Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReconstruction of Clark Street L7�0.N N S4r.44 C � Town 01P s,o� V&U&ot y ` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR COS AREA CODE 860 / 644-2511 April 1, 1999 To: Abutting Property Owners and Interested Parties Subject: State Project No. 132-125 Reconstruction of Clark Street and Pleasant Valley Road The Town of South Windsor is developing preliminary design plans for the reconstruction of Clark Street from Chapel Road to 91 meters (300 feet) north of the intersection of Pleasant Valley Road and Pleasant Valley Road from its intersection with Clark Street to the Manchester, town line. Improvements include providing a uniform 9 meters (30 foot) wide pavement for both roadways, realignment of the intersection of Clark Street and Pleasant Valley Road, a new roadway drainage, replacement of the existing culvert on Clark Street and new sidewalks. The proposed roadway will accommodate a two lane roadway with exclusive turning lanes at the intersection of Clark Street and Pleasant Valley Road. Based on the preliminary assessment, the construction costs will be approximately $2,000,000. It is anticipated that the Federal Highway Administration will provide 80% of the land acquisition costs and 80% of the construction costs. The State will provide 10% of the land acquisition costs and 20% of the construction costs, and the Town will provide 10% of the land acquisition costs and 100% of the design costs. It is the policy of the Town of South Windsor and State of Connecticut to keep persons informed and involved when such projects are undertaken. It is important that the community share its concerns to assist in the project's development. The Town of South Windsor will conduct a Public Hearing on April 29, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, South Windsor Town Hall, 1540,Sullivan,Avenue, South Windsor, Connecticut. The Town of South Windsor and the Connecticut Department of Transportation personnel will be available one-half hour prior to the hearing to answer questions regarding the project plans being presented. Page Two To: Abutting Property Owners and Interested Parties Deaf and hearing impaired persons wishing to attend this public hearing and requiring an interpreter may make arrangements by contacting the Department of Transportation's Office of Communications at (860) 594-3062 (VOICE ONLY), at least five working days prior to the public hearing. All persons interested in this project are welcome to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions please call me at telephone number (860) 644-2511, ext. 245. Very truly yours, Jn C. az tta, P.E. Eng 4 er JCl/sfg cc: Sebastian J. Sbalcio, Principal Engineer, CONNDOT Matthew B. Galligan, Town Manager Michael J. Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works \Projects-ConstructionTleasant Valley,Clark Street\Correspondence\To Residents\Notification April 28.doc r RICHARD M. RITTENBAND ATTORNEY AT LAW RECEN11p, 17.1 T7"ELLINGTONROAD i =e1�rf t+m SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT06074 nr^� ;'t 8't�isill� Li (203)644.2456 December 28, 1989 Marcia Banach Director of Planning Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Request for Legal Opinion Dated December 14, 1989 (#89-22) Dear Marcia: This is in response to your request for a legal opinion concerning the method of implementing the provisions of section 8-3 (f) of the general statutes which requires, prior to the issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy, a certification from the zoning enforcement officer that the building, use or structure is in con- formity with the town zoning regulations or is a valid nonconforming use under such regulations. You have indicated that the only way for you to be certain that the structure or building is in compliance with zoning regulations is by requiring a class A-2 survey for the building permit application and a class A-2 as-built survey for the certificate of occupancy application and that you use this requirement for new residences. However, you have continued a long-standing practice for residential additions, pools, sheds, etc. to allow the homeowner to provide the best map the homeowner can produce which often ranges from very old building permit plot plans to hand-drawn drawings, on the basis that requiring an A-2 survey for these additions, sheds, etc. is financially prohibitive and seems unreasonable, and you would like to find a way to support the certificate from the zoning enforcement officer with- out imposing this financial burden on every building permit application. My opinion is as follows: 1. Under section 8-3 (f), the burden or requirement is clearly on the zoning enforcement officer, and he must be satisfied as to the conformance with the regulations. He obviously cannot go out and conduct engineering surveys himself on all these applications. He must, therefore, rely upon what is presented to him by the applicant. Certainly, an A-2 survey should be suffiellosmwbecause of its high degree of accur If the survey is directed on its face in favor of the Town` of South Windsor as well as the applicant, then, if there is something inaccurate, the town can always look for in- demnification to the surveyor whose seal and signature appears L r r December 28, 1989 - page 2 - on the A-2 survey. Therefore, it seems to me that the town is pretty well protected with an A-2 survey and should require one if the proposed work and materials exceed a certain amount. For example, if the proposed cost is $5000 or more and the average A-2 survey costs approximately $500, then the cost to the applicant would be no more than 10%. If, as in many cases, the applicant obtains a home equity loan to do this improvement, the cost of the survey could be included in the funds borrowed. If the project is sufficiently costly, it does not seem to me that it is a tremendous burden to require the applicant to also pay for an A-2 survey considering the relative cost of the project. 2. What to do, for example, in the case of relatively small projects, such as under $5000, is less clear. Under $5000 you may wish to waive the requirement of an A-2 survey. In that case, some sort of a diagram or sketch should be submitted by the applicant together with an affidavit along the lines of what I have suggested on Schedule A attached hereto. However, even with the language in the affidavit on Schedule A, there is no guarantee that a court will hold the terms of the affidavit binding so as to relieve the town from liability and put the liability on the part of the applicant., and even if the applicant is held responsible, there is no guarantee that the applicant will have the funds to pay any damages resulting from a factual situation which is in conflict with what is stated in the affidavit. Further, there are statutes which pro- hibit any action by the town against a homeowner after a certain period of time. For example, section 8-13a • of the general statutes provides that a building that is situated on a lot so as to violate zoning regula- tions in relation to the boundaries of+ the lot is held to be a valid nonconforming building in relation to such boundaries if three years have elapsed without the institution of an action to enforce such regulation. Section 29-265 of the general statutes provides that no removal, alteration or abandonment of any single-family dwelling shall be required and nothing shall prevent the continuance of the use and occupancy of such dwelling after six years of the date of occupancy after substantial completion of construction of, alteration to or addition to such dwelling even though such dwelling does not comply with the building code. Therefore, despite the language of the affidavit attached, there is no guarantee that not requiring an A-2 survey will result in the town being relieved of liability. Accordingly, what risk the town wishes to take and under what circumstances it is, therefore, willing to waive the requirement of an A-2 survey, becomes a policy issue not a legal question. On the basis that the town could be ultimately held liable without an A-2 survey, the determination as to when to waive the A-2 survey requirement becomes a policy decision based upon all of the circumstances described above. That is a decision that should be made by the chief administrative officer, namely the Town Manager, probably with approval of the Town Council. Very tru ours, _ and Rittenband l TOWN RMR:ds ATTORNEY Enc. a S�pN Sf, G 70Wn 0-Y -OU.& ?dzlf-"�Ot U 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE . SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 f'IosOR•Co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 May 30, 1990 MEMORANDUM: TO: Members of the IWA/CC FROM: James Lombardi, Chairperson of IWA/CC RE: Rittenband' s letter of May 25, 1990 Because I was out sick for a week the agenda is going out as such. Please be aware at any time during the discussion of Clark Corners, it is felt that this should be an Executive Session instead of an open meeting, do not hesitate to bring it up. I call your attention to paragraph 3 of the Town Attorney' s letter dated May 23, 1990 that if an executive session is needed it should be called for. JAL/pmm lor May 1, 2000 > To: Town of South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeal H, Majorie Anthony, Chairperson `° 9 From: Richard E Spadaccini 42 Debbie Drive South Windsor, Connecticut Re: Robert C. Reault - Application#2462-00 Request for Variance Due to my inability to attend the Zoning Board of Appeal hearing on Application#2462-00, I would liked to address the members of the Zoning Board of Appeal my views regarding this application. As the adjacent-property owner and only property owner affected by Application#2462-00 submitted by Robert C. Reault of 50 Debbie Drive, South Windsor, Connecticut, for a 1 foot variance to section 10.3 to allow a pool to remain 9 feet from the property line. I would to like recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeal that the request for variance be denied under the conditions stated in South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals—Information Sheet and other considerations as follow: Conditions "The hardship must be different in kind from that generally affecting properties in the same zoning district, and must arise directly out of the application of the ordinance to circumstances or conditions beyond the control of the applicant. Self-inflicted or self created hardship is never considered proper grounds for a variance" Fact#1 —The applicant disassembled the 18-foot pool located on the property during May of 1999 and erected a 24-pool which is 33% larger without an Application For Building Permit and without determining the zoning requirements. Fact#2—An Application For Building Permit was filed August 8, 1999, approximately 70 days after the pool was in use and only after notification that a Application For Building Permit was never filed by the Town Building Inspector. Fact#3 —Without first determining that the replacement pool was in compliance with zoning regulations, the applicant constructed a deck subsequent to filing an Application For Building Permit. Fact#4—The Application for Zoning Board of Appeals was submitted April 12, 2000, eleven months after the project was started and approximately eight months after the project was completed. Other Considerations Section II—Required Information, Question 13 Town of South Windsor Application for Zoning Board of Appeal—"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. The following is the applicant responds: 'larger replacement pool erected on existing site using old footprint of Boundary&Electrical as fixed extending additional size towards middle of property. In addition topography of land is such that relocation would require substantial regrading of property." Fact#1 — Additional size was not extended towards the middle of property, but in all directions of the smaller pool. Fact#2— Relocation of the pool towards the middle of the property would not require substantial regrading of property. Based on the Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors map provided as Exhibit I,the pool is located on the section of the property with a greater incline than the land toward the middle of the property. Fact#3 —At the expense of my rights to zoning regulations, open space, and privacy desired when I built my house in 1985, the applicant selfishly erected the replacement pool in a location of his property to preserve his own open space and view disregarding those of the adjacent property holder. Conclusion Over the past five years four Building Permits were personally or by contractors received for repairs or renovation to my property. The permits were received to ensure that the repairs or renovations were performed and completed in accordance with established building codes. I believe that the Zoning Board of Appeal should not approve this variance request due to the gross negligence of the applicant. Even though significant time and efforts would be required of the applicant to remedy the situation,I believe that I as the adjacent property holder should not be the one giving up his privacy due to his neighbor negligence. r YYSpalini yd 42 Debbie Drive South Windsor, Connecticut, 06074 October 23, 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue RECE!'!� South Windsor,CT. 06074 Dear Board of Appeals: Thank you for your reply to our request for a variance to section 4.1.4e. We have some questions in regard to your suggestion of moving the goat shelter as far back on the property as possible. The back yard is approximately fifty feet wide from the back of the house to the start of the densely wooded area of our property. Our proposed position of the shelter is just about on the tree line and putting it any further back on the property would require the cutting down of many trees. Is this what you are suggesting that we do? The pen area for the goats and for that matter, any animal, requires pretty much full sunshine to keep the area dry and minimize any potential odor issues. The putting of the shelter in the dense woods would certainly run counter to this. We certainly appreciate your offer to reconsider our application,but your guidance is necessary so that our new application be in sync with the thinking of the Board, so that we do not waste everyone's time and efforts. We have a couple of associated questions in regards to this matter. What is the timeframe in which we would make a new application,based on the guidance of the Board? Do we still have to wait six months? Would the Building Department be a source of information for us, as they were cc'ed on your reply? Yours Truly J � Raymond Conrad Patricia Conrad 4OwN 7 ~ T-Own ar m 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE•SOUTH WINDSOR,CT 06074-2786 ��tiOsoR:co��,� AREA CODE 860/6442511 FAX 860/64 -3781 November 1, 2000 Certified Mail Gardner Chapman 115 West Road Ellington, CT 06029 LOCATION: Avery Street, Chase Orchards Subdivision ZONE: Rural Residential (RR) Re: Withdrawal of Cease and Desist Order dated June 12, 2000 Dear Mr. Chapman: It is my understanding that a Settlement Agreement has been executed between you and the Town of South Windsor resolving the issues raised in my Cease and Desist Order to you dated June 12, 2000. Those issues pertained to your use of an accessway from Chase Orchards to your property in Vernon. Based upon this settlement, the Cease and Desist Order of June 12, 2000 is hereby withdrawn and I have so notified The South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals by copy of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at 644-2511, ext. 229. Sincerely, Jeffrey H. Folger Zoning/Wetland Enforcement Officer CC: Zoning Board of Appeals Planning/Zoning Commission Director of Planning Town Attorney FROH : LABELLE,LABELLE,NAAH&HORVATHI PHONE NO. Nov. 02 2000 01:01PM P3 LAW OFFICES OF L,ABELLE, LABELLE, NAAB & HO kVATH, P.C. 295 EAST CENTER STREET MANCHESTETt,CT 0604U JOHN D.LABELLP JOHN D.LAEELLE,JR. TELEPHONL (660)647_7000 GEOFFREY NAAB TELFCOPI$R,(860)645-0524 LEONARD M.HORVATH VIA FAX AND REGULAR MAIL TO: ZOnina Board of Appeals Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074-2786 The undersigned hereby withdraws the appeal of Gardner L. Chapman to the Zoning Board of Appeals filed on July 10, 2000 . Dated at Manchester, Connecticut, this 2nd day of November, 2000 . GARDNER L. CHAPMAN By John D. LaBelle His Attorney FROM : LABELLE,LABELLE,NAAB&HORVATHI PHONE NO. Nov. 02 2000 01:OOPM P2 L%OFFTGES OF L,kBELLE, LA,BELLE, N'AAB & HORVATH, P.C. 295.EAST CiEiNTFR STREET M&NCHF-STER,CT 06040 JOHN D.LA,aELLE jOk1N D.LABELLE,,f R. 'XEIEPFT4NE: (860)647-7004 TEY.ECOPiER.(860)6454524 GEOFFREY NAAB LEONARD M.HORVATH VIA FAX AND REGULAR MAIL November 2, 2000 Barry D. Guliano, Esq. Town Attorney Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Barry: RE: GARDNER L. CHAPMAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS As requested, I enclose withdrawal of Mr . Chapman' s appea,JpL Very truly yours, John D. LaBelle JDL:L Enclosure FROM : LABELLE,LABELLE,NAAB&HORVATHI PHONE NO. Nov. 02 2000 01:00PM P1 I.ABEi,LE, LABELhE, NAAB & FIORVATH, p.C. 295 East Center Street Manchester, CT 06040 (860 FAX NUMBER: (860) 000 647-0295 FACSIMYLE TWW814leajoN COVER SHEET _ DATE; 11 Z UO Y TIME: 11-40 r0' Town Attorne FROM: SUBJECT: GAM)NER L. CHAPM N -- ZBA TOTAL WJ=Ek OF' PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) 2 If you do not receive all of the pages, or if you have difficulty with ' the transmission, please call the telephone number above and ask for _ Jean MEMO: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or caLiLy to which iL is addcesaW and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT From disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of thin message is noL Lhe iuLcuded reuipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified LhaL any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. Yf you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the Manchester Office, which address in given above, via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. RECEIVED SEP 12 2003 Dear Mr. Warren, SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, 9/10/03 I am a single, recently divorced, mother and homeowner living at 879 Avery Street in South Windsor. Some time last year my neighbor at 871 Avery Street, took out a variance, unbe- known to me, to build an attached 2-car garage, plus addition onto his home. The reason he applied for a variance is because he wanted to build 9 feet from my side property line. The neighborly thing for him to do would have been to approach me with this proposal. Knowing that I would have been the only one affected by this structure, he opted not to approach me personally. Being a contractor, he knew the procedures and maneuvers to avoid having to deal with me on this matter. He correctly assumed that I would not be aware of, understand, nor even question the procedures of the variance that was posted on that property. The way I found out about this addition or application for variance was after construction had begun. I feel this was very devious and underhanded. I am sorry that I am not knowledgeable or educated when it comes to the ins and outs of building a structure in this town. I am a first time homeowner and do not know anything about variances, permits or what is involved with building additions to peoples homes. Nor would I think I'd have to. Putting a piece of paper on someone's tree does not tell me a thing. I had no idea.- nor would even think to question that it would have had anything to do with my property or me. What business do I have walking onto another person's property to read a sign. A sign that was definitely not readable from my property line. I do not recall noticing a sign. I do not subscribe to any newspaper. Nor do I think if I had, I would have seen it or understood it there either. The next thing I knew, construction was underway and a foundation was being poured right on top of me. Being a single mother, I spend much of my time in Maine and Florida visiting my family. I am also away on business several times a year. If I spent 2=3 months away from my home during the year, does this give someone the right to apply and get approved for this gigantic structure with out my knowledge? This addition is double the size of his exciting home and twice as high. The way my property is laid out, his foundation is only a few feet from my driveway, not the existing 20 feet that I had when I bought my home. I bought this home because it was inviting and appealing for myself, my family and especially my successful home based beauty salon. I will loose the attractive vista that I once had and have became very accustomed to. I feel this structure is intrusive, and imposes on my visual and personal rights as a homeowner. It is so close to me that it gives the feeling and appearance of an alleyway. This structure will not only affect the value, but more importantly the overall appeal of my property in the future. I'm very upset that this has happened to me. I've spent months agonizing over the unjust ways that this was done. The mental anguish that this has caused me is well justified. I feel if I was notified by the building/zoning department by a certified letter, something in my hands, something that I would have had to sign for, I would have been well informed of these happenings, and able to protect myself. The way this was handled, and the way this town conducted this variance/building procedure, was very unfair and wrong. The very thing that was supposed to protect the homeowner did not protect me at all. I'm frustrated and sick over this whole thing. Where are my rights as a taxpayer in this town? It seems I have lost my rights. My rights were taken away from me the day this town granted this variance without my knowledge. The gentleman next door in question is a "live-in" boyfriend, who is a building contractor, "of some sorts," and understands the underhanded "loop- holes" regarding this matter. Please find enclosed pictures of this property in question. You will also see that nothing has been done to the property in over a year. Only the foundation has been put in. Weeds and debris have been sitting making the property look condemned and not lived in. This is significantly hurting my business. I find it very hard to imagine why the town has not been aware of this. Sincerely; Deborah L. Haynes �SowN a t� s To� OPSC� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 tiosOA'cO�� TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511 December 8, 2003 Certified Mail Patrick Bannon DBB.Management, LLC 111 Farm Brook Lane South Windsor, CT 06074 LOCATION: Hartford Truck Equipment Inc. 67 McGuire Road (General Commercial Zone) Dear Mr. Bannon: This letter is in response to the truck parts and equipment which continue to be stored on the property, visible from McGuire Road and John Fitch Boulevard, without the appropriate approvals. You had met with the Assistant Director of Planning, Michele.Lipe, back in August of this year. It was our understanding that you would be applying for outdoor storage as well as approval for an off-site parking facility across the street from Hartford Truck Equipment Inc.. SOUTH WINDSOR ZONING REGULATION: Section 3.15 Commercial and Industrial Storage and Section 13.2 Off-Street Parking and Loading are enclosed. As you have been made aware, all outdoor storage and off-site parking requires approvals from the Planning &Zoning Commission. Please submit an application to Planning &Zoning Commission as soon as possible so that no further enforcement action would be required. If there are any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at 644-2511, ext. 251. Si cerely, Connor Zoning Enforcement Officer X. c;. CC: Director of Planning Town Attorney Hal Cummings Hartford Truck Equipment SOWN Sfq 7-0-u �I V 074C So� �• O J a w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR.00 AREA CODE 860/644-2511 June 16, 2004 Mr. John H. Wrynn 195 Wood pond Road South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Mr. Wrynn: The Board is in receipt of your request for a waiver of the Zoning Enforcement Appeal application fee of$160.00. The Zoning Board of Appeals can not consider the merits of this appeal without an application submitted. Once an application is submitted the Board is required to hold a public hearing and advertising fees are then incurred. This process is required by law. We apologize that we can not assist you, however if you wish to go through this process, you can contact the Planning Department at 644-2511 extension 252 for the appropriate paper work. Thank you, Step en Wagner, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals June 1, 2004 Mr. Stephen Wagner RECEIVED Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Town of South Windsor JUN 0 12004 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Re: 186 Wood Pond Rd. (RR Residential Zone) Dear Chairman Wagner, I am writing you to request a waiver of the Appeal Application Fee of$ 160. My request is based on an incorrect decision made by Zoning Enforcement Officer Joy O'Connor, dated April 28,2004,thereby forcing me into an Appeal. The decision was incorrect because the information supplied by the owner of the Mack truck on which the decision was made was not correct and not supported by the facts. The facts contradict the information supplied by the owner of the Mack truck. The facts are that the Mack truck in question is registered as an`Early American"commercial vehicle not an antique. According to Sergeant Don Bridge of the Connecticut Motor Vehicle Department, Mack trucks are commercial vehicles and require a commercial license to drive on roads in Connecticut due to safety requirements of such large vehicles. Another fact,the Mack truck does have advertisement on the door as follows "Rusted Nut Garage". Another fact,the owner runs a commercial operation from his garage by repairing and rebuilding vehicles then selling them. He has sold more than one vehicle and currently has another just completed vehicle which I am sure he will be selling at one of the"shows"he aledgedly goes to. If I had been given the opportunity to submit these facts I believe the decision would have been different. I ask that the original decision be reconsidered or if that is not possible that you waive the Appeal filing fee and give me a chance to present this information to you. Newspaper articles over the past several weeks leave me to believe that South Windsor prides itself in having a safe and visually pleasing appearance to our town. A large Mack truck with a huge diesel engine is unhealthy and not suited for a residential neighborhood with small children playing and riding bicycles in the road. Your favorable consideration would be appreciated. Sincerely, H. Wrynn f 195 Wood Pond Rd. South Windsor, CT 06074 - CO c.c_S 4-6,. f OwN rl ()Ia k c)- "FY ,2 4) i L I /C CLOC"_ RETURN DATE: MARCH 29, 2005 SUPERIOR COURT JOY L. O'CONNOR, ZONING : ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MARCIA A. BANACH, PLANNING HARTFORD DIRECTOR V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, ET AL. FEBRUARY 9, 2005 CITATION You are hereby commanded by the authority of the State of Connecticut to summon the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut; Finn-Daniels Architects, Inc., with offices at 2145 Ford Parkway, Suite 201, St. Paul, Minnesota 55116; Poag & McKewn Lifestyle Centers-Connecticut LLC, with offices at 6410 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38119; Evergreen Walk Lifestyle Center LLC, with offices at 6410 Poplar Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38119; and Christopher & Banks Corporation, with offices at 2400 Xenium Lane North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441, to appear before the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford on the Return Date of March 29, 2005, then and there to answer the attached Appeal of Marcia A. Banach in her capacity as Planning Director of the Town of South Windsor, and of Joy L. O'Connor in her capacity as SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP • COUNSELORSAT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 061 03-1 91 9 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251-5099 • JURIS NO.57385 Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of South Windsor, both with offices at 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, Connecticut, by leaving two (2) true and attested copies of this Citation and the attached Appeal, at least twelve (12) days before the Return Date, with or at the usual place of abode of Gretchen Bickford, Clerk of the Town of South Windsor, South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074, and by serving, at least twelve (12) days before the Return Date, Finn-Daniels Architects, Inc. by registered mail, return receipt requested or as otherwise provided by law; by serving Poag & McKewn Lifestyle Centers-Connecticut LLC by serving its agent for service, Corporation Service Company, 50 Weston Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06120; by serving Evergreen Walk Lifestyle Center LLC by serving its agent for service, Corporation Service Company, 50 Weston Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06120; and by serving Christopher & Banks Corporation by serving its agent for service, CT Corporation System, One Commercial Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut 06103. Such appearances shall not be made in person, but shall be made by filing a statement of appearance with the Clerk of the Superior Court, whose address is 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut on or before the second day following the Return Date. Marcia Banach as Planning Director of the Town of South Windsor, and Joy L. O'Connor as Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town of South 2 SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP • COUNSELORSATL4W ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251-5099 • JURIS NO.57385 Windsor, as principals, and Alan Jones, 36 Auburn Road, West Hartford, Connecticut 06119, as surety, are recognized in the amount of$500 to comply with all orders and decrees entered hereunder. Hereof fail not, but of this writ with your actions thereon make due service and return according to law. Dated this 9th day of February, 2005 at Hartford, Connecticut. hristopher J Smith Commission r of the Superior Court 394070 v.01 S 1 . I SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP • COUNSELORS AT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251.5099 • JURIS NO.57385 RETURN DATE: MARCH 29, 2005 SUPERIOR COURT JOY L. O'CONNOR, ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MARCIA A. BANACH, PLANNING HARTFORD DIRECTOR V. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, ET AL. FEBRUARY 9, 2005 APPEAL 1. Plaintiff Marcia A. Banach ("Banach") is an individual who is employed by the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut, as the Planning Director ("Planning Director"). Banach brings this appeal in her official capacity of Planning Director. 2. Plaintiff Joy L. O'Connor ("O'Connor") is an individual who is employed by the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut, as the Zoning Enforcement Officer ("ZEO"). O'Connor brings this appeal in her official capacity of ZEO. 3. Pursuant to the South Windsor Zoning Regulations ("Regulations") § 18.1, "it shall be the duty of the Planning Director or designee to enforce the provisions of these regulations and to make such orders and decisions as may be necessary to carry out the intent thereof." Plaintiff ZEO O'Connor is the designee of Planning Director Banach with respect 1 SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP • COUNSELORSATLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251-5099 • JURIS NO.57385 to the day-to-day actions of zoning enforcement for the Town of South Windsor. In the event that O'Connor is unable to conduct enforcement, Banach is the party who enforces the Regulations. 4. Defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the.Town of South Windsor (the "ZBA") is the municipal agency established by the Town of South Windsor to receive and act upon applications for variations of the Regulations pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-6 and 8-7. 5. In October 2000, the Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission ("PZC") developed and ultimately adopted amendments to § 17.8.5 of the Regulations for the Buckland Gateway Development Zone ("Gateway Zone") that address numerous design issues, including signage for retail stores within the Gateway Zone. During this zoning amendment process, the project manager for a proposed retail development known as the Shops at Evergreen Walk ("Evergreen Walk"), that was/is owned by defendant Poag & McEwen Lifestyle Centers-Connecticut LLC (also doing business in Connecticut as defendant Evergreen Walk Lifestyle Center LLC) (collectively "Owners"), was integrally involved in the preparation of the signage portion of the amendments to the Gateway Zone. 6. In early October 2004, the PZC sponsored and adopted an amendment to the signage provisions of the Regulations in the Gateway Zone to accommodate signage requested 2 i I SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP • COUNSELORSATLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251-5099 • JURIS NO.57385 r by Evergreen Walk. This amendment created substantial flexibility in the signage provisions of the Regulations for the retail tenants at Evergreen Walk. 7. Later in October 2004, defendant Finn-Daniels Architects, Inc., as agent for defendant retail company called "Christopher & Banks, (collectively "Applicant") filed a request for a variance of § 17.8.5 of the Regulations with the ZBA pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-6 and 8-7, and § 18.4 of the Regulations ("Request"). Christopher & Banks is a tenant at Evergreen Walk. 8. The Request sought a variance of the Gateway Zone signage requirements to allow additional signage near the rear entrance of the area leased by defendant Christopher & Banks. Christopher & Banks previously used the maximum signage permitted by the Regulations for signage on the front fargade of its retail store. 9. The ZBA scheduled a hearing on the Request for December 2, 2004, but at the Applicant's request, the hearing was continued to the January 6, 2005. Due to weather conditions, the hearing was postponed on January 6, 2005, and was held on January 20, 2005. 10. The support documentation submitted with the Request by the defendant Applicant to the ZBA does not describe a valid "legal hardship" for which a variance would 3 SHIPMAN&GOODWIN*LLP • COUNSELORSATLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 061 03-1 91 9 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251-5099 • JURIS NO.57385 be necessary, as required by Connecticut land use law. Instead, Applicant Finn-Daniels, as a basis for an alleged "legal hardship," expressed a policy disagreement with the formula for calculating the permitted signage for the leased areas at Evergreen Walk as provided by the Gateway Zone Regulations, claiming that the formula should be applied to exclude any area without lettering, even if that area falls within the dimensions set forth in the Regulations. 11. Despite the absence of a "legal hardship," the ZBA voted to approve the Request at its meeting on January 20, 2005 ("ZBA's Decision"). 12. Notice of the ZBA's Decision was published in the Journal Enquirer on January 25, 2005. 13. The ZBA's Decision is improper, illegal, ultra vires, and constitutes an abuse of discretion, for the following reasons: a. the Decision exceeds the scope of authority delegated to the ZBA as provided by Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-6 and 8-7, and § 18.4 of the Regulations; b. the Decision was made without the establishment of legal hardship, as required by law; C. the Decision is not supported by the substantial evidence of the administrative record; and 4 SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP - COUNSELORSAT LAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA - HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 - (860)251-5000 - FAX(860)251-5099 - JURIS NO.57385 d. the Decision is based upon economic hardship and/or the mere convenience of the defendants Applicant and Owners which do not constitute legal hardship, as required by law. 14. Plaintiffs O'Connor and Banach are aggrieved by the ZBA's Decision pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 8-8 because they are charged with enforcement of the Regulations pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-6 and 8-7, and § 18.1 of the Regulations. The decision rendered by the ZBA is in violation of § 17.8.5 and § 18.4 of the Regulations. Plaintiffs are permitted and/or required to take action to enforce the provisions of the Regulations. Plaintiffs have a specific, personal and legal interest in the subject of the ZBA's Decision pertaining to their zoning enforcement responsibilities and authority, and such specific, personal and legal interest has been specially and injuriously affected by the ZBA's decision. Therefore, plaintiffs are aggrieved. 5 SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP • COUNSELORSATLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251-5099 • JURIS NO.57385 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief: 1. That this appeal be sustained, and the variance issued by the defendant Town of South Windsor ZBA on January 20, 2005 be held void; and 2. The Court grant such other relief at law or in equity as the Court may deem appropriate. PLAINTIFFS, JOY L. O'CONNOR, ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, AND MARCIA A. BANACH, PLANNING DI OR OF THE TOWN OF UTH OR By Christ h r J. Smith Amy E. Souchuns For Shipman & Goodwin LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-1919 (860) 251-5000 (860) 251-5318 (fax) Juris No. 57385 Their Attorneys 6 SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP • COUNSELORSATLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251-5099 • JURIS NO.57385 Please enter the appearance of Shipman& Goodwin LLP on beh all plain ' s. Shipman& G od in LLP Juris No. 573 5 394070 v.01 S2 7 SHIPMAN&GOODWIN®LLP • COUNSELORSATLAW ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA • HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 • (860)251-5000 • FAX(860)251-5099 JURIS NO.57385 .4 ~ ap soo 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 �OsoR.co�'� TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511 April 6, 2005 Certified/First-Class Mail Patrick Bannon DBB Management, LLC 111 Farm Brook Lane South Windsor, CT 06074 LOCATION: Hartford Truck Equipment Inc. 67 McGuire Road (GC Zone) Dear Mr. Bannon: Truck parts and other equipment continue to be stored on the property, visible from McGuire Road and John Fitch.Boulevard, without the appropriate approvals. The.Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) had approved the zone change for the property adjacent to your present site on January 4, 2005. It was represented at the PZC hearing that you would be applying to the Planning and Zoning Commission for site plan approval!-bufwe-have not seen anythin-from you. It is felt that we have given you more than enough time to accomplish this. Please submit the application for site plan approval as soon as possible, so that no further enforcement action need be taken. Outdoor storage other than what is specifically approved by the PZC is not allowed. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Feel free to contact me at 644-2511, ext. 251 if there are any questions. YLe. relyVonn or Zoning Enforcement Officer CC: Director of Planning Town Attorney Design Professionals T _ _ DOCKET NO.: HHD CV OS 4012958 S . SUPERIOR COURT KUPCHUNOS, MARYLOU AND : J. D. OF HARTFORD/NEW BRITAIN KUPCHUNOS, SUSAN V. AT HARTFORD SOUTH WINDSOR ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 8, 2006 OF APPEALS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, MARYLOU KUPCHUNOS and SUSAN KUPCHUNOS (hereinafter "Kupchunos") commenced an action against the SOUTH WINDSOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (hereinafter "ZBA") under Docket #: HHD CV-05-4012958 S in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford; and WHEREAS, the parties have concluded that it is in their best interest to resolve the appeal by voluntary settlement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: 1. a) Kupchunos will apply to the ZBA for variances necessary to create a 3-lot subdivision upon the premises which was the subject of the appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals and thence the appeal to the Court located at 178 Graham Road in the Town of South Windsor. 2. If the ZBA, after a hearing under their statutory authority, grants the variances required for the 3-lot subdivision upon conditions acceptable to Kupchunos; then, Kupchunos shall withdraw the pending appeal upon approval of the settlement and withdrawal of the appeal by the Court pursuant to statute. 3. Following approval of the settlement agreement by the Court, Kupchunos will proceed to the Town Planning & Zoning Commission for approval of the subdivision. Within 180 days of the final approval of the subdivision by the Town Planning & Zoning Commission, including the final resolution in favor of Kupchunos of any appeals of any such approval, Kupchunos shall remove the existing structures from the property at 178 Graham Road. 4. Each of the parties understands that they will be responsible for their own attorney's fees, costs and expenses related to the appeal, this settlement and the final resolution of the matter. 5. Each of the parties to this agreement represents, warrants and agrees as follows: a) Each party has received independent legal advice from his/its attorneys, with respect to the advisability of making the settlement provided for herein, and with respect to the advisability of executing this Agreement. b) Each party to this Agreement has made such investigation of the facts pertaining to this settlement and this Agreement and of all the matters pertaining thereto as it deems necessary. c) Each party or responsible officer thereof has read this Agreement and understands the contents hereof. Each of the officers executing this Agreement on behalf of their respective entity is empowered to do so and thereby binds his or her respective entity. d) The parties will execute all such further and additional documents as may be reasonable, convenient, necessary or desirable to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement. 6. This Agreement affects the settlement of claims which are denied and contested, and nothing contained herein shall be construed as an admission by either party of any liability of any kind to any other party. The parties further stipulate and agree not to characterize the terms of this Agreement to any third party. 7. a) This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed and delivered within the State of Connecticut, and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of Connecticut. b) This Agreement is the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreement and discussions. This Agreement may be amended only by an agreement in writing. c) This Agreement is binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective agents, employees, representatives, officers, directors, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, assigns, heirs, successors in interest and shareholders. d) Each party has cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. Hence, in any construction to be made of this Agreement, the same shall not be construed against any party. e) This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and when each parry has signed and delivered at least one such counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be binding upon and effective as to all parties. Dated this day of February, 2006. TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS By: Its Chairman Marylou Kupchunos Susan Kupchunos STATE OF CONNECTICUT) ) SS: COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) Personally Appeared Chairman, SOUTH WINDSOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, as aforesaid, Signer of the foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged the same to be the authorized and free act and deed, and the free act and deed of said SOUTH WINDSOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, before me. Commissioner of the Superior Court STATE OF CONNECTICUT) ) SS: COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) Personally Appeared MARYLOU KUPCHUNOS, as aforesaid, Signer of the foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged the same to be her free act and deed, before me. Wayne Christopher Gerlt Commissioner of the Superior Court STATE OF CONNECTICUT) ) SS: COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) Personally Appeared MARYLOU KUPCHUNOS, as aforesaid, Signer of the foregoing Instrument, and acknowledged the same to be her free act and deed, before me. Wayne Christopher Gerlt Commissioner of the Superior Court Town of S 50 ,I --F96 & 1 4 Suffivan /Z '�-••��j /J - NOS \. i/ ' SCOT BREEZY i t 1 ! 1 i _ ti A ROAD of / Oj / 1/N F= 0,11 0 0.2 0.3 o,4 0.6 Miles ---- -- ----s__— _— __ ------ -------- S �r r� ry ,y�rri.�z v �A1 ...... R Umq 40TE 1a'. g�O.E �i'A.QO 2 v�R i A� c1� t, a° I f 24 6op- iP I lV 1 j k 40 I q7 38 WJAJO ie2tbO1;,06 ;o.4rz0 or APIPIFALs oP- �� ��n � `r-A►' ap J^ni ANce �Z SAND HILL ROAD ZY k hNtcR� `� C � F 4$ O O A LANE �e�� H� L N '0 'Q1- G� South Windsor N CONDOS rnnecticut General Map ,s 18 Heritage Drive 0 PARCELS ' Date Printed: April 29,2005 Sao Feet ROAD NAMES 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 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 representatic and selected data,and the map is subject to change as more accurate surveys may disclose. Property boundaries mapped as of June 4,2001. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT entered into this �� day of November, 2000, by and between the TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, a municipal corporation in the Town of South Windsor, County of Hartford, and State of Connecticut (hereinafter called "TOWN" ) and GARDNER L. CHAPMAN, of the Town of Ellington, County of Tolland, and State of Connecticut (hereinafter called "CHAPMAN") , in consideration of the undertakings and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows : WITNESSETH WHEREAS, CHAPMAN owned a contiguous parcel of land in the towns of South Windsor and Vernon; and WHEREAS, CHAPMAN used the South Windsor land as an entrance to his Vernon land; and WHEREAS, CHAPMAN sold the South Windsor land to Chase Orchards; and WHEREAS, the TOWN approved a residential subdivision for the South Windsor land; and WHEREAS, CHAPMAN, in the deed to Chase Orchards, included the following clause: "The grantor herein hereby reserves for himself, his heirs and assigns, the right to use the streets shown on the said subdivision map in the Town of South Windsor for all purposes for which a highway may be used and to connect to said streets through the stubs shown on the aforesaid map; " and WHEREAS, the TOWN, through its zoning enforcement LABELLE,LABELLE officer, issued a cease and desist order ordering CHAPMAN to NAAB&HORVATH,P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW cease utilizing the stub access to his Vernon land which he was 295 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER,CT developing for a multi-family use, alleging 06040 p g Y ging that it was not (860)647-7000 zoned for such use; and WHEREAS, CHAPMAN appealed the cease and desist order to the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals, which appeal is still pending; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to settle this dispute and -1- set forth the limits of the use of the South Windsor accessway; and WHEREAS, pursuant to permits and approvals by the Town of Vernon, the Corps of Engineers, and the State Traffic Commission, CHAPMAN is to construct a bridge across the Hockanum River to access his Vernon land to Route 83 in Vernon; and WHEREAS, the bridge construction is scheduled for completion on or about November 15, 2000 . NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows : 1. CHAPMAN agrees that only a twenty-foot-wide paved driveway shall connect his Vernon land to the Vernon-South Windsor border. 2 . CHAPMAN agrees to maintain said driveway. 3 . CHAPMAN agrees that he will not make any application to make the driveway above described a town of Vernon street . 4 . The State Traffic Commission has ordered that CHAPMAN install a gate at the South Windsor town line where the above-mentioned driveway will connect . 5 . CHAPMAN agrees to comply with the State Traffic Commission order, and the gate is scheduled to be installed by November 15, 2000. 6. The gate will be electronically controlled by code or electronic device. 7. CHAPMAN agrees to install a gate which is LABELLE,LABELLE architecturally compatible with the Chase Orchards development; NAAB&HORVATH,P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW install physical border, plantings, rocks or fence between 295 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER,CT Chase Orchards and the Vernon development to be contiguous with 06040 (660)647-7000 the gate to prohibit cutting around the gate; in the emergency access from the gate at the Vernon town line to the Kingsley Drive cul-de-sac, will install a suitable base to carry emergency vehicles but be seeded over with grass rather than paved with gravel or any other road or drive surface; the curb -2- on Kingsley Drive at the emergency access shall not be fully cut, but rather be at least one-half of the height of a I standard curb to discourage non-emergency use of the access while allowing emergency use; install a "No Trespassing/ Emergency Use Only" sign on the Vernon side of the gate facing the Vernon development. 8 . CHAPMAN agrees that, as soon as the bridge is completed and the gate installed, he will use the stub connection to and from South Windsor only for emergency purposes . 9 . Emergency purposes shall be defined as use by police, fire apparatus, ambulance services, emergency medical service vehicles, municipal vehicles, state vehicles and for emergency use by CHAPMAN if the bridge is temporarily closed. 10 . The TOWN agrees that it will not authorize public vehicular traffic from South Windsor to access the gate and use the driveway. 11. The TOWN reserves the right to access the gate and use the driveway for purposes of maintaining, repairing, replacing, and the like, storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines presently running from the Chase Orchard Subdivision across CHAPMAN' s Vernon land. 12 . CHAPMAN agrees that, while the bridge construction is being finished, he will not use the stub and driveway for passage by construction equipment, provided he is able to access the Vernon property through Gerber ' s land. LABELLE,LABELLE Construction equipment shall include the blasting truck, NAAB&HORVATH,P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAIN portable toilet trucks and fuel trucks, but shall not include 295 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER, CT pickup trucks and workers ' personal vehicles . 06040 13 . The cost to maintain, repair, and replace the (660)647-7000 gate shall be paid by CHAPMAN. 14 . This Agreement shall be binding on CHAPMAN' s heirs and assigns and on the TOWN, its successors and assigns . 15 . This Agreement shall be recorded in the Land -3- Records of the Town of South Windsor and the Town of Vernon and its terms are intended to run with the land and be binding upon the successors in title to CHAPMAN for his parcel in Vernon which he is developing for a multi-family use and which is accessed by the intended electronic gate and emergency access way and to the TOWN for its parcel running from the cul-de-sac at Kingsley Drive to the Vernon town line as depicted on a map entitled "CHASE ORCHARDS SUBDIVISION MAP PREPARED FOR CHASE ASSOCIATES SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT--ENGITEK LUCHS A DIVISION OF ENGITEK, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 12 NATIONAL DRIVE, GLASTONBURY, CT 06033 PHONE (860) 633-9401 FAX (860) 633 8851 A-97-39-S5 SHEET 8 OF 27 REV 03/03/98 -- TOWN COMMENTS REV 05/19/98 -- TOWN COMMENTS REV 05/27/98 -- GEN. REV 06/28/99 -- ADJUST PROP. LINE REV 07/27/99 REMOVE CUL-DE-SAC, " said map being on file in the Town Clerk' s Office in said Town of South Windsor. 16 . The TOWN agrees to withdraw its cease and desist order on the signing of this Agreement. 17. CHAPMAN agrees to withdraw his appeal to the TOWN zoning board of appeals upon the signing of this Agreement and the withdrawal of the cease and desist order . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto do hereunto set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in thedprsence of : TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR 9 L-- By LABELLE,LABELLE Its Town' anag r NAAB&HORVATH,RC. ' Hereunto duly authorized ATTORNEYS AT LAW 295 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER,CT / �-� 06040 (860)647-7000 v �u `t Gardner L. Chhpman rJ��tr� L arn�rrz�>. STATE OF CONNECTICUT) ) ss : South Windsor November �_, 2000 COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) On this the is day of November, 2000, before -4- 4 ti me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared B40 (A who acknowledged himself to be the Town Manager of the TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, a municipal corporation, and that he as such Town Manager being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained, by signing the name of the said corporation by himself as Town Manager. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal . Commissioner of the Superior Court Notary Public; My Comm. Expires : a-13 f IaYi 3 STATE OF CONNECTICUT) ) ss: Manchester COUNTY OF HARTFORD ) On th' s the �-�X day of November, 2000, before me, �s2CtR? the undersigned officer, personally appeared GARDNER L. CHAPMAN known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained, as his free act and deed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal . CrAffim V�.rcrr �'• G..Ceinc?s�Z m�t-her--Su-per ar--Court Notary Public; My Comm. Expires : LABELLE,LABEL.LE NAAS&HORVATH,P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 295 EAST CENTER ST. MANCHESTER, CT 06040 (860)647-7000 -5- 0470A