable only to the lot
with the excessive grade and not to the lots which met the
subdivision regulations.
A planning and zoning commission acts in an
administrative capacity in approving a subdivision -
application and acting in such a capacity, it has no
discretion or choice but to approve a subdivision if it
conforms to the regulations adopted for its guidance. Forest
Construction Co. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 155
Conn. 669, 674-675 (1967).r
r
t
8
The record indicates that the slope problem was of
a minor nature and that it was a condition the Zoning
Commission of South Windsor has the authority to act on
pursuant to Section 5.1.a of its regulation if a building
permit is requested for said lot.
For reasons stated, the defendant's denial of
plaint-ifv b ppi3c4tf, d:s-arbitrary;unreasonable and '
t Ouse,-of its discretion. Therefore, elaintiff's- appeal is
-
! sustained.
t
5
1
Vasin ton, J.
i
I .
i
MAP REFERENCE:
1.PROPERTY TD BE ODNVEI'ED TD KI M KRAWSKl FELT ROAD SOUTH VIIiDSOR,CONNECIHOUT SCALE 1'-40' DATE 2-20-85 SHEET i OF 1
VY CLOSE.ENSEN&MLLEFL 1.TARS MAP IS DEPE?CpR ON MAP RE}M-410E/i AND MONUEIRATICIN F'OIRD N THE MD NO 004CTED HEREM
2 SUEMPA570N PLAN RDGEFIELD-PROPERTY OF LA CAVA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FELT ROAD SOT:?1 WWDSCR.CONNECTICUT SCALE 1'-40' 2.AREA OF PARCEL-65.15e V4 R.-1.95 or
DATE JAY 206 1984 REV TO 5-10-64. SWEET S-1 OF 3 BY CLOSE JDCS04&MILLER &PROPERTY IS N AA-30 OPEN SPACE ZONE.
3.PINE H L ESTATES ADDITION HM I FELT ROAD SOUTH WI DSOR,COWL SCALE 1'-40' MARCH 19.1858 8Y CMSVIOLD ENGBWa RHNG,INC, 4.PROPERTY M N ROOD 201E X-AREA DETERMINED 70 BE OUTSIDE 500-•}EAR FLODOPLAOL
STREET NAMES CHARM BY 70YM PLANNING AND ZONNC COMMISSION JULY 24,111108 FINAL PLAN `BEET i OF 2
4.RDGEFW SECUM N PROPERTY OF LA CAVA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FELT ROAD.RD(EFIE1D DRIVE.SUMMERNND S HORIZONTAL DATUM-We
SOUTH MQDSOR,COMEC11CllT SCALE:i'-IO'DAIS DEG 195'7 CLOSE,JE7f5ET1 h MILLER 6.VERTICAL DATUM TAKEN FROM TDIIFI OF SOUTH WI DSOR RECORD SANITARY SEVER PLANS
5.PLAN AND PROFILE RDGEFELD PROPERTY OF LA04VA CONSIRUCIM COMPANY SC'ALEI"-40'DATE A LY 20,1984 7.PROPERTY PRESENTLY OM1FD BY PAYRMCIA 0.KRA11610 PER VO.451 PR'So
C CB C C9 C CB CLOSE.'am R MILLER
IF = 265.33' TF = 264.83' TF = 267.71' L SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION FELT ROAD AREA SOUTH WIDSOR,CONNECTICUT SHEET 3 FELT ROAD STA.20+00 TO 32+00
15' RCP O I INV-1.20' IS- RCP IN (W) INV-264.3' SWEET 2 FELT ROAD STA.10+00 TD STA 2D+00 SCALE.1'"O'DATE JANUARY 1977 JAMES P.PURCELL ASSOCIATES,INC. ANTI-TRACKING PAD
16' RCP OUT INV.=259.03' 18' RCP IN (N) INY.=263.4'
18"RCP OUT(S) INV-263.3' 6'-2" STONE ON FILTER
- 213 3 Ti C=1 278 87' DRIVE FABRIC BIT. CL&P
DRIVE Ay
21305
/sMH / I� W —
— N 8' PVC IN INV.-265�0' I I - — — �/ � TF: 4Y II
DOUBLE C CB \ \ ' N .,8 PVC OUT INV.a26 .5' �� I �? ? ii P IN V--275.57— — — — — — —
TF = 261.92' \ �� 8'PVC INV.-271.6'
6'INV:277
TF
JH 7 ��1 &= f r vW �-*�ER
` / i , TTEL. BOX 1. l.t -236,
CONIC. WALK'rCB 411.29' u1I
SLOPE RIGHTS TIES 1�D /
1 a IP 135.0D'TO MOM.
� � IS" IMF OUT N 0.19' N & 0.38' W
- •D J INV-272.' J K OF PROPERTY CORNER
_19. �� / / INV=276.ii:i" END.) — — �� /
7''00
o�
/ 7- -7 DRIVE v e�J1CAN
EWNE D. GFRLT
q i P.O. BOX 1132
h92' X SOUTH NANOSOR, CT 00074
Q8 •0 8 /$ / 860-644-2565
268 _ SILT-FENCE(TYP.) / / TO*..289.00 x 1 / / FF.290.00
GAR 1`17:267.00 N/V
P / x t DIANE B. CARROLL
1� ► ' / / (S / 2 ? yy-qw DECK
1 1 I / / / / ,// 7. / 41
1 I
r� . II. � / �5 I '� X 286.7 �/ l
V to lit 1 I "' z / � 0
^y ! O'raePP DAVTE AND Z n Ow W- O MAVAAa'.6'TRfNCN �C 70 THE sTAeun r�r LvsLaPl mal PosTs xr Do a THE ron
�; �/7 I�, AND sus- rLN:I C
3 N 1 ' / / 0O / !/ V v // 0 l GLFAI�Ia r 12•MN.
FFoo a I 0 ". L
�) I IV 0
Ou ° // / vi 0 OrAB(tic ATTACH NTO
FXTM
T THE
C) TC WOOEHPO5T5 NO"MID T CHAND OO
PAC7IT r0 THE TRENCH 1HE DTAYA ➢SYA_
DRIVE CV I // Nl9'S3'r"4T
01
s � 1 �;' iY -- 0
2' N _ s 0 CONSTRUCTION OF SYNTHETIC FILTER ARRI R
_ 8 E
3\4" I. PIN �
I N/F 4 416&.72' MAP RfFERFICE lei � �I\ OF PROPERTY CORNER
368.42' MAP REFERNCE ;4
RICHARD A. E4VUBEM JR. N/P N/r JI h
IN IS SURVEY AND MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE VAIN SECTIONS 20-3006-1 THRU 20-3006-20 JANET M. W IITRECK ROBERT J. act Y 8. S?,�ITFI J13}{N FI. 1�f'tlT�1 - Z
OF TIE REGULATIONS OF CONNECTICUT STATE AGENCIES-'MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR SURVEYS AND MAPS IN
THE STATE OF CONNECTION AS ENDORSED BY THE CONNECTICUT ASSOCIATION OF LAND SURVEYORS,INC. .dam, y
AND CONFORMING TO HORIZONTAL ACCLR Y CLASS A-2 AND VERTICAL ACCURACY CLASS T-2 ti• `
r.
N�iPd
TO THE BEST OF MY KND IS MAP IS SUBSTANTIALLY CORRECT AS NOTED HEREON.
12882
I.UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.EXISTING UTIUTY REVISIONS Tel. 860•291•8755
LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ARE BASED ON GRAPHIC SCALE g Fax 860.291.8757 DEPENDENT RESUVERY PREPARED FOR.
AVAILABLE INFORMATION.ALL EXISTING UTILITIES 40 D � ®�y @p SHEET y
SHOULD BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR D N THE CONSTRUCTION. I3� ® s..��� �i ���� T�
CONSTRUCTION2 ALL S ARE TO BE STAKED IN THE FIELD _ ( ®j,? ������e�' ���■ �C/I_ '
BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR PRIOR TO ijJ� TTFFJii7`&psC�1 FEi]
3.THIS PLAN IS INV/JJD UNLESS IT BEARS THE civil engineers . planners • surveyors �H87 ][,�' ]�®�]® ORAMN 9Y P7B VVB Na:1dBo OF
IMPRESSION SEAL AND ORIGINAL SIGNATURE 1 inch = 40 feet is landscape architects gis gps
OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER/SURVEYOR. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY 165 ;iouth Satellite Rood, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR CONNECTICUT £CKm 6Y.• RHto DATE.• 12/16/2Q23
R E C
0 , ! - b Z004
LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE CHRISTOPHER GERLT SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
112 DEMING STREET
P.O. DOX 1132
SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT 04074-1 132
TEL.(a60)644.2565
/�/��
FAX(860)644-2567
October 6, 2004 9--MAIL-WCGESOaAOL.COM
The Honorable Steven Wagner
Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor,CT 06074
Re: Application#2623-04 - Elaine D.Gerlt
n
Property at 318 Felt Road
AA-30,Open Space Zone
Dear Mr. Wagner:
This letter is to advise you that the applicant hereby agrees to an extension of thirty-five
(35) days, the maximum permitted under Section 8-7d of the Connecticut General Statutes for
the conclusion of the hearing in this matter.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED FOR THE APPLICANT
By. G--�'
Christop r Gerlt
He ttorney
Z 'd G9SZ��909B 30IJ30 MU-1 11N39 WU!G T = T T -b002 90 '400
z
c�
�NF
Ww �rErNw^ry% I O
0
iu
Q rkK
W
J
Town of South Windsor General Map N ROAD NAMES
Connecticut Felt Road
CONDOS
Date Printed: August 18,2004
0 300 Feet 0 PARCELS
Property boundaries are derived from the Town of South Windsor Tax Assessor maps,digitized at a scale of 1 inch=100 feet,and include the same data limitations and disclaimer as the Assessors maps.
All other data portrayed is representation only and,due to inherent mapping limitations,should be used as a guide only. The intent of this map is to present a graphical representation of property boundarie
and selected data,and the map is subject to change as more accurate surveys may disclose. Property boundaries mapped as of June 4,2001.
LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE CHRISTOPHER GERLT
112 DEMING STREET
P.O.BOX 1132
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074.1192
TEL.(860)644.2565
July 23,2004 FAX(860)644-2567
E-MAIL:WCGESO®AOL.COM
Mr. and Mrs. S. Mrugala
37 Ridgefield Drive
South Windsor,CT 06074
Re: Application of Elaine D. Gerlt to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for a variance to permit 1 lot of 3 in a conventional subdivision
to have less than the required frontage,width,and square footage
Dear Mr.and Mrs..Mrugala:
Your are hereby advised that an application has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals by
Elaine D. Gerlt for property located at 318 Felt Road.
If granted, the application will permit one lot having 135.61 feet of frontage(14.39 feet less than
the required 150) along Felt Road, a width of 125 feet(approximately 25 less feet in average width than
the required 150 feet), and a size of 25,165 s.f. instead of 30,000 s.f. The other two lots will fully
conform to the conventional AA-30 subdivision requirements of 150 feet for frontage and width, and a
lot size of 30,000 s.f.
The application is subject to a hearing by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application and
plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department located at the Town Hall on Sullivan
Avenue.
All members of the public are invited to the he
aring to ask questions and/or give comments. You
may also submit written comments regarding the application prior to the hearing if you desire. For
further information regarding the specific date, this application will be heard, please contact the Planning
Department at 644-2511 Ext.253.
Since we will be neighbors shortly, I would like to opportunity to discuss the application with
you whether or not you have any concerns about the matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me. My office number is shown above. If I am not available
when you call, I will return your call as soon as possible.
Thank you.
4Attomorothe
0
p e ,er t
Applicant Elaine D. Gerlt
WCG:mt
LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE CHRISTOPHER GERLT
112 DEMING STREET
P.O.BOX 1182
SOUTH WiNDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074.1132
TEL. (860)644-2565
July 23,2004 FAX(860)644-2567
E-MAIL:WCGESOOAOL.COM
Mr.And Mrs. Richard A. Whitbeck,Jr.
25 Ridgefield Drive
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application of Elaine D. Gerlt to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for a variance to permit 1 lot of 3 in a conventional subdivision
to have less than the required frontage,width,and square footage
Dear Mr. And Mrs. Whitbeck:
Your are hereby advised that an application has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals by
Elaine D. Gerlt for property located at 318 Felt Road.
If granted, the application will permit one lot having 135.61 feet of frontage(14.39 feet less than
the required 150) along Felt Road, a width of 125 feet(approximately 25 less feet in average width than
the required 150 feet), and a size of 25,165 s.f. instead of 30,000 s.f. The other two lots will fully
conform to the conventional AA-30 subdivision requirements of 150 feet for frontage and width, and a
lot size of 30,000 s.f.
The application is subject to a hearing by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application and
plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department located at the Town Hall on Sullivan
Avenue.
All members of the public are invited to the hearing to ask questions and/or give comments. You
may also submit written comments regarding the application prior to the hearing if you desire. For
further information regarding the specific date, this application will be heard,please contact the Planning
Department at 644-2511 Ext.253.
Since we will be neighbors shortly, I would like to opportunity to discuss the application with
you whether or not you have any concerns about the matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me. My office number is shown above. If I am not available
when you call, I will return your call as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Very truly yo ,
i
a Chri pher Gerlt
Attorney the Applicant Elaine D. Gerlt
WCG:mt
LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE CHRISTOPHER GERLT
112 DEMING STREET
P.O.BOX 1132
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074-1132
TEL.(860)644-2565
July 23,2004 FAX(860)644-2567
E-MAIL:WCGESQGAOL.COM
Ms.Diane B.Carol
328 Felt Road
South Windsor,CT 06074
Re: Application of Elaine D.Gerlt to the Zoning Board of Appeals-
for a variance to permit 1 lot of 3 in a conventional subdivision
to have less than the required frontage,width,and square footage
Dear Diane and Bill:
Your are hereby advised that an application has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals by
Elaine D.Gerlt for property located at 318 Felt Road.
If granted, the application will permit one lot having 135.61 feet of frontage(14.39 feet less than
the required 150) along Felt Road, a width of 125 feet(approximately 25 less feet in average width than
the required 150 feet), and a size of 25,165 s.f. instead of 30,000 s.f. The other two lots will fully
conform to the conventional AA-30 subdivision requirements of 150 feet for frontage and width, and a
lot size of30,000 s.f
The application is subject to a hearing by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application and
plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department located at the Town Hall on Sullivan
Avenue.
All members of the public are invited to the hearing to ask questions and/or give comments. You
may also submit written comments regarding the application prior to the hearing if you desire. For
further information regarding the specific date, this application will be heard, please contact the Planning
Department at 644-2511 Ext.253.
Since we will be neighbors shortly, I would like to opportunity to discuss the application with
You whether or not you have any concerns about the matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me. My office number is shown above. If I am not available
when you call, I will return your call as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Very truly your
W e opher Gerlt
Attorn or the Applicant Elaine D. Gerlt
WCG:mt
LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE CHRISTOPHER GERLT
112 DEMING STREET
P.O.BOX 1132 �i
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074-1 1 32
TEL.(860)644-2565
July 23,2004 FAX(860)644-2567
E-MAIL:WCGESQOAOL.COM
Mr.John H. Whiton
24 Tallwoo�i Drive
South Wi�;isor, CT 06074
Re: Apt!lication of Elaine D. Gerlt to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for a variance to permit 1 lot of 3 in a conventional subdivision
to have less than the required frontage,width,and square footage
Dear Mr. Whiton:
' Your are hereby advised that an application has been filed with the Zoning Board of Appeals by
Elaine D. Gerlt for property located at 318 Felt Road.
If granted, the application will permit one lot having 135.61 feet of frontage(14.39 feet less than
the required 150) along Felt Road, a width of 125 feet(approximately 25 less feet in average width than
the required 150 feet), and a size of 25,165 s.f. instead of 30,000 s.f. The other two lots will fully
conform to the conventional AA-30 subdivision requirements of 150 feet for frontage and width, and a
lot size of 30,000 s.f.
The application is subject to a hearing by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application and
plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department located at the Town Hall on Sullivan
Avenue.
All members of the public are invited to the hearing to ask questions and/or give comments. You
may also submit written comments regarding the application prior to the hearing if you desire. For
p g
further information regarding the specific date, this application will be heard, please contact the Planning
Department at 644-2511 Ext. 253.
Since we will be neighbors shortly, I would like to opportunity to discuss the application with
you whether or not you have any concerns about the matter.
Please do not hesitate to contact me. My office number is shown above. If I am not available
when you call, I will return your call as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Very truly y s,
e topher Gerlt
Attom or the Applicant Elaine D. Gerlt `
WCG:mt
y � R
Debbie R2eid Re: Questions re Application 2623-04 Page 1
From: Michele Lipe
To: SWAGK@aol.com
Date: 10/5/04 8:33AM
Subject: Re: Questions re Application 2623-04
Hi Steve,
Thank you for your questions.....I do not think that Barry will be able to get them addressed before
Thursday's meeting. (He is out of the hospital and showed up at the Council meeting, but is still on
oxygen and unable to drive.) I will speak to him today to confirm all this, but I also think I need to make an
effort to get an extension from the applicant.
I have put a call into Wayne Gerlt to see if we can get an extension of time for the public hearing and hope
to hear back from him today. Do you think the ZBA would be amenable to holding a special meeting (say
in two weeks)to finish up the public hearing?
I will be out of the office for most of the day today, but will call you when I have some news!
Thanks,
Michele
>>><SWAGK@aol.com> 10/05/04 07:23AM >>>
Ms. Lipe and Attorney Guliano:
Barry, first, I hope you are feeling better.The last thing you probably need is a raft of questions from ZBA.
Ive been struggling to put together questions for you both, so I apologize for their late arrival. I have
divided them into two categories based on my best guess as to who should answer them.The first set
tends to be factual questions, and the latter set, opinions.
I have no problem showing these to Attorney Gerlt in advance of the meeting, but perhaps Attorney
Guliano would like to pass judgement on that. Also, is there anything that should go into executive
session?
If the answer to the second question for Attorney Guliano is that all the issues relating to grandfathering
are outside our jurisdiction and we have no authority to overrule Planning and Zoning, then we may not
need all the answers below, but we should be prepared anyway.
If Attorney Guliano agrees that we need to talk to whomever spoke to Attorney Gerlt and wrote the note on
Exhibit E, then that needs to be arranged.
Steve Wagner
Chairperson, Zoning Board of Appeals
South Windsor, CT
Questions for Planning Department(Michelle Lipe)
1. Exhibit E has a notation referring to August 1, 1999. What is the significance of that date? I see Section
10.3 was revised, but what was the impact on this parcel? I assume that was the date the current 10.3
became effective.
2. What is the date that page 158, as supplied in Exhibit E, went into effect?(Is it 9/20/85?)
3. Please provide details (minutes)of the William Krowski application for the five lots approved in 1993.
This appears to be related to the 5/18/92 Plot Plan supplied by the applicant.
4. How did the applicants parcel in its current shape(sum of all 3 lots)come into existence?Was the
current lot created as part of a similar phase plan? Under which phase was the open space for the lot
donated to the town? In other words, is this a new phase or is this reopening an existing phase? If the
Debbie-Reid - Re: Questions re Application 2623-04 Page 2
former, does it meet all other requirements of the open space regulation in force on March 4, 1985? If the
latter, provide details (minutes and plot plan)of the application and approval of that phase.
5. Exhibit C shows discussion but not the actual approval. Please provide additional pages of the minutes
to show what was approved.
6. Exhibit C refers to lots ranging in size from 17,500 to 62,301 square feet. Is there anything clear cut in
the record that shows that this lot was continuously zoned to have 3 building lots and 3 residences upon it
since March 4, 1985?
Questions for Town Attorney(Attorney Guliano)
1.Applicant claims that the current regulations have a confiscatory and arbitrary effect for this property.
Any change in zoning regulations that reduces the number or size of dwellings or increases the required
lot sizes could have an adverse economic effect on a property owner. If any such change is deemed
confiscatory, then Planning and Zoning Commissions might be powerless to shape future the land use of
the town. Please comment, as applies to hardship for this application.
2.A number of exhibits are aimed at showing that the Planning and Zoning Commission had set a policy
to grandfather pre-1985 regulations for projects underway. In 2004, the Commission, apparently
interpreting its own historical commitments and current regulations, determined not to apply that policy in
this situation. While ZBA has the authority to rule on zoning enforcement officer rulings, what authority do
we have to overrule such a specific Planning and Zoning Commission decision as their July 1, 2004 letter
(Exhibit D) provides? If the answer is none, then doesnt this remove all of these issues from our
consideration in establishing hardship?
3. If there is a hardship related to the unique history of this parcel, does the note on Exhibit E and any
representation by planning department personnel support a determination that the hardship was not
self-inflicted?Wouldnt Attorney Gerlt be expected to know that the applicants intentions were in conflict
with current zoning regulations, that the planning department cannot commit the ZBA and PZC to specific
rulings and that there was substantial risk in making any assumption about what these agencies might
decide? Didnt the applicant have the ability, as we have seen in the past at ZBA, to make a purchase of
the property contingent upon approvals by Planning and Zoning? Finally, if the claim is made that this is
not self-inflicted, based on representations by the planning department, I will want to hear from those
personnel who made these representations before accepting that argument.
4. If we take the note on Exhibit E literally, i.e. For O.S. subdivisions approved prior to 8/1/99, is this
actually an O.S. subdivision approved prior to 8/1/99?
CC: Reid, Debbie
LAW OFFICES OF
WAYNE CHRISTOPHER GERLT
112 DEMING STREET
P.O.BOX 1132
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074-1132
TEL. (860)644-2565
FAX(860)644-2567
October 6, 2004 E-MAIL:WCGESQQAOL.COM
The Honorable Steven Wagner
Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
Re: Application#2623-04-Elaine D. Gerlt
Property at 318 Felt Road
AA-30, Open Space Zone
Dear Mr. Wagner:
This letter is to advise you that the applicant hereby agrees to an extension of thirty-five
(35) days, the maximum permitted under Section 8-7d of the Connecticut General Statutes for
the conclusion of the hearing in this matter.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED FOR THE APPLICANT
By: - L!/
y Christop r Gerlt
He Attorney
Town of • • •
Planning Department
Memo
To: Stephen Wagner, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Director of Planning
Date: 11/04/04
Re: Appl. 2623-04, Gertt variance application
I have received your questions dated 10/5/04 and offer the following:
1. Exhibit E has a notation referring to August 1, 1999. What is the significance of
that date?I see Section 10.3 was revised, but what was the impact on this
parcel?I assume that was the date the current 10.3 became effective.
The PZC adopted new open space subdivision regulations on August 1, 1999 which
significantly changed the requirements for open space subdivisions. These changes
included amount of open space required to be set aside as well as changes to the
bulk requirements.
There was no direct impact on this parcel. Without specific PZC approval, it did not
meet either old open space regulations or the new ones.
2. What is the date that page 158, as supplied in Exhibit E, went into effect?(Is it
9/20/85?)
The regulations included in Exhibit E went into effect on 12/15/86.
3. Please provide details(minutes) of the William Krawski application for the five lots
approved in 1993. This appears to be related to the 5118192 Plot Plan supplied by
the applicant.
The applicant had originally applied to PZC and was denied by the Commission on
September 1, 1987. The applicant appealed the decision and the decision was
overturned by the Court. The applicant reapplied to the PZC in 1992 and was
approved.
•Page 1
Attached are copies are PZC denial, minutes(1987)and the decision of the court as
well as the minutes from the 1992 PZC approval.
4. How did the applicants parcel in its current shape (sum of all 3 lots) come into
existence? Was the current lot created as part of a similar phase plan? Under
which phase was the open space for the lot donated to the to
town?In other words, is this a new phase or is this reopening an existing phase?
If the former, does it meet all other requirements of the open space regulation in
force on March 4, 1985?If the latter, provide details(minutes and plot plan)of the
application and approval of that phase.
The property that is the question of this application was under separate ownership
from the remainder of the Ridgefield Subdivision (similar to the property referenced in
Question 3 above), and was never the subject of an application for subdivision.
Therefore the lots were never created as building lots.
This would be considered a new phase in this development. It appears that this
phase would meet the open space requirements that were in effect in on 3/4/85.
The final open space for this project was accepted by the Town in February 1999 as
a part of the Ridgefield IV Subdivision constructed by Joe La Cava.
5. Exhibit C shows discussion but not the actual approval. Please provide additional
pages of the minutes to show what was approved.
I have attached the minutes the additional pages of minutes as requested.
6. Exhibit C refers to lots ranging in size from 17,500 to 62,301 square feet. Is there
anything clear cut in the record that shows that this lot was continuously zoned to
have 3 building lots and 3 residences upon it since March 4, 1985?
Open space subdivision is not a "zone". Subdivision approval by the PZC is the only
method of creating open space subdivision lots.Approval was never granted by the
PZC for this property to be subdivided for three lots.
At the time the applicant submitted for a building permit in 2004 for the new house at
318 Felt Road, he submitted a plot plan showing the property as 62,301 square feet
(or encompassing the whole parcel). The plan submitted complied with the setbacks
for a conventional lot.
•Page 2
�\JI/�
V 11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIO ��
N 5 �(�(�� J U, 9, 1987
V �"
3 . Application on William Krawski , for an Open Space subdivision to be
known as "Ridg2f-ield III" , located on the east side of Felt Rd and
south of Ridgefield , AA-30 Open Space Zone
Atty . Michael Lanza presented this application . He stated that this
parcel was originally planned for 20, 000 square foot lots and that
tonight they were coming with 25 , 000 square foot lots . He mentioned
that driveways cut on Felt Rd. , a common driveway for 3 lots from
Ridgefield Drive . There would be solar orientation on the parcel and
they would be custom homes .
Engineer Emil Lucek commented that there was a public water and
sanitary sewer .
Town Planner , Marcia Banach, reported as follows :
1 . The subject parcel was included in the concept plan for
Ridgefield and was designated Section III in conjunction with a
similar parcel North of Ridgefield Drive . There were two PZC
approval conditions for Section II which do 'relate to this
subject application and which the Commission should be aware of:
1) "Prior to submitting applications for subsequent phases , a
conceptual plan must be submitted to this Commission
indicating a road going through from Felt Road to Foster
Street . " The concept plan has been submitted by LaCava
Construction Company and is presently scheduled to be
reviewed by this Commssion on June 16.
2) "Lots 40, 41 , 42 and 43 , in a subsequent phase , may not be
approved in their present configuration, and consideration
should be given to combining them. " Thus , it appears that
this Commission was expecting to see not more than three
lots on this subject parcel.
3) This is part of an open space subdivision so the frontage,
is 120 feet . All lots- do meet these requirements with
frontage measured at street line . I have asked for and have
not been successful in getting , verification that all lots
meet the 10, 000 foot contingious buildable area regulation.
Lot #45 appears to be about 17-18% slope and Lot 46 appears
to be around 15% slope .
4) One lot will front on Ridgefield Drive , 4 on Felt Road . As
proposed , Lots 43, 44 nd 45 will have a common driveway onto
Ridgefield Drive ; lots 46 and 47 will share the common
driveway onto Felt Road . There should be a turnaround
driveway from both lots . The common driveway off Ridgefield
will result in all lots which are served by this driveway
having a Ridgefield Drive address rather than a Felt. Road
address .
5) Sewer and water are available in Felt Road . Superintendent
of Pollution Control does not have a problem with this
application .
uu b, 3 u'l
s
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -6- JUNE 9, 1987
6) Open space for this section has been included in the open
space .provided for the entire Ridgefield subdivision. The
open space for the entire subdivision is just over 10
acres. Joe LaCava has indicated to me that the required
open space for Section III will be provided to the Town, but
no necessarily at the same time this section is approved. I
should note that this open space is not under the control of
this . applicant .
7) Sidewalks are not shown on our sidewalk plan for Felt Road,
and slopes are steep and would make sidewalk installation
somewhat difficult .
If approved , I recommend the following :
1) Turnaround driveways for lots 46 and 46
2) Verficiation that these lots meet the 10, 000 foot contiguous
buildable area requirement .
3) Setback lines on the corner lot should reflect 2 front , 2
sideyards .
Town Engineer , Rick Martel , reported as follows:
1 . Plot plan should indicate pins to be placed at all property
corners and monuments at all PC, PT .
2 . Location of sanitary sewer laterals should be shown.
3 . As a matter of assignment of number , lots 43 , 44 , and 45 would
have Ridgefield Drive addressess .
Mrs . Evans mentioned that iron pins are needed all the time and it
would save everybody time if they were put on the plans in the very
beginning .
One resident spoke up in favor of this subdivision , because he claims
when he went to various real estate offices , there were no lots
available and there would be lots available with this development.
Mr . William Krawski spoke up stating that one of the slopes had a 17%
slope and this would be used for a solar home .
Mrs . Rossi had a question regarding the drainage . Mr . Martel stated
that there were slopes near the driveways but the slopes could be
stabilized . Mrs . Rossi also wanted to know if the water could be
controlled . Mr . Martel stated there was sheet flow for drainage and
this could create erosion where water is concentrated .
Mrs . Rossi also wanted to know if each person would have their own
house design or would there be an overall design for the lots . Atty .
Lanza replied that Mr . Krawksi requires colonial designs of his
liking ; wood sided , and Mr . Krawksi will maintain architecture
control .
005968
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -7- JUNE 9, 1987
Mrs . Montana commented that nice homes have been built on a slope and
she doesn ' t want to see too much grading . She requested that the
trees be saved so .the back of .the houses on the common drive will not
show. She also requested that the bushes be kept low to the ground on
Felt Rd . for sight line . Mr . Krawski confirmed they they would be
trimmed if needed .
4 Application of East Hartford Sand & Gravel for a Special Exception for
Earth Removal of land located west of Strong Rd . and east of KF Brick
Co. /Rt . 5 , RR & I Zone .
Atty. Lassman represented the applicant . He stated that sand removal
has been going on for 18 years on K-F Brick Co . property and that the
trucks exit onto Rte . 5 . It was mentioned that masonry sand comes
from this site . The present site is almost exhausted.
Engineer Bob Arsenault stated that they would like to excavate this
site for 1-2 years . When they finished excavating , they would put on
4 inches of top soil , and gently grade the slope from west to east .
This. Sand & Gravel supplies 80-90% of mason sand to the Hartford area.
Town Planner , Marcia Banach , reported as follows :
1 . This application is for a T&C permit for earth removal on land
located west of Strong Road and east of KF Brick Company , Route
5 . Site is located in the RR Zone , surrounded by I Zone to the
West and RR Zone to the North , East and South . - Property
immediately North and South is KF Brick property .
2 . The proposed access to this site will be via KF Brick on Route 5
and there will not be any access from Strong Road or any other
road except Route 5 .
3. The proposed plan calls for a three phase plan . Phase 1 is 2. 00
acres , Phase 2 is 1 . 80 acres and Phase 3 is 2 . 3 acres . The rest
of the 630 acre site is to be left undisturbed . The area to be
disturbed is approximately 3 , 000 feet from Strong Road .
4. This plan has been presented to the IWA/CC for conservation plan
approval but no action has been taken.
5. The sequence of construction outlines how each phase will be
excavated . The plan is to clear the first phase , create a berm
around the phase to control erosion , excavate the site, spread
topsoil and seed . After Phase 1 is stablized , the berm will be
removed and the next phase will be started .
If approved , I recommend that PZC ' s approval letter condition the permit
so that each phase is required to be stabliized prior to disturbance of a
subsequent phase , as is shown on the plan .
Town Engineer , Rick Martel , reported as follows :
1 . Under the regulations , a bond is required . I recommend a bond of
$5 , 000. 00 .
R-
L ..+ 5
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -2- SEPTEMBER 1 , lf`
safety concerns and because of negative impacts on the boarding ho
to the south of the site . Mrs . Klenk-e seconded the motion, and a1
voted in favor except Mr . Hallowell , who abstained .
Ms . Rossi was reinstated at this time .
2 . Application of William Krawski for Ridgefield III open-space
subdivision
There was discussion regarding the appropriateness of includin
the proposed five lots along Felt Road as part of the Ridge.field;_.
Subdivision. Mr . Hallowell indicated that Ridgefield originally` .
in as a Krawski application, as did this application . Mrs. Evans
noted that this application does not conform to the Planning & Zos
Commission regulation requiring all lots to have 10,000 sq. ft. o:
contiguous buildable area excluding slopes in excess of 15%. Conc.;
3 was also expressed over driveway cuts onto Felt Road because of ='
generally poor sight line conditions . Mrs . Klenke and Mrs . Montag^
noted that the original concept plan for Ridgefield showed only f. .
lots on the subject parcel because of concerns about driveways on
-
Felt Road .
Mrs . Klenke made a motion to deny the application for an
open-space subdivision because it does not conform eo Sections 5 1
and 5. 3.b of our zoning regulations ; and because the Commission
specifically indicated on the original Ridgefield approval that mo
than four lots on this parcel would be unacceptable . Mrs . Rossi<
seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
3 . Application of Atlantic Plywood for a site plan of develo men :
east side of John Fitch Boulevard , I Zone
is _
The applicant requested that this application be tabled until:
September 15, 1987 due to last-minute plan revisions .
Mrs . Rossi made a motion to table the application until Sept'
15 , seconded by Mr . Sorenson. The motion was unanimously carried:_
4. Application of JMJ Construction for a site plan of develo me
north side of Chapel Road, I Zone
Attorney Raymond LeFoll , representing JMJ Construction , presen
an application for construction of an office building and two gars:$'-
for construction equipment storage on Chapel Road . He reported th.a
the site is 5. 86 acres and is served by all of the necessary
utilities . He also indicated that there is a drainage easement at;
the rear of the property which contains a detention basin for the -
abutting property to the west. The parking requirement for the
is 120 spaces ; however , the applicant does not see a need for that
many spaces for his business and will provide 87 spaces , with
additional reserve available for the remaining spaces . Attorney
j LeFoll stated that the office building would be a waffle-brick type"
v
taw M iF44
O-P sloa� ?&U&ot
0 0
e �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074
��OsoR•co�`� AREA CODE 203/644-2511
September 2, 1987
Mr. William Rrawski ;
130 Buckland Road ;
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Application 11245 - Open Space Subdivision
Felt Road
Dear Mr. Rrawski:
Please be advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on
September 1, 1987, to deny the above-referenced application for the
following reasons:
1. At least one lot does not meet the requirements of
Section 5.1.a of the Zoning Regulations (10,000
square feet of contiguous buildable area with no
slopes in excess of 15%).
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a concept
plan with a prior Ridgefield submission which contained
four lots; the Commission expects that this approved
concept plan will be reflected in any subdivision approval
on the subject parcel.
Very truly yours,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
By:
Loui C. Evans, Chairman
LCE•cbs
cc: R. Martel, Town Engineer
T. D'Auria, Building Official
E. Belleville, Assessor
W Lanning, Fire Marshal
arm Evans, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
Michael Lanza, Esq.
NO. 38921 SUPERIOR COURT
WILLIAM KRAWSKI : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND
VS. AT ROCKVILLE
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING & JANUARY 10, 1989
ZONING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an appeal from the denial by the South
Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) of
pl'aintiff's application for approval of a five (5) lot open
space subdivision.
On or about April 28, 1987, plaintiff filed an
application with the Commission seeking approval of a five
lot open space subdivision for property owned by the
plaintiff and situated on the east side of Felt Road and the
south side of Ridgefield Drive in the Town of South Windsor,
said subdivision to be known as Ridgefield III A. A public
hearing on the application was held on June 9, 1987. After
requesting of the plaintiff and receiving approval for an
extension of forty-five days (Record 6 and 7) , the
Commission denied plaintiff's application on September 1,
1987 for the following reasons:
1. At least one lot does not meet the requirements of
-2-
Section 5.1.a of the Zoning Regulations (10,000 square
feet of contiguous buildable area with no slopes in
excess of 15%) .
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
concept plan with a prior Ridgefield submission which
contained four lots; the Commission expects that this
approved concept plan will be reflected in any
subdivision approval on the subject parcel, (Record 9)
Plaintiff, alleging that he is aggrieved by the
Commission's decision, takes the instant appeal pursuant to
Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 8-28. Plaintiff claims that the
Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its
discretion in denying plaintiff' s application.
Essentially plaintiff claims that (1) the alleged
concept plan referred to and relied upon by the Commission
as one of its grounds for denying his application is not
contained in any South Windsor subdivision regulation and
state statute, (2) that Section 5.1.a of the zoning
regulations requiring that slopes be not more than 15% was
not part of the subdivision regulations but, nevertheless,
was satisfied by oral consent, during the public hearing of
June 9, 1987, to reduce the slope of the lot involved from
17% to 15% and (3) that the decision was unsupported by and
contrary to the record.
i
i
i
-3
The defendant denies that the plaintiff is an
aggrieved person. Further, the defendant alleges that the
concept plan was a viable ground for dismissing the
application as plaintiff was the owner of the entire
Ridgefield project property at the inception of the approval
and development processes for the entire Ridgefield Project,
including all of its various phases; and although plaintiff
did orally agree to reduce the slope of the one lot
involved, such grading must comply with a conservation plan
as is required by Section 3.2.a(11) of the subdivision
regulations, and must be approved as part of the application
submitted. This provision for grading was not included in
plaintiff' s application.
I
Plaintiff must be an aggrieved party in order to
bring this appeal. . Therefore, whether the court has
{ jurisdiction to hear- this appeal must be determined
j: initially. Bakelaar _v_. West Haven, 193 Conn. 59, 65 (1984) .
f - -
Pleading and proof of aggrievement are a prerequisite to the
trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of
plaintiff's appeal, Hartford Distributors, Inc. v. Liquor
4 Control Commission, 177 Conn. 616, 622 (1979) .
a
J
-4-
The question of aggrievement is a jurisdictional
one and claims of aggrievement present an issue of fact for
the determination of the trial court with the burden of
proving aggrievement resting upon the plaintiff who has
alleged it. Bakelaar v. West Haven, supra, 65; Hall v.
Planning Commission of Ledyard, 181 Conn. 442, 444 (1980) ;
Hartford Distributors, Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission,
supra, 622. The party claiming aggrievement must first
successfully demonstrate a specific, personal legal interest
in the subject matter -of the decision, as distinguished from
a general interest, and second, that his specific personal
and legal interest had been specially and injuriously
affected by the decision. Huck v. Inland Wetlands &
Watercourses Agency, '203 Conn. 525, 530 (1987) ; Bakelaar v.
West Haven, supra, 65.
Aggrievement. is established if "there is a
possibility, as distinguished from a certainty, that some
legally protected interest has been adversely affected.
Ibid. Plaintiff' s status as owner of the property
establishes that he has a specific personal and legal
interest in the subject matter of the Commission's decision.
The fact that Commission's decision resulted in a denial to
the plaintiff of the a-bility-to use his property as proposed
i
t
-5-
establishes that "this specific personal and legal interest
has been specially and injuriously affected. " Accordingly,
l aintiff is found—to,be.,:aggrieved_ by.; the _ denial, of his
JA --
subdivision application.
A II
A La Cava Construction Company had obtained
subdivision approval of a section of property known as
Ridgefield II subject to conditions that, prior to
submitting applications for subsequent phases of Ridgefield,
a conceptual plan must be submitted to the Commission
indicating a road going through from Felt Road to Foster
Street and that Lots #40, #41, #42 and #43, in a subsequent
phase, may not be approved in their present configuration.
The Commission was expecting to see not more that three lots
on the subje
ct parcel. (Record 5)
Although La Cava Construction Company had
-- submitted the concept plan, it had not been reviewed by the
Commission as of June 9, 1987. (Record 5)
The Commission was of the opinion that the
plaintiff was the actual owner of the property previously
subdivided (Ridgefield II) and the proposed subdivision, .
notwithstanding that the application for Ridgefield II was
A
r
r
submitted by La Cava Construction Company. Therefore, the
' Commission, deciding that the plaintiff was bound by the
aforesaid conditions, denied plaintiff's application on the
' ground that the concept plan was not reflected in the
present subdivision application.
There is nothing in the subdivision regulations of
the Commission which deals with any concept plan or which
permits the Commission _to impose, as a . condition of
approving a prior application, conditions on the submission
of and approval of any subsequent subdivisions of remaining
parcels of land owned by the developer. Further, there is
nothing in Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 8-26 which . allows for the
imposition of conditions upon planning and zoning
commission's approval of a subdivision plan. "The statute
merely provides for the Commission to approve, modify and
approve, or disapprove a subdivision application. " Moscowitz
v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 16 Conn. App. 303, 308
(1988) .
The subdivision met the requirements of the
subdivision regulations. Therefore, the .Commission-.- acted
illegally in denying plaintiff's application because of the
lack- of a concept plan.
i
i
t
-7-
III
The next issue is whether the Commission properly
denied the plaintiff's application on the ground that at
least one lot (#45) did not meet the requirements of Section
5.1.a of the zoning regulations (10,000 sq. ft. of
contiguous buildable area with no slopes in excess of 15%) .
The record discloses that Lot #45 has a slope of
approximately 17%. However, there is no regulation in the
Town of South Windsor Subdivision Regulations such as
Section 5.1.a of the Town of South Windsor Zoning
Regulations. Accordingly, the Commission cannot justify
denial of plaintiff's application on that ground. If such a
regulation did exist, it would be applicable only to the lot
with the excessive grade and not to the lots which met the
subdivision regulations.
A planning and zoning commission acts in an
administrative capacity in approving a subdivision
application and acting in such a capacity, it has no
discretion or choice but to approve a subdivision if it
conforms to the regulations adopted for its guidance. Forest
Construction Co. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 155
Conn. 669, 674-675
The record indicates that the slope problem was of
a minor nature and that it was a condition the Zoning
R
Commission of South Windsor has the authority to act on
pursuant to Section S.l.a of its regulation if a building
eV
permit is requested for said lot.
For reasons stated, the defendant's denial of
plaintiff o v-appld:catt- iF:---arbitrary;"unreasonable_ and_:in
gbuse,of its- discretion. Therefore, elaintiff's:.appeal • is
sustained.
X
t
Vasin ton, J.
!
.� � 00 ,
J
C TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION
f Public Hearing/Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 September 8, 1992
flexibility in your regulations so that changing business needs
can be met in a timely, responsive manner. "
Banach read to the Commission the following CRCOG report:
"The staff of .-the Regional Planning Commission of the Capitol
Region Council of Governments has reviewed this referral and find_
no apparent conflict with regional plans and policies or the
concerns of neighboring towns .
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with comments and concerns
centering around use and disposal of chemicals in dry cleaning
establishments and aquifers located within South Windsor. A public`=`
hearing will be scheduled in October regarding the addition of
5 . 1 . 2 . 6 to the Zoning Regulations . (Exhibit A) _
Evans closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m
2 . Application #92-24P William J. Krawski Sr. Ridgefield IIIA o e 3
space resubdivision to create 5 lots on 3 +/- acres on property
located on the east side of Felt Road, south side of Ridgefield .`
Dr. , AA-30 zone
Krawski gave a history of the subject area then introduced Peter
DeMallie of Design Professionals .
In view of the fact that a presentation of this application was giv-
on June 23, 1992, DeMallie stipulated that the testimony of that
meeting be part of this meeting. (Exhibit B)
DeMallie discussed the issue of sidewalks on Felt Road. DeMallie's
opinion was that the sidewalks would cause greater impact than the --
are worth, i .e. , great expense and disruption of trees.
No one from the public spoke in favor of or against this applicatio-
Banach read to the Commission the following planning report:
1 . Application for five lots located on the easterly side of Felt
Road, southerly of Ridgefield Drive, AA-30 open space zone. The
subject parcel was included in the concept plan for Ridgefield a
designated as section III in conjunction with a similar parcel
North of Ridgefield Drive (which can be seen on the key map) .
This application was previously denied by PZC in 1987 because
proposed Lot 43 did not conform to Section 10 . 4 which requires a
buildable square exclusive of slopes in excess of 15%. The Y
lawsuit brought by the applicant against PZC was ultimately
decided in favor of PZC. ZBA then granted a variance for that lo'
to allow a buildahl P scniArA tin t-n l Ask cl nn= The nrnicr-i- cnrri n
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
F � Plic Hearing/Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 September 8, 1992
�i
that the lot was in excess of the 18% slope granted by ZBA. The
applicant went to ZBA for clarification of the variance, and ZBA
required a new application and public hearing. The application
was heard on Thursday, Sept. 3, and approved, with the condition
that the house not be placed any further into the steep slope area
than shown on the map.
2. In an AA-30 open space zone the minimum lot size is 25,000 sq ft,
and lot frontage is 120 sq ft. All lots do meet these
requirements .
r►
3. One lot will front on Ridgefield Drive and four lots will front on
Felt Road. As proposed, three of the lots will have a common
driveway coming off of Ridgefield Drive. It is shown to be
approximately 15 feet from the back property line. The other two
lots will have their access onto Felt Road, each is shown with a
turnaround driveway. We have indicated to the applicant that due
to the traffic on Felt Road we would prefer to. have a common
e..f driveway service these two lots if it is at all possible.
4. Sewer and water are available in Felt Road. WPCA approval is not
required.
. 5. The open space for this section has been included in the open
space provided for the entire Ridgefield Subdivision. The open
space for the entire subdivision is just over 10 acres and has
already been provided through the other phases of this
development.
6 . There are no regulated wetlands on this site. This application
�' - will need conservation approval. The application has been heard
by the IWA/CC and will probably be acted upon later this month.
7. Sidewalks are not shown on our sidewalk plan for Felt Road, and
slopes are steep and would make sidewalk installation somewhat
I►EK difficult, with a retaining wall required for a section of
3 sidewalk plus loss of trees . The Town Engineer has recommended
` that sidewalks be installed along the Felt Road frontage, as there
are sidewalks south of this property and north of the other
10i remaining Ridgefield property on Felt Road. We suggest that
Commissioners visit this site in order to make a determination
whether to require sidewalk installation.
8. The plans contain a note indicating that limits of clearing will
be flagged and inspected by Town staff prior to clearing of trees .
The Commission should be aware that the extensive regrading of the
lots required for lot-to-lot drainage plus building of the houses
will result in substantial loss of trees throughout this site.
If approved, the planning department has no further recommended
modifications .
009323
93 -
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
n„hlic Hearing/Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 September 8, 1992
The following engineering report was submitted to the Commission:
Sheets 3 & 4
1 . Note #3, leads one to believe that magnetic bearings were used
to produce 'these sheets . This is not appropriate.
2 . Note #2 - it appears that this note is not accurate,
horizontal coordination indicated was not utilized. Utilizing
coordinates given for the monuments, a different bearing is
derived for the street lines .
3 . Sheet 3 should show new monuments, and their coordinates along
Y
Felt Road and Ridgefield Drive.
Sheet 5
1. Sidewalks exist on Ridgefield Drive and Felt Road and should
be extended as part of this subdivision.
2. Note #7 indicates that "homeowners for lots 43, 44 & 45 shall
share the responsibility to maintain the drainage systems
depicted on plans . " The home owner will need easements to
enable them to enter upon the other homeowners property for
maintenance. Also specific responsibilities must be spelled
out.
3 . Since the under ground infiltrator systems are shown on two
lots, the question arises as to who will be responsible for
the cost of these systems . If these lots are sold to
individuals and developed individually, how will these
infiltrators be built and by whom? It is recommended that as
a condition of approval that the developer have these
installed prior to the sale of these lots for individual
development.
4 . The size slope and type of pipe from the yard drains to the
infiltrators must be shown.
5 . The Foundation/Roof Drain detail note "This type of connection
is to be used wherever deemed possible by the engineer" should
be eliminated - it is not appropriate for this project.
Infiltration Design
The information supplied by Highland Soils indicates .that two test
locations were utilized for soil permeability. These were near test
Pits 1 and 3 and went to only 24" below the existing grade. The
bottom of the infiltrator will be at least 36" below existing grade.
0 0 9 3 w i
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing/Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 September 8, 19924
The area of test pits 1 & 3 is not near the high infiltrator usage y
areas . Test pits location #4 & #5 would have been more appropriate `
Also the samples should have been taken below the "B Horizon" for a
more concise evaluation of the permeability. We are still not
completely satisfied that all of the pertinent data for the design l:
this system has been gathered. The "zero net increase in runoff" ha
not been shown in any drainage calculations we have received.
However, it appears that the additional surface runoff may be
minimal .
Since this will be a private system and the storage capacity is
sufficient for a 100 year storm without utilizing the infiltration
into the soil, it is felt that this system is acceptable, once the .,
zero increase in runoff has been shown.
Joseph Perna, of Design Professionals, stated that the infiltrators'
are designed for a back to back storm. The site would be over
designed if it were designed for a 100 year storm. The street
drainage is designed for a ten year storm. Perna is still having
conversations with the Town Engineer regarding the drainage from th
site and the Town Engineer is comfortable with Perna's design.
Discussion ensued among the Commission with the following comments
and concerns : lot to lot drainage; sidewalks and retaining walls;
the common driveway with its proposed landscaping; landscaping coul
be addressed as a modification; and concerns of neighbors .
The public hearing was closed at 9 :00 p.m.
Montana disqualified herself from discussing or acting on Applicatia
-. #92-25P, Pin Oak Estates .
3 . Application #92-25P Pin. Oak Estates Resubdivision of propertyt
create 4 lots on 5 .3 +/- acres on property located on the west
side of Clark Street, north of Stanley Drive, RR zone
Michael Tarbell, of Tarbell, Heintz & Associates, stated that the
original application had proposed 5 lots coming off of Pin Oak Trail
with a provision to extend a street to the remaining 40 acres . The
s..
present proposal is essentially the same except for eliminating lot
#5 . The average lot is approximately 1 . 2 acres . Two curb cuts are
being proposed, i .e. , common driveway for lots 1 and 2 and a common
driveway for lots 3 & 4 . Frontage requirements and site line
dictates the placement of the curb cuts . Easements .have been
provided for the two common driveways that split off once they are
within a property line. Road widening along Clark Street is being
proposed at the request of the staff. The flow on the northerly side
of the driveway drains to the northwest into a pond. House location
are the same as with the previous application.
009351
r
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PUNNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing/Reaular Meetincr Pa e 2 September 22 199 _
2
Lipe read the following report from the engineering department:
1 . The storm drainage swale at the end of the cul-de-sac is eroded.`
and needs to be stabilized.
2. New monuments should be numbered and their coordinates shown. `
a r °
No one from the public spoke for or against this application.
Discussion ensued among the Commissioners with the following comma
and concerns: separation of the lot; nearest
house to this pro
posa _
contour lines; distance of proposed house to existing house; exist ,
foliage; and 100 ft buffer.
Replies to the above comments and concerns:
t
existing zone line; contour lines will be left assis; theted by the
se
house will be set approximately 22' -off the side line; trees
saved along the driveway next to the house; plans show a 50' buffe_r
with the 50, rear yard set off from that making a 100' buffer;
proposed tree line shown on the plans; area will be cleared just
enough to get the house in; and limits of clearing is approximately
15 ' beyond the foundation.
Evans closed the public hearing 8:20 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appl. #92-22P Brian Edwards Zoning Amendment to RR zone to allot_
for a Senior Residence Development
Montana disqualified herself from discussing or acting on applicatno
#92-22P.
The applicant requested an extension for this application.
Akeroyd made a motion to accept the 15 day extension for application
#92-22P. Gallicchio seconded the motion. The motion carried and the
vote was unanimous.
2. Application #92-18P, William J. Krawski, Sr. , Ridgefield Estates:
Phase IIIA, Open Space Subdivision to create 5 lots on 3 +/
acres east side of Felt R
zone oad south of Rid afield Drive AA-30
Lipe reviewed this application for the Commission. Discussion
centered around sidewalks, drainage, landscaping, and esthetic
quality concerning the view.
Levack made a motion to approve with the following modifications
application #92-18P:
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION
c Hearing/Regular Meeting Page 3 September 22, 1992
1, This approval is for 5 lots numbered 41-45 .
2, Drainage for this subdivision is subject to the approval of
the Town Engineer.
i
^_ 3, All lots shall be serviced by the Town of South Windsor
sanitary sewer system and are subject .to the approval of the
Water Pollution Control Authority.
f4. Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by Connecticut
Y Water Company.
y =s
- 5. A liability insurance policy shall be submitted to this
Commission naming the Town of South Windsor as an insured,
with a combined single limit for bodily injury and/or property
damage in the amount of $1,000,000.00.
6. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of
the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission, including
a bond in the amount of $5,000 . 00.
7 . Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held
with Town Staff.
8. - All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the
stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor.
{ ' 9. All easements for conservation purposes, drainage or
utilities, that may be required in connection with the
approval of this subdivision, must be submitted on standard
Town easement form where appropriate, to this Commission prior
to filing the mylars and issuance of building permits. All
deeds for open space, public improvements and roadways must be
submitted prior to request for Town acceptance; all deeds must
be in accordance with the policy for accepting deeds and must
be approved by the Engineering Department and Town Attorney.
10. Footing drains are required for the house. Prior to the
building of any structure on a lot, a topographic map, drawn
to a scale of 1" = 401 , shall be submitted for each lot in the i
subdivision, showing proposed contours, elevations and the
location of the footing drains. No building permits will be
issued until the proposed contours, floor elevations and
location of footing drains have been approved by the Town
Engineer.
11 . If, for any reason, finished grading and other individual lot
site work is not completed, the Town Engineer shall determine
the amount of a cash bond to ensure final
_ grading and site
work. This cash bond must be submitted prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy. ji
t '
t
! 009356
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR <_
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing/Regular Meeting Paw 4 September 22, lgg
12 . Quantity estimates must be submitted to the Town Engineer -
the enclosed form) for the purpose of determining subdivis B1
bonding, and all bonds shall be posted prior to filing the mop
plans .
of
• 4 st,
If the developer chooses to submit a Letter of Credit for.:}
one year term, in lieu of a surety bond, said Letter of Cre
must be renewed on a yearly basis .until completion of the Af
development. If a new Letter. of Credit has not been recev ;re
within 30 days before the expiration date, the Commission da
at its option, call the Letter of Credit it is holding. th
13. A drainage assessment fee in the amount of $250 .00 shall be =' Ga
submitted to this Commission. ,un
14 . No building permits will be issued until all modifications; 2'
y
have been complied with, and the final plans have been file
in the Town Clerk's Office. _
15. Note #3 leads one to believe that magnetic bearings were U-S-
to produce these sheets. This is not appropriate. _ #'
16 . Note #2 it appears that this note is not accurate
horizontal coordination indicated was not utilized. Utiliz tl
e:
coordinates given for the monuments, a different bearing is= a, l
derived for the street lines.
17 . Sheet 3 should show new monuments, and their coordinates al_L a
Felt Road and Ridgefield Drive.
18. Note #7 indicates that "homeowners for lots 43, 44, & 45 sha
share the responsibility to maintain the drainage systems
depicted on plans. " The home owner will need easements to
enable them to enter upon the other homeowners property fore
maintenance. Also specific responsibilities must be
determined.
19 . The size, slope, and type of pipe from the yard drains to the=
infiltrators must be shown.
20. The Foundation/Roof Drain detail note "This type of connectio
is to be used wherever deemed possible by the engineer" shout
be eliminated.
21. The developer must install the underground infiltrator system:
prior to sale of these lots for individual development. This
must be included in the bond estimate.
22. Landscaping must be placed between common driveway and
. abutters at time of home construction, designed by proposed
purchaser and approved by the Planning Department. s
i rt
009351.
-= TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
t PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
�2 ;:
Hearing/Regular Meeting Page 5 September 22, 1992
o g1aCk and white transparent mylars of Sheet #4 with the above
modifications, together with three blueprint copies of the entire set
plans, must be submitted to this Commission within 30 days to be
tamed and signed. The letters of approval of this Commission must
eproduced on the mylars . pp
}after the mylars have been signed by the Commission, they will be
feturned to you for filing in the Office . of the Town Clerk within 90
days` of the date of approval. After filing these plans, a copy of
tine receipt must be submitted to the Planning Department.
Gallicchio seconded the motion. The motion carried and the vote was
inanimous.
�2 Application #92-28P, Pin Oak Estates, Resubdivision of property to
create 4 lots on 5. 3 +/- acres on property located on the west
A ide of Clark Street, north of Stanley Drive, RR zone
Montana disqualified herself from discussing or acting on application
` 92-28P.
Lpe reviewed application #92-28P for the Commission. Concerns of
tine Commission centered around the sight lines, relocation of
r existing driveway at the expense of the developer, and existing
f_ access to rear property.
i
1Kurrin made a motion to approve with the following modifications
application #92-28P:
1. This approval is for 4 lots numbered 1-4.
2. Drainage for this subdivision is subject to the approval of
the Town Engineer.
g 3.
All lots shall be serviced by the Town of South Windsor
sanitary sewer system and are subject to the approval of the
Water Pollution Control Authority.
- i
4 . Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by Connecticut
Water Company.
- f
i
5. Street names and locations of fire hydrants are subject to the t
approval of the Fire Marshal of the Town of South Windsor. I
Street names and supporting posts shall be installed by the i
developer in conformance with the standards of the Town of
South Windsor, at no expense to the Town. {
6 . A liability insurance policy shall be submitted to this
Commission naming the Town of South Windsor as an insured,
with a combined single limit for bodily injury and/or property
damage in the amount of $1,000,000.00.
;:i
r q�_
614d
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR �
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes Pacre 1 June 23 1992
MErBERS PRESENT: Chairman Louise C. Evans, Marshall Montana,
Frank Castro, Bernard Hart, and Thomas Murrin
ALTERNATES PRESENT: Russell Levack sitting for Clifford Galliccho- _,_
Joanne Akeroyd sitting for Thomas March
3
STAFF PRESENT: Michele R. Lipe, Assistant Planner/Analyst
PUBLIC HEARING:
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Evans.
s
1. Appl. #91-18P, William J. Krawski, Sr. , Ridgefield Estates Phase =
IIIA, Open Space Subdivision to create 5 lots on 3 +/ acres, east ..___...:
side of Felt Road, south of Ridgefield Drive, AA 30 zone
Peter DeMallie, of Design Professionals, Inc. and representing the
applicant, introduced the applicant. s�
Krawski stated that he is proposing to subdivide the property into
five lots. The property has been logged and large boulders have been -
removed. The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a grade variance on
the lot that was denied before. This application was subject off
lawsuits which ultimately upheld the Planning & Zoning denial which '
related to lots exceeded the 15% slope limitation.
Krawski said he was not before this Commission for reasons of sellin` F�
,the land. . At the present time he is bankrupt and asked prompt
consideration from the Commission. �
..DeMallie said that the signs for the property were posted
accordingly. The site contains approximately three acres and the
five lots are numbered 41 through 45. Lot 41 is the southerly most :
lot and lot 45 has frontage on Ridgefield and Felt Road. Prior '
approvals for Ridgefield were Section I with 17 lots, Section II with'' `'
17 lots, Section IV has 23 lots . Ridgefield is an open space ' g .
subdivision in a AA-30 zone with 10. 1 acres of open space. Section
IIIA is Krawski's subdivision and Section IIIB will contain .
approximately . four lots . When Ridgefield is completed it will y
contain 66 lots and based on the formula in the Zoning Regulations
total of 74 lots would be allowed in this subdivision.
At
DeMallie said that his firm has completed an A-2 boundary survey `and
field verified the topography on the subject property. There are
wetlands or floodplain on the site. The property was a subject
prior five lot resubdivision application by Krawski which was denied ,
by PZC due to a slope problem with a 90, x 90' square requirement-an %
Section 10. 1a. It was approved at Superior Court level then
overturned at the Appellate level. On March 5, 1992 Krawski secured ,
a variance to Section 10.1a. Subsequent to that variance approval', '.`
II _
O09 ,
4
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Minutes Page 2 June 23, 1992
Krawski and the Court asked DeMallie's firm to prepare a field
verified topographic plan for the subdivision application. The
actual topography of the site on lot #43 exceeds the 18% that was
' approved in the variance application. The 90' x 90' square contains
2% increase in grades or approximately 1/3 of the buildable square.
The question has been raised as to how the variance application
F` applies to this subject application as it relates to lot #43 . This
has been brought to the attention of the Zoning Board of Appeals in
letter that DeMallie sent June 18th.
DeMallie requested that the public hearing be left open until a reply
E ' has been received from the Zoning Board of Appeals .
DeMallie stated this proposal meets the requirements of the Zoning
Regulations .
In addressing lots #41 and #42, DeMallie said the proposed house
locations will be setback approximately 70' to 80' with turn around
Y driveways coming off Felt Road. All of the lots will be serviced
with utilities coming from Felt Road. Lots 43 through 45 contain
steep grades which could result in a hazardous condition with
driveways coming off of Felt Road. Because of this it is proposed to
�= have a common driveway coming in from Ridgefield Drive along the back
' of the lots . It is proposed to have a buffer of 15' between the
proposed driveway and the property line where there are existing
homes located on Krawski Drive. Landscaping will be left to the
taste of the individual homeowners or a planting plan could be
developed subject to the approval of this Commission.
DeMallie passed to the Commission photos of the site. He noted that
sidewalks are on the southerly side of Ridgefield Drive and easterly
side of Krawski Drive. Sidewalks are located on the westerly side of
Felt Road along the Strawberry Patch property, and from lot #41 down
the easterly side of Felt Road. DeMallie asked that the sidewalk not
1 be extended because the grades along the easterly side of Felt Road
are too steep for a driveway and sidewalks . Also constructing
sidewalks along the front of the proposed lots would disturb too much
area and require the clearing of too many mature trees . It is felt
that the general character along Felt Road would be ruined. The
sidewalks are not shown in the Town Plan of Development. Requirement
of sidewalks for this site runs against the prior Planning & Zoning
Commission's sidewalk decision for Ridgefield. A sidewalk along Felt
Road would dead end at Krawski Drive and Ridgefield Drive. It is
recommended by DeMallie not to construct sidewalks along the five
lots proposed on Felt Road because the banks are too steep.
DeMallie said that other than the one outstanding issue regarding the
4 _ variance on lot #43, all of the regulatory requirements have been
met. Krawski is planning on selling the lots this fall. Lot to lot
drainage will be accomplished by constructing yard drains in between
the lots . A detention basin is not proposed for this site.
B8 u PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 APRIL 12, lggg
be
Mrs . Montana asked what would become of the remaining 6+ acres; Mr.
and Alexander answered that it would remain industrial. Mrs. Montana asked
Mr. Hesketh who would shoulder the cost burden for the street work on
Rye Street and Sullivan Avenue and whether it was planned as part of an
iie" y overall design to avoid reworking the area repeatedly. Mr. Hesketh
g.
Ef ` responded that the STC had received a Culbro proposal while JFI's
proposal was under review. At the recommendation of the STC, JFI's and
nt Culbro's traffic consultants had met and the two firms had worked out a
method to share the work and the costs, provided both proposals were
t: approved.
Mrs . Evans asked for more information regarding the ratio of
AN-
residential to industrial users, noting that the high-visibility
location of the proposed shopping facilities would attract passers-by;she said another commercial area across the street likewise brought in
people driving through the area. She asked whether- the area's purpose
taF was primarily to serve industrial or residential users, or a mix of
y � > both, and whether there was any formula for determining how much
r commercial was necessary to support a given amount of industrial area.
Mrs . Rossi asked for clarification of traffic flow along the loop road
and Commerce way, noting her concern that users should be able to
ed access the industrial park from Commerce Way.
Ave, rs=
Mr. Hart asked who will be responsible for coordinating future
development of the various parcels to ensure that the necessary road
•. improvements are made. Mr. Hesketh said that if Mr. Alexander's
the proposal were the only one in the offing, the required street widenings
at Sullivan Avenue and Rye Street would have to be done before any
z: commercial business could be conducted. Other projects adding to the
scope of improvement requirements might result in the State's allowing
partial openings .
<, z
Mr. Hallowell commented that the design review process would be
implemented shortly and that the Commission, in accordance with
expressed wishes of Town residents, would be looking for development of
' a permanent nature.
fired �{ 2. Application of LaCava Construction Co. for a 25-lot Open Space
led Subdivision, property east of Felt Rd and west of Foster St. ,
AA 30 Zone.
sent "M , The applicant was represented by Attorneys Peter Alter and John Rosania
of Alter & Purcill, Glastonbury; Jos
.h eph LaCava of LaCava Construction;
John Miller and Wesley Sargent of Close, Jensen & Miller; and Peter
i ? DeMallie of Design Professionals. Atty. Alter reviewed street layouts,
noting that the lots along Felt Road were not included in this
subdivision and that the through-connector street to Foster Street was
)uld � not seen as feasible for a number of reasons. Therefore, that through-
street was not being proposed; instead, two parcels of land each over
Y
006540
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 4 APRIL 121 19
8g
four acres would be given over as open space land, bringing the to _ .
open space property in the area -- including adjacent parcels tales
approximately 24 acres. The two parcels would be deeded to the Town;
Atty. Alter proposed that this was in accordance with the Town Plan and
with Town regulations for open spaces. He continued on to say that
drainage concerns had been addressed; that sidewalks could be provided
throughout if that was the wish of the Commission; and that maintenance
of the open space parcels could be provided by a gravel-base access
road. In conclusion, Atty. Alter said he believed that the Townu' Iaad
S E A Engineers, concerns had either been addressed already or could he '
addressed; and that subdivision regulations had been met or, if
could be met through further discussions with the engineers .
Town Planner Marcia Banach presented her report:
1. 6
This request is for an open space subdivision in an AA-30 Zone
that would create 25 lots on 22.4 acres. Previous phases off
the subdivision were approved under the old open space �
requirements . At the time that the new open space regulations
were adopted (9-10-85) it was stated in the PZC minutes that,
any developments currently under way would still be governed
under the old regulations for future phases, thus this
subdivision falls under the old requirements. -
2. The minimum lot size for this open space subdivision is 17,540
square feet. The proposed lots range from 17,500 to 62,301
square feet (1.4 acres) , with 4 lots under 1/2 acre, 16 .1otsY
between 1/2 and 3/4 acre, and 5 lots over 1 acre in size..---
appear to meet all the zoning requirements with respect o -
dimensional requirements; however, we do need verification that
all lots conform to the 10,000 sq. ft. buildable area
requirement. The open space to be donated to the Town as a :
result of these 25 lots appears to be that land identified asxX�
Lot 90 on the key map, totalling just over four acres. (This
information came from the approved subdivision map for Phase
II, not from the plan currently under review. Clarification is
needed as to what open space goes with which phase, since the
topographic maps for this application indicate two parcels
to be deeded to the Town. ) This open space is adjacent to the :-
open space previously donated from earlier phases at the
end of the site plus other subdivisions. An accounting should
be provided of open space for all phases of Ridgefield so..
can determine that the open space dedication requirements
fully met. No open space improvement plan has not been
provided at this time and one should be. A 50, right-of-way -
has been left at the northeast end of the cul-de-sac to provide "
access into this new open space area.
3. The road network to be built will be an extension of Ridgefield
Drive of approximately 600 feet ending in a cul-de-sac, and a_
road stub off of Rrawski Drive, Summerwind Drive, will be
=_ 006541
LgBB . PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5 APRIL 12, 1988
tali' extended. up to Ridgefield Drive. Town staff are in agreement
that the engineering difficulties involved in an extension of
wn Ridgefield Drive through to Foster Street are overwhelming, and
n and we support the applicants' request that the street not be
t extended. It should be noted, however, that Town staff do not
ided = feel that a through street it unnecessary -- a road is clearly
nance necessary but is impractical at this location.
s
and 4 . The site will be serviced by Connecticut Water and town sewers.
ld be The Superintendent of Pollution Control has indicated that WPCA
approval is required.
5. There is no 100-year floodplain on the site, nor are there
inland wetlands. This application has been heard and approved
by the IWA/CC with the following conditions:
Zone``
of a. Road must be paved before construction begins .
�; b. A $15, 000 bond must be posted to ensure compliance with.
:ion$; Erosion and Sedimentation measures .
tat =: C. It is recommended to the PZC that the Commission accept
ted Parcels #90 and 92 as open space.
6 . Only two driveways will be cut onto the cul-de-sac on
Ridgefield Drive. A note should be added that the driveways
7,500,r will be spaced widely apart to facilitate snow storage.
�1
Dts;.�, 7 . Sidewalks are proposed on the north side of Ridgefield Drive
They and on the east side of Summerwind Drive. The Town would like
to see sidewalks on both sides of the interior streets, and
n that also on Foster Street to close the gap across the 50' right-of-
way.
a -
d as 8 . The sight line at the intersection of Ridgefield Drive and Felt
This ; Road appears to be adequate. The Town has a State grant to
as eliminate the sight line problem at Felt Road and Oakland Road
ion is
involving a treed bank.
the>
s are, 9 . Lots shown on the key map as previously approved Lots #20 and
o the` 21 at the east end of Krawski Drive are in actuality not
east ; approved lots, per Phase II approval letter.
hould
We � If approved, the Planning Department would like to see the following
are:; modifications in addition to items already noted:
.way ; Key Map
:rov
- Arrows indicating direction of drainage flow shown on legend.
ref el` Plot Plan
ind a
k - Note is needed that all lots conform to 10,000 sq. ft.
buildable area requirement.
006542
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 6 APRIL 12,'1
98g_
Lots should be shown in their entirety on one sheet (Lot$ L
59 ) .
- Setbacks should be coincident with easements (Lots 571 58
- Identify to whom easements granted. )�
- Monuments are required at all angle points of open space
on outer perimeter. ldrid
Traffic control signs as required by Traffic Authority
(Police Chief ) must be identified on map.
Street centerline stations required. .,
Topographic Map
Show pavement width.
- Are there any wooded areas? Show foliage line..
`- Do drainage rights need to be acquired from Town of South � .'.
Windsor? 4
General Comments
The key map should show the 500, limits commencing from-,yer="
boundaries of the open space. ;=
Ms . Banach then read the engineering reports:
Would not recommend 5% grade in cul-de-sac area. Maximum
3.% grade should be maintained. <
4
Sidewalks should be shown for both sides of roads with
handicap ramps . _
Name of street (Summer Wind Drive) may be confused with the Y
Town' s existing Summer Hill Drive.
Road and house plan should �
reflect design for mitigating impacts to proposed road and .<
homes and existing homes, considering the cuts involved, rl
i.e. road and lot underdraining.
�rh
Lot to lot drainage is to be addressed to insure near zero K ,
increase in run-off . Typical house and lot grading should
be shown.
Slope rights/limits should be noted on plans .
Gravel access road covered by loam to be provided to access "
drainage outlet. }.Construction details needed for CB, MH type of sanitary
sewer bedding with deta; ' , oer soils, flared-end base
support needed.
I
r z i
p
o
006543
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 7 APRIL 12, 1988
lgg8
Section 4.1;,.2,1 KEY MAP
Data block which provides needed zoning information
)aye such as percentage of jot coverage. lot area requirements,
acreage of tract. open space calculations, etc. should be
land snown on the Kev Mao.
F3
Section 4.13.2.3 PLOT PLAN
Proposed streets should be shown with centerline stations
on the plan.
Easements should be shown on the plans with bearings,
distances and grantees.
Section 4.13.2.4 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
All existing proposed p
osed buildings should be shown on
the the plans.
Proposed pavement widths should be shown on the plans.
1.
Existing and proposed sanitary sewers and laterals should
be shown with lengths, pipe sizes, slopes and material
types on the plans.
Proposed storm drainage systems. showing all lengths,
Slopes, and pipe sizes should be indicated on the plans.
Section 4.13.2.5 PLANS AND PROFILES
�
Profiles
oiles should show all a" ..arch basins with top of frame
elevations.
. Profiles should show all sanitary sewer manholes with
ME) of frame elevations. Also. top of foundation eleva-
.ions for proposed buildings should be shown.
Erosion and sedimentation control delineation should be labeled
i along the southern boundary of lot 58.
i .
i
i
V. 006544 _
Td. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 8 APRIL 1
GENERAL COMMENTS
Fire hydrants are proposed at Stations 7+25 and 12+65 on
Ridgefield Drive. The spacing distance exceeds the Fire _.
Marshall's maximum requirement of 500 feet. The locations _
of the hydrants should be revised and all hydrants should be
included on the Topographic :laps.
Summerwind Drive has a proposed centerline grade of 8.37 �®
percent. This exceeds the Town's maximum standard of 8 LLu
percent.
3 The proposed crest and sag vertical cur.,es at Stations 0+88 t
r and 5+81 respectively, on Summerwind Drive should be in-
creased to a minimum stopping sight distance of 150 feet
based on a 30 mph design speed.
The storm drainage profile on sheet no. 6 indicates that a
a portion of the 120 feet of 15" RCP will be exposed. The
i
engineer should revise this condition accordingly. _
The slopes of the proposed 8" sanitary sewers connecting into T
the existing 8" sanitary off of Ridgefield Drive should be x
corrected to correlate with the profile. Also, the distance of
the 8" sanitary between Stations 16=0 and 18+25 should match
with the Alan and profile.
The Town requires a minimum pavement radius of 42 feet for
cui-de-sacs. The radius for the cul-de-sac on Ridgefield Drive
should be revised.
9 The distance of 339 =eet between proposed sanitary sewer
manhoies 5 and 16 in Ridgefield Drive exceeds the Town's �
maximum standard of 300 feet.
The size of bituminous curbing should be indicated in the
typical roadway section. {
Ground cover over the 8" sanitary sewer between sanitary
manholes #8 and #9 on Summerwind Drive is less than the
recommended minimum of 4 feet. '
Proposed sanitary sewer laterals should be labeled on the plans.
Ground cover over the 248 feet of 15" RCP between catch
basins #10 and #13 on .Summerwind Drive is less than the
Town's minimum requirement of two feet. fi
Proposed sanitary manhole #9 on Summerwind Drive is shown ..�
with an inside drop. The Town prefers outside drops for
sanitary manholes.
3 _
S
,Ty,
19EQn x PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 9 APR.006545
IL 12
1988
: The engineer is indicating that grading, will be done to existing
lots #31/75 on Ridgefield Drive, #32/73 on Krawski Drive and
#19/66 and '#38/67 on Summerwind Drive. Sloping rights will
, -have to be obtained from the land owners unless the grading
is modified.
The flow line elevation of catch basin 48 on Ridgefield Drive
on the profile is incorrect. It should read 354.26.
The engineer has submitted a detention analysis (Highgate
Estates. 1977, Everett 0. Gardner Sc Associates) for 10, 25,
and 100-year storm frequencies. However, the Town requires
zero increase discharge design to be maintained for 2, 10, 25,
50 and 100-year storms.
Although the�- gdrainage_ report has indicated that there will
essentially be no additional flow to the existing Krawski Drive
�,. drainage system, the engineer should submit a storm drainage
: analysis for this system.
Mr. Hallowell noted that the applicant's engineer and the Town' s
engineer had determined placement of a through-road to Foster Street to
be unfeasible from an engineering standpoint. He questioned the lot
sizes, observing that current zoning for a conventional subdivision in
this area would only allow 12 or 13 house lots of 3/4 acre size similar
to those abutting this property. He asked that interested parties
consider what benefits the Town would realize from the reduced-size
lots, and then invited the public to comment.
First to appear was Atty. Richard Rittenband, representing the Buttero
family at 221 Foster St. and the Caramma family at 241 Foster St. , who
opposed any street installation through the right-of-way between their
properties; they supported the application as currently presented,
without the street. Atty. Rittenband introduced a precis of the two
families' position (Exhibit "D" ) ; a petition signed by approximately
133 people also supporting the application as currently presented
( Exhibit "E" ) ; and photographs of the two properties and the
surrounding land (Exhibit "H" ) .
The following speaker, Randall Buttero, 221 Foster Street, asked that
the matter be resolved expeditiously, as the impact of road
installation on his property had caused him great concern. "
William Reveley, 40 Autumn Drive, said he favored the proposal, adding
that the open space was a pleasant place for neighborhood children to
use, and worthwhile preserving.
Brian Lammers , 96 Birch Hill Drive, opposed the construction of the
application without a through street, citing volume of traffic suffered
by Birch Hill Drive residents due to the lack of alternate through
streets .
00654E
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 10 APRIL 12, �_
Sebastian Caramma, 241 Foster Street, demurred with regard to the
traffic volume on Birch Hill Drive, saying that other streets -- Foste
Street included -- also carry heavy traffic.
Paul Terry, 158 Rrawski Drive, supported the application, especialip
with regard to the open space property that would be acquired by ;the
Town in the process . He observed that this was in keeping with the
results of the referendum approving funds for land acquisitions {
Edward Meyer, 20 Ridgefield Drive, favored approval of the application
as presented. He cited safety concerns in opposing installation 'of:
through street.
Commission members were asked to comment. Mr. Hart asked if drainage
concerns had been thoroughly reviewed; Atty. Alter responded that ."-
had been discussed with Public Works Director Michael Gantick and tha � f
amendments had been made in accordance with Mr. Gantick's wishes. = $« _
Rossi asked if such drawing revisions had resulted in major
differences; Atty. Alter responded they had not. She suggested that,,
it might be helpful to know how many lots could be created if the
subdivision was not approved as an-,open space subdivision; and asked,-
that the relationship of each open space parcel to its respective
subdivision or subdivision phase be clarified.
�Y
J Mrs-. Montana said concerns had been voiced for many years regarding
traffic on Birch Hill Drive, and that the. Commission had been
previously led to believe an alternate through-road would be = `
constructed in the Ridgefield area. Atty. Alter answered that appro�ya
r of the four Foster Street lots as configured, with only a 50' right}�4f_
way, no slope rights, and no consideration given to grades had
essentially negated the feasibility of constructing the road at that
location. Mrs. Montana, Mr. Hallowell, and Atty. Alter then discuss
' the status of the open space land with regard to its usefulness tom
Town and its accessibility to the public. '
Mr. Nadel asked about the impact of this development on proposed x{ _
redistricting of the schools, noting that the open space and road Y ;
construction issues were not the only topics of concern. He informe
the Commission that the number of lots was 25, not 18 as advertised in=
the legal notice.
In response to a question from Mrs. Montana, Joseph LaCava stated tha '
the lots backing up to Tallwood Drive lots had been covered in previous
correspondence, with his company agreeing to make those lots wider bud R
not necessarily of comparable size in square footage. � =
There being no further questions, this portion of the public hearing--
terminated. Atty. Alter presented Exhibits "F" and "G" . '
£4
T
}
1y
ti
SOMN •E4
-own O-P S-OUL(-t V&U&ot
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
December 10, 2004
CERTIFIED # 70020460000197443876
Ms. Elaine D. Gerit
c/o Wayne C. Gerlt, Esquire
P.O. Box 1132
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Application #2623-04— Elaine D. Gerlt, c/o Wayne C. Gerlt, Esquire, 318 Felt
Road, AA-30 zone
To Whom It May Concern:
At the meeting of the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals held on December 2,
2004, the Board denied your request for the following variances to section 10.2 for
proposed lot#2: a 15' variance to allow lot frontage of 135' (150' required); a 22'
variance to allow lot width of 128' (150' required); and a 5,200 square foot variance to
allow lot area of 24,800 square feet (30,000 square feet allowed) for property located at
318 Felt Ro
ad, AA-30 zone.
The Board stated the following reasons for denying this request:
1. Practical confiscation does not apply as a hardship because there is no denial of
use of the subject parcel. Currently zoning regulations support subdivision into
two parcels and construction of two homes on these parcels.
2. The balance test for a confiscation hardship does not support a claim of
confiscation because:
a. There is no objective evidence of diminution of value relative to the cost of
the land if it is subdivided into two parcels.
b. The applicant's estimates stated in the public hearing indicated that the value
of the land increases over the cost paid if the land is subdivided into two
parcels.
c. There is no objective evidence that the cost of the land paid by the applicant
did not reflect the zoning subdivision regulations in effect at the time of
purchase.
Application #2623-04 — Elaine D. Gerlt
December 10, 2004
Page 2
3. Aside from the issue of confiscation, any perceived diminution of value caused
by the current zoning regulations is a reduction of the maximum possible
enrichment of the applicant, which is not the basis of a hardship.
4. The applicant is not being treated unfairly with respect to similarly situated
property owners because there are no similarly situated property owners.
Conditions under which pre-1985 regulations were extended to other property
owners through 1992 do not apply to the current application.
5. Any perceived hardship is self created because:
a. The concept plan cited in the application is not binding on either the applicant
or the Planning and Zoning Commission.
b. Any pre-application conference between the applicant or the applicant's
attorney and the Town staff is not, in accordance with Town Subdivision
Regulations, binding on either the applicant or the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
c. There is no objective evidence that the applicant's attorney was intentionally
or unintentionally misled by conversations with Town staff.
d. The applicants attorney is sufficiently experienced as both a developer and
an attorney practicing in Town to understand when purchasing the land, the
risks of assuming an exception to current regulations by either the Planning
and Zoning Commission or the Zoning Board of Appeals.
6. It was felt that the applicant should have been aware of the regulations prior to
the purchase of the property.
Any new building, or alteration/additions to existing buildings, requires a building permit
prior to start of construction.
Very truly yours,
RIA-Am WO
tephen Wagner, Chair erson
Zoning Board of Appeals
SW:dr ..
cc: Building Department
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT
1 OF 1 0004909
i
324010318 0318 FELT ROAD 5L2C 6577 1 4872
AA300
GERLT ELAINE D 2620 ELLINGTON ROAD 1567/097 12/31/2003 299900 N28
SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 -
KRAWSKI PATRICIA D 451/059 09/26/1986
DESCRIPTION UNIT ACREAGE ASSESSMENT
BUILDING CLASS 9 / 5 RESIDENTIAL LOT 0.69 56000
TYPE 1 FAMILY/ 2.4 / B FINISH AREA S/F AREA RES.EXCESS ACREAGE 1.27 4000
DESIGN COL 2EA SEMI FIN% WET/LOW BSMT RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 1 159360
OCCUPANCY ONE FAM W/IN-LAW BSMT FINISH QUALITY
#CARS/BSMT GARAGE
FOUNDATION POURED CONC. TOTAL ASSESSMENT 219360
BASEMENT FULL CRAWL%
PART% SLAB% FORCED HT AIR GAS CONDITION/DESIR/UTIL AVERAGE
EXTERIOR SIDING -1 VINYL YEAR BUILT 2004
-2 RENOVATION YEAR
BRICK/STONE
'g LN HGT HEATING% 100 AIR COND% 100 ADDITION YEAR
INSULATION 100 % FIXTURES BATH TYPE FIXTURES LAV TYPE
EXTERIOR MILLWORK DETAIL 5 WHRLPUSHWR 2 MODERN-PLAIN KIT DR LR I BR FR OTHER TOTAL I BATH
ROOF TYPE HIP 4 MOD-1/2 TLD TUB 1 MODERN-PLAIN BASEMENT
DORMER(L.F.) 3 MOD-1/2 TLD SHR 1ST FLR 2 1 1 1 1 6 1.6
ROOFING ARCH SHINGLES 2ND FLR 3 3 2.3
PLAIN FIREPLACES 1 3RD FLR
DETAILED FIREPLACES
HEATING DEPRECIATION MODERN CHIMNEY(S) TOTAL 4 1 1 9 3.9
SINGLE CARD YES
INTERIOR MILLWORK DETAILED PERMIT NUMBER PERMIT STATUS REFER ACCT#
%OF INTERIOR FINISH 87 % 30330 A LAST UPDATE 09/28/2004
PERCENT COMPLETE DATE OF CERTIFICATE . INSPECTION DATE
70 INSPECTOR
WALL FINISH FLOOR FINISH PERMIT STATUS ENTRY DP
BASEMENT NIL CONCRETE PREVIOUS GROSS ASSESSMENT 1620
1ST FLOOR DRY WALL HARD WOOD
2ND FLOOR DRY WALL HARD WOOD 3RD FLOOR NIL NIL YEAR GROSS REASON UPDATE
4/04 REMOVE PA490;NO INTERIOR BSMNT ACCESS;CENTRAL VAC;LAUNDRY
SINK•10/04=70%COMPLETE=30%LOC;UNFIN BONUS=-6%LOC-OVER GARAGE&
LESHER GLENDINNING MUNICIPAL SERVICES,INC.