HomeMy WebLinkAboutApp13-44P Evergreen Walk Unit 14 TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION
APPLICATION FORM RECEIVED
Application Number:
Official Receipt Date: /O / OCT.0 4 2013
Munis Application #: ojj SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
APPLICANT: Evergreen Walk,LLC
PROJECT NAME: Evergreen Walk Unit 14
COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 151 Buckland Road,Unit 14
OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: Evergreen Walk,LLC
OWNER ADDRESS: 1109 Rose Lane,Virginia Beach,VA 23451
GIS PIN# 15300151 ZONE GDZ
NAME,ADDRESS,TELEPHONE&EMAIL ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED:
Philip Forzley(860)646-2469,x5235-pforzley@fando.com
Estimated presentation time: 1 hour
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply):
❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required)
❑ Open Space Subdivision/Resubdivision (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required)
❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor ❑ Major
❑ Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Minor ❑ Major
❑ Conditional`Subdivision
❑ Special Exception to Table (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required)
❑ Site Plan of Development ❑ New ❑ Modification Building(s) Sq Ft > d7}-n
❑ General Plan of Development
❑ Dept of Motor Vehicle License- State Hearing per Section 14-55 for
❑ Earth Filling (Sec. 7.6) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 7.16) (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required)
❑ Regulation Amendment ❑ Zoning ❑ Subdivision-Attach proposed.amendment (Public Hearing Required)
❑ Temporary and Conditional Permit (Public Hearing and Certificate of Mailing Required) for
❑ Temporary and Conditional Permit Renewal (Certificate of Mailing Required) for
❑ Detached In Law Apartment or❑Accessory Apartment (Public Hearing and.Certificate of Mailing Required)
❑ Major Home Occupation (Certificate of Mailing Required) for
❑ Other (explain in detail)
*An Application Pending Sign is required to be posted on the property for all applications ten (10) days
prior to being heard by the Commission.
u�
a e of jLicant
S' atur ofzec
rty Owner
Ever een W 1C Evergre i Wa
By John Finguerra,its Member By John Finguerra,its Member
F SS&a NEILL, ❑56 Quarry Road,Trumbull,CT 06611 0317 Iron Horse Way,Ste.204, Providence,RI 02908
TEL:(203)374-3748 FAX:(203)374-4391 TEL:(401)861-3070 FAX:(401)861-3076
❑78 Interstate Drive,West Springfield,MA 01089 ❑80 Washington Street,Ste.306,Poughkeepsie,NY 12601
®146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040 TEL:(413)452-0445 FAX:(413)846-0497 TEL: (800)286-2469 FAX:(845)452-5186
TEL:(860)646-2469 FAX:(860)533-5143
❑50 Redfield Street,Ste.100,Boston,MA 02122 ❑717 Lady Street,Suite E,Columbia,SC 29201
TEL:(617)282-4675 FAX:(617)282-8253 TEL:(803)376-6034 FAX:(803)376-6035
Letter of Transmittal
To: RECEIVED Data: October 41 2013
Town of South Windsor Pro' ct No: 2000481.W30 Task No.:100
Planning and Zoning Commission DO'T 0 4 2013
Town Hall,1540 Sullivan Avenue Re: Application for 151 Buckland Road,#14
South Windsor,CT 06074 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEFT. Evergreen Walk,LLC
Telephone No:
We are sending you: ®Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover ®via Courier
❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Prints ® Plans ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑ Reports ® Other
Copies Date No. ? Description
1 10/4/2013 an Wetlands,Watercourses and Conservation pplication
1 10/4/2013 Chec`k�or$360.00 for Application Fee
2 10/4/2013 Checklist—Required Information Site Plans
2 10/4/2013 Stormwater Management Summary for 151 Buckland Road,Unit 14
1 Abutters List to 151 Buckland Road,Unit 14
3 10/4/2013 Site Development Plans for 151 Buckland Road,Unit 14
® For approval ❑ Returned loaned prints ❑ Furnish as submitted
❑As requested ❑ Return signed original ❑ Furnish as noted
® For your use ❑ For bids due ❑ Rejected
❑ For review&comment ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Resubmit copies for approval
Signed:
Philip E. Forzley,P.E.
Senior Associate
F:\P2000\481\W30\Permitting\P&7.\Transmittal_20131004.docx
r, a
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CHECKLIST
REQUIRED INFORMATION SITE PLANS
APPLICANT Evergreen Walk, LLC
PROJECT NAME Unit 14 - Evergreen Walk
This checklist must be signed by plan preparer (P.E./L.S.) declaring that all required information
is provided. Items 1-7 are required for all applications; items 8-11 required where appropriate.
Check mark for each item supplied.
1. On each sheet for plans or maps, title block with the following information:
a. Name, address and telephone of applicant.
b. Name, address and telephone number of Land Surveyor or Professional
Engineer.
c. Name of Development.
d. Date when drawings were made.
2. Key Map: An overall map drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals either 100 feet or
200 feet. This map will show the overall design of the Development and
surrounding property within 500 feet.
a. Data block which gives needed zoning information such as percentage of
lot coverage, acreage of tract, number of apartment units, parking
requirements, etc.
b. Outline of buildings.
c. Layout of streets.
d. Surrounding property boundaries within 500 feet.
e. Names of abutting property owners.
N/A f. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas.
g. Driveway cuts on abutting properties and any properties across from
proposed site.
N/A h. Distance to and name of nearest intersection street.
N/A 3. Architectural Elevations: See attached checklist for Architecture and Design
Review.
1
z
4. Plot Plan: A layout map of the proposed site drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals
40 feet on either of the following size sheets: (1) 24" x 36" with a 3/4" ruled
margin; (2) 18" x 24" with a 1/2" ruled margin, containing the following data:
a. Distance and bearings of all boundary lines and acreage of site. Iron pins
required at all property angle points and shown on map.
N/A b. Proposed streets and street lines with center line station, curve data, and
parking spaces.
c. Building lines in accordance with zoning regulations.
d. Proposed buildings and other structures, including signs, outside lighting,
and dumpsters (on concrete pad and screened).
N/A e. Easements, noting grantors, grantees, and purpose must be shown in
table format, e.g. below
Grantor Grantee Type of Date Filed Vol/Pg
Easement
f. Names of abutting property owners.
N/A g. Monuments will be indicated at corners and angles of all streets and at all
points of curvature and tangency. The monumented points within
proposed site shall be coordinated. These coordinates shall appear in
tabular form on the plot plan. The accessibility of these CGS points shall
be determined by the Town Engineer.
N/A h. All open space or other common or public land uses shall be indicated.
i. A-2 certification; P.E./L.S. Seal
5. Topographic Map: A map drawn to a scale of 1 inch to 40 feet on sheets not
exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled margins shall in addition to
the requirements of the plot plans show the following:
a. All existing and proposed buildings.
b. Curb Lines and pavement width, sidewalks.
c. Existing and proposed sanitary sewers.
d. Existing and proposed water and-all existing utilities.
2
e. Present wooded area indicated by foliage lines. Any trees to be saved
should be shown.
f. Existing and proposed contours shall be shown in not less than two-foot
intervals, but in cases of relatively level land, the contours shall be one-
foot intervals and spot elevations.
g . Regulated wetlands and 100-year floodplain or note that none are
present.
h. Proposed storm drainage system, showing all catch basins, endwalls,
manholes, lengths and sizes of pipes and elevations of structures.
(Maximum distance between catch basins shall be 300 feet and minimum
size of storm drain lines shall be 15 inches, within Town ROW.) If
plan/profile sheet is provided all of this does not need to be shown. Only
top of frame elevations and inverts of open discharge pipe shall be shown
on this plan.
N/A L Connections of all springs into proposed storm drainage system as
needed.
j. Location and indications of existing brook channels, and 100-year flood
limits.
k. A-2 &T-2 Certification; P.E & L.S. Seals.
6. Landscaping plan
7. Drainage calculations: - Zero Runoff Increase per attached guidelines.
N/A 8. Traffic Report
9. Site Lighting Plan
10. Plans and Profiles: A plan and profile of the proposed streets drawn on
plan/profile paper of scales 1 inch to 40 feet horizontally, and 1 inch to 4 feet
vertically on sheets not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches, including ruled
margins and containing the following:
N/A a. Layout of streets in sections coordinated by stations with the profile.
b. Street plan showing roadways, drainage, sanitary sewer (including house
sewer), foundation drains, lot lines, buildings including all utilities with
elevations (top frame and inverts), size, type, length, slopes of pipes.
N/A c. Sight line at driveway &street intersections.
3
V
N/A d. Profile of roadway showing existing and finished grades. Roadway profile
will show all tangent grade and all vertical curve information.
N/A e. Profile will show all catch basins and all drainage lines between catch
basins with all invert and top of frame elevations, sizes, lengths and
slopes of pipes.
N/A f: Where any storm drainage line discharges into an existing brook sufficient
profile of this brook will be shown to determine conditions.
N/A g. CGS datum shall be used on all sites accessible to these controls. The
Town Engineer shall, based on standard engineering practices, determine
the accessibility of these controls.
N/A h. Profiles shall show all sanitary sewer lines and manholes, including
elevations, (inverts, top of frame) sizes, lengths, and slopes of pipes.
Top of foundation elevations for building shall be shown.
N/A 11. Open Space Site Improvement Plans: For sites which require or include a
provision for open spaces, a plan which contains data for site improvement
may be required. This map shall be drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals 40
feet.
N/A 12. Sanitary Report: Where individual sanitary sewage disposal systems are
proposed, the final plans shall include a Sanitary Report certified by a
Professional Engineer. The report shall demonstrate the feasibility of the
proposed individual systems.
PLAN PR PARER P.
') OFCOIyW
. y DATE
tag
�No.9a89T
�111At '
February 2002; Rev. 4-04
4
RECEIVED
SHIPMAN &GOODWINLLPO NOV 01 1013
COUNSELORS AT LAW
SOUTH WWDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
Christopher J. Smith
Phone: (860)251-5606
Fax: (860)251-5318
cjsmith@goodwin.com
October 31, 2013
Via Federal Express
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
Town Planner
Town of South Windsor
Planning & Zoning Commission
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074
RE: Application for final plan approval for Unit 14, Evergreen Walk, South
Windsor, Connecticut.
Dear Michele:
The purpose of this letter is to address whether the twenty-five foot setback applicable
to Deming Street in effect when Evergreen Walk, LLC ("Evergreen Walk") applied for and
received approval of a general plan of development for the Evergreen Walk mixed use
community in 2001 ("general plan approval"), applies to the above-referenced application for
final plan approval, or does the current regulatory sixty-five foot setback, which was adopted
in 2003 during a neighbor's appeal of the Commission's 2001 general plan approval, apply?
Evergreen Walk respectfully submits that for those reasons set forth below, the twenty-five
foot setback in effect when Evergreen Walk submitted its application for general plan of
development approval in 2001, applies to the subject application, as long as the final plan is
consistent with the general plan of development as approved by the Commission.
ONE CONSTITUTION PLAZA I HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-1919 1 860-251.5000 WWW.SHIPMANGOODWIN.COM
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
October 31, 2013
Page 2
L Facts:
A. Overview:
In June of 2001, Evergreen Walk requested approval from the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the Town of South Windsor ("Commission") of a general plan of development,
as provided by Section 8.1.2.1 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of South Windsor
("Regulations"). The general plan of development proposed a complex of retail, office,
lodging and recreational facilities on a two hundred and thirty-two (232) acre parcel of real
property located on Buckland Road in South Windsor ("subject property"). After public
hearing, the application was approved by the Commission on October 9, 2001. The
Commission's general plan approval was appealed to the Superior Court by a neighbor. After
years of litigation, the State Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general plan approval in
Gerlt v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of South Windsor, et al., 290 Conn.
300 (2009) ("Gerlt appeal"). (A copy of the Gerlt decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
B. Two-step approval process:
At the time of Evergreen Walk's general plan of development approval, the Regulations
provided a two-step approval process to permit large scale, mixed use development of
properties, like Evergreen Walk, designated within the Gateway Zone District. This
regulatory format is the same today. Specifically, the Regulations provide that a landowner
first submits an application for approval of a general plan of development. If the proposed
general plan of development is approved, the landowner may then submit an application for
final plan approval for a proposed use of a specific site within the general plan of development
area. The final plan application provides more technical plan details than required for general
plan approval. In addition, the final plan application must be consistent with the approved
general plan.
C. Five year time limitation tolled:
The Regulations don't currently provide a time limitation as to how long after the
approval of a general plan of development a landowner has to submit a detailed final plan
application. Currently, the Regulations don't provide a time limitation on a general plan
approval. However, when Evergreen Walk received general plan approval in 2001, the
Regulations provided that the approval was valid for five years. This five year limitation was
subsequently eliminated by the Commission. However, because this five year requirement was
in effect when Evergreen Walk applied for general plan approval, this five year time limitation
applies to Evergreen Walk's general plan approval.
30240860
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
October 31, 2013
Page 3
This five year time period concerning Evergreen Walk's general plan approval was, as
a matter of law, "tolled" by the Gerlt appeal, and did not commence until after the Gerlt
appeal was terminated with the State Supreme Court's decision in February of 2009.'
Otherwise, the five year time period for the 2001 general plan approval would have expired in
2006, three years before the Supreme Court's final decision on February 10, 2009. Therefore,
Evergreen Walk's general plan approval is valid through February 10, 2014.
D. Twenty-
five-foot setback required when Evergreen Walk's general plan
application submitted and approved in 2001:
When Evergreen Walk's general plan was approved in 2001, the Regulations required a
twenty-five foot setback for individual lots or units within Evergreen Walk along Deming
Street. In November of 2003, during the Gerlt appeal, which is discussed in greater detail in
the next section of this letter, this setback was increased from twenty-five feet to sixty-five
feet.
The issue addressed in this letter is whether the twenty-five foot setback that was in
effect when Evergreen Walk submitted its application for general plan approval in 2001, or the
sixty-five foot setback adopted by the Commission during the Gerlt appeal in 2003, applies to
the subject application seeking final plan approval to develop Unit 14, which is a unit within
the Evergreen Walk general plan approved by the Commission in 2001. It is Evergreen
Walk's position that the twenty-five foot setback in effect when Evergreen Walk submitted its
1 In Fromer v. Two Hundred Post Associates, et al., 32 Conn. App. 799 (1993), the
Connecticut Appellate Court held that the five year time period for an approval of a wetlands
permit was tolled when a related site plan and coastal area management site plan approval
were appealed. (A copy of the Fromer decision is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) The five year
time period for the wetlands approval was held not to commence until the related zoning and
CAM appeal was exhausted or terminated. This holding cited to decisions by the highest
courts in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont for support. This decision was followed
by the Connecticut Superior Court in Handsome, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Monroe, 2012 WL 6901173 (Radcliffe, J.), at p. 5. (A copy of Handsome, Inc.
is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) See also, Dean-Moss Family Limited Partnership v. Five
Mile River Works, Inc., 130 Conn. App. 363, 371-373 (2011). The Fromer Court recognized
that a neighbor could not appeal an approval and then claim that the approval, or related
approval, had lapsed during the appeal. The Court noted: "The regulatory process is not
designed to be a spider's web, snaring one who follows all of the regulations and statutes,
obtains all necessary permits, and successfully defends a series of appeals, but then loses his
right to proceed because the passage of time has caused the permits to expire." Fromer v.
Two Hundred Post Associates, supra, at p. 811.
30240860
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
October 31, 2013
Page 4
general plan of development application in June of 2001, which was approved by the
Commission in October of 2001, applies to all subsequent final plan applications to develop the
lots or units approved in the initial general plan, including Unit 14, so long as the final plan for
Unit 14 is consistent with the general plan approval.2
It is important to note that once Unit 14 is developed, there is no other property within
Evergreen Walk or the Gateway Zone District that is, arguably, subject to the twenty-five foot
setback. In other words, all future applications for final plan approval within the Evergreen
Walk complex, or for any other property within the Gateway Zone District, will be subject to
the current sixty-five foot setback provision of the Regulations. This is because there are no
other properties in South Windsor like Unit 14, that are part of a general plan of development
approved before the zone text amendment in 2003 where the Commission increased this
setback from twenty-five to sixty-five feet.'
ii. Applicable law:
A. The Gerlt appeal and Supreme Court decision:
Evergreen Walk's general plan approval was appealed to the Superior Court by an
abutting property owner, Wayne Gerlt. On appeal, the abutter raised a number of arguments,
including the claim that the Commission lacked authority under Section 8-2 of the Connecticut
General Statutes (Connecticut's zoning enabling legislation) to approve Evergreen Walk's
proposed general plan as provided by the Regulations. The abutter also claimed that even if
the Commission had statutory authority to approve the general plan, that: (a) such approval did
'It should be noted that the stated purpose of a General Development Plan "is to show: (1)
Proposed Land Use; (2) Building layout; (3) Proposed intensity of development (including
coverage ratio, setbacks, parking count, building height) (4) General layout of utility systems
and location; (5) Circulation and street/road networks; (6) Drainage systems and location; (7)
Open space; (8) Impervious areas; and (9) Recreation areas." (Emphasis added.) Section
8.6.3(A) of the Zoning Regulations.
' Evergreen Walk subsequently submitted applications to the Commission in reliance of this
twenty-five foot setback along Deming Street, including the ECHN proposal which predates
the setback amendment, but demonstrates Evergreen Walk's compliance with the General Plan,
and amendments to the General Plan of Development in October of 2010 and September of
2011. In addition, Evergreen Walk relied upon the twenty-five foot setback when negotiating
the limits of the riparian buffer that encumbers the subject site. Had Evergreen Walk known
that the new sixty-foot setback would apply to 14 Deming Street instead of the twenty-five foot
setback, Evergreen Walk would, in all likelihood, have scaled back on the riparian buffer limit
to offset the loss of developable area associated with the sixty-foot setback requirement.
30240860
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
October 31, 2013
Page 5
not constitute a site plan approval as provided by Section 8-3 of the Connecticut General
Statutes; and (b) any subsequent application for final plan approval would constitute a site plan
application that would have to comply with all provisions of the Regulations and be subject to
citizen comment and input.
In Gerlt v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of South Windsor, et al.,
290 Conn. 300 (2009), the Supreme Court held that the Commission has authority to approve a
general plan of development as provided by its Regulations. Therefore, the Court held that the
Commission's approval of Evergreen Walk's general plan was valid.
The Gerlt Court further held that the "decisions made during those proceedings
[concerning the general plan of development proposal] must be preliminary and nonbinding"
(emphasis added), until the subsequent final site plan application is submitted. Otherwise, "the
proceedings on the general plan of development could be used to evade the more stringent
procedures applicable to site plan applications ...." (Emphasis added.) In other words, the
Court recognized South Windsor's two-step approval process holding that the general plan of
development approval was a valid land use approval subject to final detailed site plans being
submitted for specific uses of sites within the general plan of development area. Any final site
plan proposed for a specific site within the Evergreen Walk complex, as approved in the
general plan, is subject to Commission site plan review and citizen input.
B. Section 8-2h of the Connecticut General Statutes:
Section 8-2h(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides, in pertinent part: "An
application filed with a zoning commission [or] planning and zoning commission, ...., which is
in conformance with the applicable zoning regulations as of the time of filing shall not be
required to comply with, nor shall it be disapproved for the reason that it does not comply
with, any change in the zoning regulations .... taking effect after the filing of such
application." (Emphasis added.) (A copy of Section 8-2h is attached as Exhibit D.)
The Commission's two-step process governing the Evergreen Walk development is very
similar to a typical two-step commercial subdivision process. As to the related subdivision
process, an applicant first requests approval for a subdivision - let's say a ten lot subdivision.
The proposal depicts buildings, driveways, roadways, etc., demonstrating that the subdivision
meets applicable zoning and subdivision regulations existing at such time. Second, the
applicant can return with an individual site plan proposal to develop each lot as a buyer or
tenant is secured for a particular lot. Connecticut law provides that the subdivision is valid for
five years, subject to extensions not to exceed an additional five years. Connecticut law also
30240860
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
October 31, 2013
Page 6
provides that any subsequent site plan for an individual lot located within an approved
subdivision is subject to the zoning regulations in effect when the initial subdivision application
was filed. (See Sections 8-26a(a) and (b) of the Connecticut General Statutes. A copy of this
statute is attached as Exhibit E.)
Similarly, Section 8-2h(a) provides that the regulatory zoning requirements in effect
when Evergreen Walk filed its application for general plan approval, apply to all subsequently
filed applications for final plan approval, so long as any final site plan complies with the
approved general plan. It should be noted that when Evergreen Walk received general plan
approval, the Regulations provided that the general plan approval was valid for five years
This was similar to the five year statutory time period for subdivision approval discussed
above.
An essential purpose of Sections 8-2h(a) and 8-26a(a) and (b), is to provide finality,
continuity, consistency and predictability in the zoning and planning processes. If a municipal
zoning or subdivision regulation changes after the first approval in a two-step land use
approval process but prior to the final site plan being submitted, then the landowner and
potential buyers or tenants could never rely upon the initial approval. Unsuspecting buyers
could purchase a lot or parcel of land thinking that they can build on the lot as permitted with
the initial approval only to learn later that such is not the case because of a change in the
regulations. Sections 8-2h and 8-26a(a) and (b) protect against such from occurring.
III. Application of the Gerlt decision and Section 8-2h of the Connecticut General
Statutes to Evergreen Walk's pending final site plan application:
In Gerlt, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the Commission's 2001 approval of
Evergreen Walk's general plan of development. The general plan approval is valid for five
years. This five year time period commenced when the Gerlt appeal went to final decision on
February 10, 2009, as provided by law. Therefore, Evergreen Walk's general plan approval is
valid through February 10, 2014.
The Gerlt Court recognized South Windsor's two-step process for mixed use
developments within the Gateway Zone District. The first step is approval of a general plan of
development. The second is approval of a final site plan. The final site plan must be
consistent with the approved general plan, comply with applicable Regulations, and be subject
to public input. No construction or development can occur until the Commission grants final
plan approval.
30240860
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
October 31, 2013
Page 7
As provided by Section 8-2h of the Connecticut General Statutes, those Zoning
Regulations in effect when Evergreen Walk submitted its application for general plan approval
in 2001, including the twenty-five foot setback along Deming Street, apply to the subject two-
step application and approval process going forward. Similar to the subdivision process,
Connecticut law provides that the regulations in effect when an underlying land use application
is submitted, whether a subdivision application or general plan of development application as
with Evergreen Walk, apply to the initial approved plan and all subsequent applications to
develop lots or sites within the initial approved plan. This applies so long as the initial
approved plan has not expired, and the proposed final site plan is consistent with the initial
approved plan.
IV. Conclusion:
In Gerlt, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the Commission's approval of
Evergreen Walk's general plan of development was valid. Evergreen Walk recorded its
general plan approval in the land records of the Town of South Windsor. The general plan has
formed the basis for a tremendous amount of development involving the investment of
hundreds of millions of dollars at Evergreen Walk. All of the development was subject to and
received final site plan approval from the Commission based upon the Commission's 2001
general plan of development approval that was upheld by the State Supreme Court in 2009.
As provided by Section 8-2h, the Regulations in effect when Evergreen Walk's general
plan was approved, including the subject twenty-five foot setback requirement, apply to all
final site plans submitted as the second part of the subject two-step approval process. The final
plan must be consistent with the approved general plan, and otherwise comply with the
Regulations. Therefore, the twenty-five foot setback in existence when the general plan was
approved in 2001, applies to the subject application for final site plan approval to permit a
medical office use of Unit 14.
Please feel free to call me with any questions or comments that you may have
concerning this letter.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this analysis, and Evergreen Walk looks
forward to processing the subject application for final site plan approval for the last remaining
site within Evergreen Walk subject to the twenty-five foot front yard setback.
30240860
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
October 31, 2013
Page 8
As always, best regards.
Very ly yours,
hristophe J. mith
CJS:las
cc: Evergreen Walk, LLC (w/ enclosures)
Kari L. Olson, Murtha Cullina (w/ enclosures)
30240860
Gerit v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of South Windsor, 290 Conn.300(2009)
nonbinding, and therefore could be revisited in
290 Conn.300 subsequent site plan proceedings,with respect to
Supreme Court of Connecticut. commission, land developer and any other
interested parties who participated in subsequent
Wayne C.GERLT proceedings on site plan application. C.G.S.A. §
. V. 8-3(g).
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR et al. 1 Cases that cite this headnote
No. 18149. 1 Argued Sept.5,2oo8. I Decided Feb. io,
2009.
Synopsis Attorneys and Law Firms
Background: Landowner appealed planning and zoning **25 Gwendolyn S. Bishop, with whom were Paul T.
commission's approval of general plan of development Smith and, on the brief, Paul W. Smith, Windsor Locks,
submitted by developer. The Superior Court, Judicial for the appellant(plaintiff).
District of Hartford, Peck, J., 2006 WL 3691203,
dismissed appeal. Landowner appealed. The Appellate John P. Casey, with whom, on the brief, was Brian R.
Court transferred proceeding. Smith, Hartford,for the appellee(named defendant).
Charles D. Ray, with whom, on the brief, were Matthew
A. Weiner and William H. Narwold, Hartford, for the
[Holding:] The Supreme Court, Sullivan, J., held that appellee(defendant Evergreen Walk,LLC).
decisions made by commission on general plan of
development are preliminary and nonbinding as to all NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, ZARELLA and
parties. SULLIVAN,Js.
Opinion
Reversed and remanded with direction.
SULLIVAN,J.
*301 The named defendant, the planning and zoning
West Headnotes(2) commission of the town of South Windsor(commission),
approved a general plan of development submitted by the
defendant, Evergreen Walk, LLC (Evergreen Walk), for
ICI Appeal and Error the development of a 232 acre property on the west side
>Findings of fact and conclusions of law of Buckland Road in the *302 town of South Windsor.'
The plaintiff, Wayne C. Gerlt, a neighboring landowner,
The Supreme Court's review is plenary as to then appealed from the approval to the Superior Court
purely legal questions. claiming that the approval constituted an unlawful site
plan approval under General Statutes § 8-3(g).' The trial
1 Cases that cite this headnote court **26 concluded *303 that the general plan of
development did not constitute a site plan under§ 8-3(g),
and that the commission's approval of it was preliminary
and nonbinding. Accordingly,the trial court dismissed the
plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff then brought this appeal,'
Ixl Zoning and Planning claiming that the trial court improperly had concluded that
=Tentative or preliminary approval the general plan of development did not constitute a site
plan and that the commission's approval did not violate
Decisions made by zoning and planning the applicable land use statutes and zoning regulations.
commission during proceedings on a general We conclude that the trial court properly determined that,
plan of development were preliminary and under the South Windsor zoning regulations, a general
,.lid- ..`J?. 'C,=.1 ,. , .. 3.,,. ., i`t, .._,..(- {„i f° ,..I '.. -3 ,l,.: -0, „ws
EXHIBIT A
Gent v. Plannin9 and Zoning Com'n of Town of South Windsor,290 Conn.300(2009)
plan of development does not constitute a site plan width of 140 feet..."
governed by § 8-3(g) and is intended to be preliminary
and nonbinding. We also conclude, however, that certain The plaintiff then appealed from the commission's
decisions and conditions that underlay the commission's decision to the trial court pursuant to General Statutes §
approval of this particular general plan of development 8-8.' The plaintiff claimed in his complaint that the
were not preliminary and nonbinding as to the plaintiff. general plan of development constituted a site plan and
Rather, the commission treated them as final, that the commission's approval of it was illegal because:
unreviewable decisions during subsequent site plan it did not contain sufficient detail under the South
proceedings, and, by doing so, allowed the proposed Windsor zoning regulations; Evergreen Walk had not
development to evade the requirements of § 8-3(g). obtained the reports and studies required by the
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court improperly regulations; and the approval was premised on certain
dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. conditions and waivers that the commission was not
authorized to grant. The plaintiff further claimed that the
The record reveals the following undisputed facts. In general plan of development had not been subject*306 to
June, 2001, pursuant to § S.1.2.1 of the South Windsor the statutory notice and hearing requirements for site
zoning regulations,' Evergreen Walk submitted an plans. Finally, the plaintiff claimed that the commission
application *304 for a general plan of development to the had no authority to approve an application for a general
commission in which it proposed to construct and operate plan of development because no such procedure was
a complex of retail, office, lodging and recreational authorized by statute.
facilities on a 232 acre property located on Buckland
Road in South Windsor. Thereafter, the commission The trial court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the
conducted a voluntary public hearing on the application. zoning regulations regarding general plans of
At the hearing,'Marcia Banach, the director of planning development were invalid because they were not
for South Windsor, explained that "[t]he purpose of the authorized by statute. The court stated that the purpose of
general plan is to provide for commission approval at an the regulations providing for a **28 general plan of
early stage in the planning of a project before [extensive] development was to provide a mechanism for a voluntary,
engineering is completed. This is beneficial to both preliminary and informal review of the proposed
[Evergreen Walk] and the commission as [Evergreen development and that the commission's approval was
Walk] will receive the commission's input in reaction to a advisory and did not vest any rights in Evergreen Walk,
development proposal and the commission can have The court concluded that the plaintiff had not met his
meaningful input into a project design. For these reasons burden of proving that the commission had no authority to
the amount of detail required is minimal, however, the conduct such a review. The court also stated that,because
commission does have to be satisfied that you got enough "the general plan of development is a voluntary
information to make an informed decision.... A full site submission,not a required step in the planning stages for
plan of development that is in conformance with the the development of the site,a declaration that such a plan
approv[ed] general plan would have to be submitted and is null and void appears to have no effect on the future
approved **27 by this commission. The site plan would development plans.... As stated in the regulations, no
include all of the engineering details as well as final development can take place until a final site development
building design,final site layout." plan is approved." Accordingly, the court concluded, a
declaration that the plan was null and void would not
The commission approved the general plan of provide any relief to the plaintiff.
development on October 9, 2001, subject to numerous
conditions. One of the conditions provided that "[i]n The trial court noted that the plaintiff had stated in his
accordance with [§ ] 3.A.4.b [of the South Windsor trial brief that the commission had refused to allow
zoning regulations governing the Buckland Road and interested parties to challenge certain portions of the
Sullivan Avenue corridor],' a waiver is hereby granted to general plan of development during subsequent
*305 allow three signalized driveway intersections with proceedings on the site plans for the development.
Buckland Road as shown on [the] general plan."Another Specifically,the plaintiff had pointed out that,at a public
condition provided in relevant part that "[i]n accordance hearing on the site plan for the Expo Design Center, a
with [§ ] 5.8.6.c.6. [of the South Windsor zoning retail store in the proposed development, an intervenor
regulations],' the yard setback between Smith Street and had attempted to raise the issue of the traffic congestion
the first building is permitted to be partially combined caused by the development as a whole. The commission
with the required buffer, with a combined total building chairman had stated that public comments on the site
setback and buffer of 115 feet instead of the full separate *307 plan must be tied"to this specific application ...and
Gerlt v.Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of South Windsor,290 Conn.300(2009)
963 A,2d 24
not the entire [development] which is not before this [general plan of development] to be nonbinding, and its
commission tonight." The trial court stated, however,that approval had no effect whatsoever on the requirement that
its "consideration of this appeal is limited to a review of individual final site plans also be submitted and approved
the evidence in the record regarding this appeal ... [and] for each discrete portion of the development,"as required
the court will not consider evidence contained in the by § 8-3(g) and § 8.1.3 et seq. of the South Windsor
record regarding later decisions that were fled after the zoning regulations.
commission made the decision that is the subject of this
appeal." (Citation omitted.) Accordingly, the trial court Thus,as we understand it, the gist of the plaintiff's claim
rejected the plaintiff's claim that the general plan of is that the commission's approval of Evergreen Walk's
development constituted a de facto site plan and general plan of development constituted a site plan
dismissed the appeal. approval because specific decisions were made during the
review and approval process that could not be revisited
The plaintiff then filed this appeal. The plaintiff claims during the subsequent site plan proceedings, and the
that the trial court improperly concluded that the approval was illegal because it allowed *309 Evergreen
application for a general plan of development was not a Walk to evade the statutory procedures governing site
de facto site plan application governed by § 8-3(g)R He plans, which were designed to ensure that the
further claims that the general plan of development did development, as a whole, complied with applicable
not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for a statutes and zoning regulations. Because of the unusual
site plan application. Specifically, the plaintiff claims procedural posture of this case, however, we are
that: (1) Evergreen Walk failed to obtain a regulated somewhat puzzled as to how to approach these claims.
activities permit from the South Windsor inland wetlands Specifically, as the trial court recognized, the plaintiff's
agency as required by § 8-3(g);(2) Evergreen Walk failed claims are premised on factual allegations regarding the
to submit a soil erosion and sediment control plan as proceedings on the subsequent site plan applications that
required by General Statutes § 22a-329 and§ 8.1.7 of the Evergreen Walk submitted to the commission, i.e.,
South Windsor zoning regulations; and (3) the allegations that the commission refused to revisit
commission unlawfully waived compliance with the decisions made during the proceedings on the general
zoning regulations governing the number of access points plan of development during the site plan proceedings or to
to the site and those governing buffer and setback consider the impact of the development as a whole.As the
requirements without requiring *308 Evergreen Walk to trial court also recognized,those proceedings are not part
comply with the procedural notice, hearing and of the record in this case and, accordingly,the allegations
recordation requirements applicable to special permit are not subject to review.
proceedings. See **29 General Statutes §§ 8-2, 8-3c and
8-3d. In addition, the plaintiff claims that, even if the We are compelled to recognize, however, that, if the
waivers related to access points and buffer requirements plaintiff's factual allegations are true, then there is no
did not require Evergreen Walk to obtain a special permit, other proceeding in which the plaintiff will be able to
they constituted illegal variances under General Statutes § raise his claims because, just as the records in the
8-6. See Langer v. Planning& Zoning Commission, 163 proceedings on the specific site plan applications are not
Conn. 453, 457, 313 A.2d 44 (1972) (under § 8-6 "the part of the record in this case, the record in the present
power to vary the ordinance ... lies exclusively in a case is not part of the records in those proceedings. Thus,
[zoning]board of appeals"). there is no single proceeding in which the record is
adequate to address the claim raised by the plaintiff here.
The defendants respond that the trial court properly If we decline to address this claim, however, then by
detennined that the general plan of development was not refusing to allow interested parties in the site plan
a site plan, but rather was a preliminary, nonbinding proceedings to revisit decisions that were made in the
conceptual plan. Accordingly, they argue, the plan was proceeding on the general plan of development-which the
not subject to the statutory and regulatory requirements defendants themselves characterize as nonbinding-the
applicable to site plan applications. They further contend defendants effectively will have evaded the mandatory
that the commission did not grant any waivers or statutory procedures designed to ensure that all interested
variances because: (1) the general plan of development parties are allowed to voice their concerns regarding the
did not conflict with the regulations; and (2) even if the impact of the proposed development on the neighborhood
general plan of development did vary from the and the environment.
regulations, the approval did not vest any right in
Evergreen Walk to commence construction. Rather, they **30 *310 We also note that the defendants do not
argue, "the parties intended [for] Evergreen Walk's dispute that interested parties were not permitted to
r i_.. .:11,.-Next r ,-. ,. E#vo",I sol
Gerlt v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of South Windsor,290 Conn.300(2009)
address the alleged regulatory waivers during the site plan proceedings on a site plan application. Otherwise, the
proceedings, but claim only that waivers or variances proceedings on the general plan of development could be
were not required because the proposed development did used to evade the mandatory and more stringent
not conflict with the regulations in any way and, even if procedures applicable to site plan applications under §
the development did conflict with the regulations, the 8-3(g) and § 8.1.3 et seq. of the South Windsor zoning
commission's approval of the . general plan of regulations. Moreover, although we agree with the
development did not vest any rights in Evergreen Walk. defendants that the plaintiff has failed to provide any
We are unable to review the defendants' claim that the authority for the proposition that a developer may not
proposed development complied with applicable submit site plans for a proposed development on a
regulations, however, for the very reason that the piecemeal basis,' if the developer does **31 so, it cannot
commission made no final, binding decision on that rely on decisions that were made on the assumption that
question in the present proceeding. the entire development would be treated as a single entity,
particularly when it concedes that the decisions*312 were
At oral argument before this court, the defendants also preliminary and nonbinding." Accordingly, we conclude
stated that interested parties had an opportunity to that,to the extent that the commission determined that the
challenge the alleged regulatory waivers during the decisions and conditions that underlay its approval of the
proceedings on the general plan of development, but "no general plan of development could not be revisited during
one showed up." As the plaintiff points out, however, subsequent site plan proceedings-a circumstance that the
interested parties had no reason to attend those defendants implicitly concede-any such determination
proceedings because the regulations provided that no was in conflict with § 8.1..3 et seq. of the South Windsor
permanent decisions would be made at that stage and the zoning regulations and the requirements of§ 8-3(g), and
parties reasonably would have assumed that they would was,therefore,unlawful.
have an opportunity to review the proposed development
and express any concerns about it during the subsequent This leaves us with the question of the appropriate
proceedings on the site plan applications. remedy. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that
the commission's approval of Evergreen Walk's general
We conclude, therefore, that we should address the plan of development constituted a site plan approval and
plaintiffs claims on the basis of the defendants' implicit that it is null and void. We conclude, however, that it is
concession that the commission prohibited interested more appropriate to render a declaratory judgment that the
parties from raising concerns regarding certain decisions approval, and the subsidiary decisions and conditions on
that had been made during the proceedings on the general which the approval was premised, were preliminary and
plan of development during the site plan proceedings.The nonbinding not only as to the commission and Evergreen
question we address,therefore,is whether the commission Walk, but also as to the plaintiff and all other interested
was authorized to render an advisory approval of a parties, and that the plaintiff and other interested parties
general plan of development pursuant to § 8.1.2.1 of the must be allowed to raise concerns regarding all aspects of
South Windsor zoning regulations *311 that was the proposed development, including the cumulative
premised on subsidiary decisions and conditions that, impact of the separate site plans, during the site plan
although not binding on the commission or Evergreen proceedings. We recognize that this decision necessarily
Walk, could not be revisited by any interested party will have an impact on the proceedings on Evergreen
during subsequent site plan proceedings under § 8-3(g). Walk's individual site plan applications.
This is a purely legal question and, therefore, our review
is plenary. See Munroe v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 261 The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the
Conn. 263, 269, 802 A.2d 55 (2002), after remand, 75 trial court with direction to sustain the plaintiff's *313
Conn.App.796, 818 A.2d 72(2003). appeal and to render a declaratory judgment that the
commission's approval of Evergreen Walk's application
121 The defendants do not dispute that, under § 8.1.2.1 of for a general plan of development, and all subsidiary
the South Windsor zoning regulations, proceedings on a decisions and conditions, were preliminary and
general plan of development are intended to be voluntary, nonbinding in any subsequent site plan proceedings
informal and nonbinding, and are primarily for the benefit pertaining to the development.
of the developer. That being the case, it is clear that any
decisions made during those proceedings must be
preliminary and nonbinding not only with respect to the
commission and the developer, but also with respect to
any interested parties who participate in subsequent ]n this opinion the other justices concurred.
11r:tAH i i _
Gerit v. Planning and,Zoning Com'n of Town of South Windsor, 290 Conn.300(2009)
Parallel Citations
963 A.2d 24
Footnotes
I We refer to the commission and Evergreen Walk collectively as the defendants,and individually by name when appropriate,
2 General Statutes § 8-3(g) provides: "The zoning regulations may require that a site plan be filed with the commission or other
municipal agency or official to aid in determining the conformity of a proposed building,use or structure with specific provisions
of such regulations. if a site plan application involves an activity regulated pursuant to sections 22a-36 to 22a-45, inclusive,the
applicant shall submit an application for a permit to the agency responsible for administration of the inland wetlands regulations
not later than the day such application is filed with the zoning commission. The decision of the zoning commission shall not be
rendered on the site plan application until the inland wetlands agency has submitted a report with its final decision. In making its
decision the zoning commission shall give due consideration to the report of the inland wetlands agency. A site plan may be
modified or denied only if it fails to comply with requirements already set forth in the zoning or inland wetlands regulations.
Approval of a site plan shall be presumed unless a decision to deny or modify it is rendered within the period specified in section
8-7d.A certificate of approval of any plan for which the period for approval has expired and on which no action has been taken
shall be sent to the applicant within fifteen days of the date on which the period for approval has expired.A decision to deny or
modify a site plan shall set forth the reasons for such denial or modification.A copy of any decision shall be sent by certified mail
to the person who submitted such plan within fifteen days after such decision is rendered. The zoning commission may, as a
condition of approval of any modified site plan, require a bond in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to it,
securing that any modifications of such site plan are made or may grant an extension of the time to complete work in connection
with such modified site plan.The commission may condition the approval of such extension on a determination of the adequacy of
the amount of the bond or other surety furnished under this section.The commission shall publish notice of the approval or denial
of site plans in a newspaper having a general circulation in the municipality. In any case in which such notice is not published
within the fifteen-day period after a decision has been rendered, the person who submitted such plan may provide for the
publication of such notice within ten days thereafter. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all zoning commissions or
other final zoning authority of each municipality whether or not such municipality has adopted the provisions of this chapter or the
charter of such municipality or special act establishing zoning in the municipality contains similar provisions."
3 The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court and we transferred the appeal to this court
pursuant to General Statutes§51-199(c)and Practice Book§65-1.
4 Section 8.1.2.1 of the South Windsor zoning regulations provides: "A General Plan of Development may be submitted for the
purpose of having the Commission approve of the proposed conceptual development of a site. The purpose of a General Plan of
Development is to show proposed land use,building layout,proposed intensity of development(including coverage ratio,setbacks,
parking count, building height), general layout of utility systems and location, circulation and street/road networks, drainage
systems and location, open space, impervious areas, and recreation areas. The intention of this general plan is to show details
visible to any viewer.The Commission may decide to hold a public hearing on the General Plan of Development.The Commission
may require submission of the General Plan of Development to the Architectural and Design Review Committee."
5 Section 3.A.4.b of the South Windsor zoning regulations provides: "The Commission may waive any requirement of this section
when it finds that all of the following conditions have been satisfied:
"•The gravity of the waiver will be consistent with the purpose of these Regulations;
"•The waiver has been specifically requested by the applicant;
"•Conditions exist which adversely affect the subject property and are not generally applicable to other property in the area;
"•In the absence of a waiver,no reasonable alternative access is available,will be available,or can be constructed;
"•The requested waiver is the minimum deviation necessary from this section to permit reasonable development of the subject
property;and,
"• The granting of the waiver will not have a significant adverse impact on existing or future traffic operations, adjacent
property,or on public safety or welfare."
G Section 5.8.6.c.6 of the South Windsor zoning regulations provides: "Buffers shall conform to Section 10.4, with the following
exceptions:
"1.Buffers are not required along Buckland Road or Oakland Road frontage;
"2. Buffers may be incorporated into required yard setbacks, provided that the applicant demonstrates that the buffer provided
meets all performance standards set forth for buffers in Section 10A."
.. - ... ..
Gerit v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of South Windsor,290 Conn.300(2009)
.._,_�,-.___ __..,-"— -,_._.-..a.
7 The plaintiff owns property at 112 Deming Street in South Windsor that is within 100 feet of the proposed development and is,
therefore, statutorily aggrieved under § 8-8. See General Statutes § 8-8(a)(1) ("[i]n the case of a decision by a ... combined
planning and zoning commission ... 'aggrieved person' includes any person owning land that abuts or is within a radius of one
hundred feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the board").
8 In his brief,the plaintiff also appears to make the broader claim that the commission had no authority to review and approve the
general plan of development because no such proceeding was authorized by statute at the time the general plan of development was
submitted.The plaintiff conceded at oral argument before this court,however,that zoning regulations providing for a voluntary,
preliminary and nonbinding review of a development plan are not illegal per se.He clarified that his claim is that the commission's
treatment of this particular application for a general plan of development rendered it an illegal site plan application.
9 Accordingly,we reject the plaintiffs claims that Evergreen Walk was required to obtain a regulated activities permit and to submit
a soil erosion and sediment control plan for the development as a whole. During the proceedings on each separate site plan
application, however, the plaintiff and other interested parties should be allowed to raise concerns addressing the cumulative
impact of the separate site plans under the inland wetlands and sediment control regulations.
10 We note,for example,that the defendants appear to have assumed during the proceedings on the general plan of development that
the entire development would be treated as a single unit.On the basis of that assumption,they determined that,under§3.A.2 of the
South Windsor zoning regulations governing the number of driveways permitted for a commercial development on the Buckland
Road and Sullivan Avenue corridor,the entire development could have three driveways.
End of Document ;r:>20 i3.ihornson Reuter.No clairn to original U.S.Government 1r orks.
Fromer v.Two Hundred Post Associates, 32 Conn.App.799(1993)_
631 A.2d 347
period was tolled until all litigation was
KeyCite Yellow Flag-Negative Treatment completed.C.G.S.A. §§ 8-8,22a-41.
Distinguished by Kobyluck Bros.,LLC v.Town of Salem Planning and
Zoning Com'n,Conn.Super.,April 7,2011 20 Cases that cite this headnote
32 Conn.App,799
Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Robert FROMER
V.
TWO HUNDRED POST ASSOCIATES et al. Attorneys and Law Firms
No. 10786. 1 Argued Nov. 2, 1992. I Decided Sept.14, *800**347 Robert Fromer,pro se,appellant(plaintifo.
1993•
Mary E. Driscoll, with whom, on the brief., was Edward
B. O'Connell, New London, for appellee (substitute
After conservation commission-inland wetlands agency defendant **348 F..D.I.C., receiver of the defendant
(CCWA) granted second extension of wetlands permit to Saybrook Bank and Trust).
developer, abutting owner of condominium appealed the
extension. The Superior Court in the Judicial District of Before*799 DALY,LAVERY and LANDAU,JJ.
New London, Leuba, J., dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff
appealed. The Appellate Court, Lavery, J., held that: (1) Opinion
permit to conduct regulated activity runs with land and
not with applicant, and (2) time period of pen-nit was LAVERY,Judge.
tolled until all litigation was completed.
Affirmed. This is an appeal from the dismissal by the trial court of
an appeal by the plaintiff, an abutting owner of a
condominium, from the granting by the defendant city of
New London conservation commission-inland wetlands
agency (commission) of a second extension of an inland
West Headnotes(2) wetlands permit to the developer, the defendant Two
Hundred Post Associates, doing business as Georgetown
Associates(Georgetown).' We affirm the judgment of the
I'I Zoning and Planning trial court.
Construction and Operation
The plaintiff claims that the commission did not have the
Inland wetlands permit is concerned solely with power to grant a second extension,that an inland wetlands
property to be regulated, and change of permit does not run with the land, and that estoppel and
ownership does not affect validity of permit. tolling are not appropriate vehicles to uphold the
C.G.S.A. §§22a-41,22a-42a(d),22a-42e. commission's decision.
12 Cases that cite this headnote The pertinent facts are as follows: In October of 1987,
Georgetown Associates applied to the commission for a
permit to conduct a regulated activity, the building of a
condominium project, on its property. On December 21,
1987, the permit was granted subject to the developer's
Zoning and Planning obtaining all necessary zoning permits and meeting
r-Duration of rights various other conditions,'The plaintiff, an *801 owner of
a condominium unit located on adjoining property,
In case where valid inland wetlands permit was appealed to the trial court from the decision granting the
issued to conduct regulated activity within permit.That appeal was dismissed on May 5, 1988.
specified time period and appeals from granting
of necessary permits to conduct that activity On April 11, 1988, Georgetown applied to the New
were not resolved within time period during London planning and zoning commission for a site plan
which activity was required to begin, time approval and a coastal site plan approval for a fifty unit
J ,VC!". .v
EXHIBIT B
Fromer v.Two Hundred Post Associates,32 Conn.App.799(1993)
residential condominium project. On June 29, 1988, after considered by the inland wetlands agencies pertain only to
extensive hearings, that application was approved. The the land and not to the applicants or owners.
plaintiff in this case also appealed to the trial court from
the decision granting the site plan approvals. Judgment in Our Supreme Court has recognized the legal principle that
that case was rendered on February 15, 1990, for the a zoning variance runs with the land and not with the
defendant. The trial court found that there was ample property owner. In Garibaldi v. Zoning Board gfAppeals,
evidence in the record to justify the site plan approvals. 163 Conn. 235,239,303 A.2d 743 (1972),the court said:
"By its very definition, a variance is granted with respect
*802 In December, 1988, the commission granted the to a particular piece of property; it can be enjoyed not
defendant Georgetown a one year extension of the inland only by the present owner but by all subsequent owners.2
wetlands permit. On November 13, 1989, prior to the Anderson,American Law of Zoning§ 14.29,p. 662."See
expiration of the permit,Georgetown sought an additional T. Tondro, Connecticut *805 Land Use Regulation (2d
one year extension by letter. The commission did not act Ed.1992), p. 124. Courts in other jurisdictions have
on the reply until January 8, 1990, when it granted the recognized that conditional use permits run with the land
extension retroactive to December 22, 1989, the date on and not with the owner. See County of Imperial v,
which the first extension expired. This appeal is taken by McDougal, 19 Cal.3d 505,564 P.2d 14, 138 Ca1.Rptr.472
the plaintiff from the granting of the second **349 (1977);Northpointe Plaza v. Rochester, 457 N.W.2d 398,
extension. Subsequent to the commission's decision 401 (Minn.App.1990).
granting the second extension, Georgetown conveyed the
subject property to the defendant Saybrook Bank and We hold that an inland wetlands permit is concerned
Trust Company (Saybrook Bank). The trial court granted solely with the property to be regulated, and that the
Saybrook Bank's motion to be made a defendant and, change of ownership does not affect the validity of the
after hearing the case, found in favor of the commission permit.
and Saybrook Bank. In December, 1991, after the trial
court's decision, the Federal Deposit Insurance The plaintiff next claims that the permit has expired by
Corporation (FDIC) became the receiver of Saybrook the passage of time and that the commission had no
Bank. The FDIC's motion to be made a substitute authority to grant the second extension from which this
defendant was granted by this court. appeal arises. Georgetown first applied for the inland
wetlands permit, and it was granted, in December, 1987,
We hold(1)that the permit to conduct a regulated activity and the plaintiff appealed. The wetlands permit was
runs with the land and not with the applicant, and(2)that, granted subject to zoning approval. In April,. 1988,
on the facts of this case, in which a valid permit was Georgetown applied simultaneously for zoning site plan
issued to conduct a regulated activity within a specified approval and coastal area management site plan approval,
time period and appeals from the granting of the which the New London planning and zoning commission
necessary permits to conduct that activity were not granted. The plaintiff immediately appealed from that
resolved within the time period during which the activity decision also. In December 1988,the commission granted
was required to begin, that time period is tolled until all a one year extension of the wetlands permit, and, in
litigation is completed. January, 1990, the commission granted a second
extension retroactive to December, 1989, from which the
The plaintiff argues that an inland wetlands permit is a present appeal was taken. The appeal from the granting of
personal permit attached to the individual applicant that the inland wetlands permit was dismissed in May, 1988,
does not attach to the land and follow the title. We and the appeal from the site plan approvals was dismissed
disagree. A review of the applicable statutes shows that on February 15, 1990.The defendants have been involved
the permit process is concerned with the property and not with the present application for an inland wetlands permit
the applicant. In enacting ordinances and regulations and since 1987 because of the appeals brought by a single
in granting, denying or limiting any permit *803 for a plaintiff.
regulated activity, an inland wetlands agency is required
to consider those factors set forth in General Statutes §§ The plaintiff argues that since there was no stay in effect,
22a-41,22a-42a(d)and 22a-42e.' the defendant Georgetown, and its successors,*806 could
have begun construction. We, however, agree with the
**350 *804 A permit is issued or denied on the basis of court in McGavin v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 26
conditions relating to the land such as the topography,soil Conn.Supp. 251, 255, 217 A.2d 229 (1965), that to have
type, and the nature, extent, and effect of the proposed begun construction during the pendency of the appeal
activity on the land. The factors in the statutes that can be might have been considered "reckless conduct" on the
lx.t . -..:.-` s .._. -Ati.
Fromer v. Two Hundred Post Associates,32 Conn.App.799(1993)
631 A.2d 347
part of the landowner. This is especially true in this case an adverse decision of this court. Apart from the question
because the wetlands permit was conditioned on obtaining as it may be affected by a change in the zoning
the necessary zoning permits, and there were two appeals regulations, we think it clear that the requirement of
from the initial granting of the permits. If the defendant activating a permit **352 set forth in an ordinance does
applicants had disturbed the wetlands and either of the not apply during such time as the legality of a permit is
appeals were lost so as to void the wetlands permit,they open to question by reason of litigation amounting to an
would have had to restore the wetlands.' appeal from the issuance thereof."Tantimonaco v. Zoning
Board of Johnston, supra.
**351 The plaintiff further argues that the regulation in
effect at the time of the original granting of the permit' In. Cranston v. Carpionato 115 R.I. 63, 340 A.2d 134
controls, allowing only one extension, rather than the one (1975), an individual challenged the validity of certain
that went into effect on June 15, 1990,1 which *807 building permits, and on appeal contended that the
allows unlimited extensions. He bases his claim on permits were revoked by a zoning ordinance that required
General Statutes§22a-42e.See footnote 3, that construction be commenced within ninety days of the
date of the permit. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island
The obvious remedy is to toll the one year duration of the rejected this argument, stating: "Although we agree with
permit until all appeals are decided. See Tondro,supra,p, the city that Tantimonaco v. Zoning Board[of Johnston],
521."Cases from other states hold that an appeal from the supra, is factually distinguishable from this case, we
granting of an issuance or permit is a defense to the fact remain unconvinced that its reasoning is inapplicable
that the successful applicant did not use the permit or here. In that case, we recognized the unlikelihood that a
variance within the time period otherwise provided by man of common prudence would incur obligations the
law." R. Fuller, Land Use Law and Practice (1993) § benefits of which might be cancelled by an adverse
24.10,p.453. decision of this court, and we consequently concluded
that an ordinance requiring the activation of a building
"The Massachusetts Supreme Court in Belfer v. Building permit within a fixed period ought not to apply `... during
Commissioner of'Boston[363 Mass.439,294 N.E.2d 857 such time as the legality *809 of a permit is open to
(1973) ] held that where zoning variances were granted question by reason of litigation amounting to an appeal
and could not as a practical matter be used during the from the issuance thereof.' [Id., 600]." Cranston v.
pendency of an appeal by persons challenging the Carpionato, supra, 1.15 R.I. 67,340 A.2d 134.The Rhode
granting of the variances, that the filing of the appeal Island Supreme Court reasoned that since the validity of
from the granting of the variance tolled the running of the the building permits would be uncertain during the period
two-year period during which variances had to be used of litigation, that time should be excluded in computing
and building permits had to be issued. The court the time period within which construction was to
concluded that such a rule was essential, stating: commence.
`Otherwise a variance which was lawfully awarded can be
frustrated by the delay inherent in an appeal. Unless an In Preseault v. Wheel, 132 Vt.247,253-54,315 A.2d 244
appeal tolls the time period, many variances would be (1974).the Vermont Supreme Court stated: "We conclude
meaningless.' [Id.]"Fuller,supra; see also Smith v. Board that the more soundly reasoned cases from other
of Appeals, 366 Mass. 197,316 N.E.2d 501 (1974). jurisdictions support the proposition that where a valid
permit is issued for a specified period, and where actual
In Tantimonaco v. Zoning Board of Johnston, 102 R.I. construction is delayed by litigation, involving parties
594, 599-600, 232 A.2d 385 (1967), the Supreme Court who have standing to oppose construction, past that time,
*808 of Rhode Island rejected a contention by adjacent a permittee otherwise proceeding in good faith is entitled
landowners that the time for commencing construction to reissuance of that permit, even where the zoning was
under a building permit should continue to run after they meanwhile changed so that the project is nonconforming."
initiated an appeal that challenged the zoning permit "For this Court to hold that a developer, proceeding as
allowing the construction of a gas station. The court said: expeditiously as possible, must be denied reissuance of
"As heretofore noted, petitioners challenged the validity the permit he first applied for and received solely because
of that permit by seeking a review of the board's decision his application for a second essential permit resulted in
with the filing of their petition for certiorari on June 8, litigation of more than a year's duration would go beyond
1965. Although the filing of such a petition does not act the desired and worthwhile goal of controlling
as a stay, G.L. 1956, § 45-24-20, common prudence development. Such a holding would make development a
understandably acts as a brake against incurring pure gamble; success would depend on the whim of
obligations, the benefits of which would be cancelled by adversaries to litigate or not.This result would contravene
1 { Next: i3`'P' ?l .[. , r... Eti I _3
Fromer v,Two Hundred Post Associates,32 Conn.App.799(1993)
-......_. _._.W....__._ w_.._._ -_.__....,.. ._ �_.�...-.__.,_.__
ti31 A.2d 347 ...... .___... ..__.�__..,.___, .__ .. .._....__.,___.
our announced policy that a good faith developer should
be able to proceed with assurance."Id.,315 A.2d at 255, *811 In this case, the defendant Georgetown and its
successors, the Saybrook Bank and the FDIC, complied
The plaintiff argues that we should adopt the reasoning of with all the applicable regulations in obtaining their
the trial court in ASL Associates v. Proch, (Superior Court permits, and the plaintiff exercised his legal right
in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at opposing the granting of the permits before the
Hartford, Docket No. 370080, 1990 WL 265336, appropriate boards and the courts. The defendant
December 12, 1990), which rejected the tolling of the Georgetown and its successors prevailed both before the
time limitations *810 on permits saying that General regulating agencies and in the courts. Yet, six years later,
Statutes § 8-8' provides for a restraining order, and that, the plaintiff is before this court arguing that because of
had good cause been shown, an order tolling the nine the passage of time the inland wetlands permit has
month period could have been issued. Id., 30. We reject expired.
this reasoning because there is a myriad of agencies from
which many property owners must obtain approval, and, The regulatory process is not designed to be a spider's
in many instances, one permit is dependent on another, as web, snaring one who follows all the regulations and
in this case. We note, for example, that permits or statutes, obtains all the necessary permits, and
approval are needed with regard to zone changes, special successfully defends a series of appeals,but then loses his
permits, variances, inland wetlands, historic districts, site right to proceed because the passage of time has caused
plans, coastal area management, subdivisions, and water the permits to expire.
protection ordinances. In the last six years, the method
**353 of appeal under the Inland Wetlands Act has The judgment is affirmed.
changed three times'
dal There is no legislative history to § 8-8 as originally
passed in 1925 before the advent of the myriad of land
use regulatory bodies that exist today. We hold that the In this opinion the other Judges concurred.
statute provides in cases covered by § 8-8a means for an
appellant to stay any action.on the approved application Parallel Citations
until the appeal is decided.' Since there is a void in the
statutory scheme for the protection of the appellee 631 A.2d 347
developer in this case, we hold that on the facts of this
case the time limitations on the permit are tolled until this
litigation is terminated.
Footnotes
1 The defendant Saybrook Bank and Trust Company is the successor in title of Saybrook Bank. The Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation is the receiver of the defendant Georgetown Associates,
2 The conditions on which the permit was granted in December, 1987,were listed in a letter,dated December 22, 1987,from James
R. McDermott, technical advisor to the New London conservation commission to Arnold Voloshin of Georgetown Associates.
That letter stated:
"Dear Mr.Voloshin:
"The City of New London Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands Agency voted at its meeting of December 21, 1987 to
approve the application of your Georgetown Square Condominium Project as depicted in your plans revised through December
21, 1987 and to give this application a Class B classification,such approval to be contingent upon the following:
"1. Submission to the Commission of single limit combined public liability insurance and property damage insurance, naming
the City of New London as an additional insured,in an amount not less that$1,000,000.00 for injuries, including wrongful death
and property damage;such insurance to remain valid for a period of one year after the completion of the project.
"2. Submission to the Commission of a performance bond in an amount of$200,000.00 unconditionally guaranteeing the
installation of the entire storm water drainage system as designed by the Engineer and approved by the Commission;such bond
to remain in effect until such drainage system is satisfactorily completed and accepted by the Commission or its agent.
"3. If any activity authorized by this permit also needs zoning or subdivision approval, special permit, variance, or special
exception;no work pursuant to the wetland permit is authorized until such approval is issued.
"4.If no significant activity has commenced within one year of issuance of this permit,it will become void.
Yours truly,
James R.McDermott,P.E.
N yt _�j ii--, t Qfr rR I .S.f`7
Fromer v,Two Hundred Post Associates,32 Conn.App.799(1993)
631 A.2d 347
Technical Advisor"
3 General Statutes§22a-41 provides:"FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION OF COMMISSIONER,FINDING OF NO FEASIBLE
OR PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE. (a) In carrying out the purposes and policies of sections 22a-36 to 22a-45, inclusive, including
matters relating to regulating, licensing and enforcing of the provisions thereof,the commissioner shall take into consideration all
relevant facts and circumstances,including but not limited to:
"(1)The environmental impact of the proposed action;
"(2)The alternatives to the proposed action;
"(3) The relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity;
"(4)Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed activity;
"(5)The character and degree of injury to,or interference with,safety,health or the reasonable use of property which is caused
or threatened;and
"(6)The suitability or unsuitability of such activity to the area for which it is proposed.
"(b)In the case of an application which received a public hearing,a permit shall not be issued unless the commissioner finds that
a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist. In making his finding the commissioner shall consider the facts and
circumstances set forth in subsection(a).The finding and the reasons therefor shall be stated on the record."
General Statutes§22a-42a(d)provides:"In granting,denying or limiting any permit for a regulated activity the inland wetlands
agency shall consider the factors set forth in section 22a-41, and such agency shall state upon the record the reason for its
decision. In granting a permit the inland wetlands agency may grant the application as filed or grant it upon such terms,
conditions, limitations or modifications of the regulated activity, designed to carry out the policy of sections 22a-36 to 22a-45,
inclusive. No person shall conduct any regulated activity within an inland wetland or watercourse which requires zoning or
subdivision approval without first having obtained a valid certificate of zoning or subdivision approval,special permit,special
exception or variance or other documentation establishing that the proposal complies with the zoning or subdivision
requirements adopted by the municipality pursuant to chapters 124 to 126,inclusive,or any special act.Any permit issued under
this section shall be valid for at least two years and the agency may provide for.the permit to be valid for up to five years,
provided the permittee may apply for and the agency may,at its discretion,grant a renewal of such permit for successive periods
of time not to exceed an additional five years.The agency may suspend or revoke a permit if it finds after giving notice to the
permittee of the facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and after a hearing at which the permittee is given an
opportunity to show compliance with the requirements for retention of the permit,that the applicant has not complied with the
conditions or limitations set forth in the permit or has exceeded the scope of the work as set forth in the application. The
applicant shall be notified of the agency's decision by certified mail within fifteen days of the date of the decision and the
agency shall cause notice of their order in issuance,denial,revocation or suspension of a permit to be published in a newspaper
having a general circulation in the town wherein the wetland and watercourse lies. In any case in which such notice is not
published within such fifteen-day period, the applicant may provide for the publication of such notice within ten days
thereafter."
General Statutes § 22a-42e provides: "APPLICATION FILED PRIOR TO CHANGE IN INLAND WETLANDS
REGULATIONS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CHANGE. EXCEPTIONS. An application filed with an inland
wetlands agency which is in conformance with the applicable inland wetlands regulations as of the date of the decision of such
agency with respect to such application shall not be required thereafter to comply with any change in inland wetlands
regulations,including changes to setbacks and buffers,taking effect on or after the date of such decision and any appeal from the
decision of such agency with respect to such application shall not be dismissed by the superior court on the grounds that such a
change has taken effect on or after the date of such decision.The provisions of this section shall not be construed to apply(1)to
the establishment, amendment or change of boundaries of inland wetlands or watercourses or(2)to any change in regulations
necessary to make such regulations consistent with the provisions of this chapter as of the date or such decision."
4 General Statutes§22a-44(b),which concerns penalties and court orders in connection with violations of the Inland Wetlands and
Watercourse Act,provides in pertinent part:"The superior court,in an action brought by the commissioner, municipality,district
or any person,shall have jurisdiction to restrain a continuing violation of said sections,to issue orders directing that the violation
be corrected or removed and to assess civil penalties pursuant to this section.All costs,fees and expenses in connection with such
action shall be assessed as damages against the violator together with reasonable attorney's fees which may be allowed, all of
which shall be awarded to the commissioner, municipality, district or person which brought such action. The moneys collected
pursuant to this section shall be used by the commissioner of environmental protection, to restore the affected wetlands or
watercourses to their condition prior to the violation,wherever possible."
5 The regulation,cited by the plaintiff,that was in effect at the time the original permit was granted, § 8 of the New London inland
wetlands regulations provided:"8.1 If no significant activity has commenced within one year of the issuance of permit,said permit
is void.
"8.2 The Commission may extend a permit for an additional year upon written request from the permit
holder.Such request shall be considered by the Commission at a regularly scheduled Commission meeting
Fromer v.Two Hundred Post Associates,32 Conn.App.799(1993)
631 A.2d 347
and acted upon with[in]thirty days."
6 The new regulation,§ 12.7,which became effective on June 15, 1990,provides:"The duration of any permit shall be for one(1)
year unless otherwise specified in the permit or extension by the Commission. Permit extension shall be at the discretion of the
Commission and may be subject to the calling of an additional public hearing.All permits shall expire upon the completion of the
acts specified herein."
We note that General Statutes§22a-42a(d)provides in pertinent part:"Any permit issued under this section shall be valid for at
least two years and the agency may provide for the permit to be valid for up to five years,provided the permittee may apply for
and the agency may, at its discretion,grant a renewal of such permit for successive periods of time not to exceed an additional
five years...."See footnote 3,
7 General Statutes(Rev. to 1989) § 8-8(b)provided in pertinent part: "The appeal shall state the reasons upon which it has been
predicated and shall not stay proceedings upon the decision appealed from, but the court to which such appeal is returnable may,
on application,on notice to the board and on cause shown, grant a restraining order."The language regarding a restraining order
has since been placed under subsection (g) of§ 8-8, which provides: "The appeal shall state the reasons on which it has been
predicated and shall not stay proceedings on the decision appealed from.However,the court to which the appeal is returnable may
grant a restraining order,on application,and after notice to the board and cause shown."
8 General Statutes § 22a-43 governs appeals under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act. Section 22a-43 has been amended
three times over the past six years.See Public Acts 1991,No.91-136,89-356 and Public Acts 1987,No.87-338.
9 See T.Tondro,Connecticut Land Use Regulation(2d Ed.1992),p.522.
__._... .__. _.__..__..__ _....._ .___.. ... _....
End of Document Ec.-70':3 Thomson Reuters.No claim to original U.S Government Works.
Handsome, Inc.v.Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of...,Not Reported in A.3d...
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
Moore,Pavia,Ziehl)(ROR 7).
2oi2 WL 6901 i73
In April of 2008,the proposed industrial building had not
UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES been completed. The Plaintiffs, therefore, requested an
BEFORE CITING. extension of the special permit which had been issued in
Superior Court of Connecticut, 2003 (ROR 14(A)). On April 24, 2008, the commission
Judicial District of Fairfield. voted, 5-0, to deny the requested extension (ROR 15, p.
2-9).
HANDSOME,INC.et aI.
V. The Plaintiffs appealed the commission's refusal to
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF the extend the special exception permit, and the matter was
TOWN OF MONROE. tried to the Court. On September 9, 2010 [50 Conn. L.
Rptr. 5861, the Plaintiffs' appeal was sustained, in a
No.CVt 16ol9523S. I Dec.21,2om Memorandum of Decision written by the Hon.Howard T.
Owens,Judge Trial Referee(ROR 22).
Opinion Judge Owens determined that the request for an extension
RADCLIFFE,J. of the special permit sought the same relief as the 2003
application for the permit. He further found,based on the
record before him, that there had been no intervening
changed conditions or other conditions affecting the
matter. He therefore concluded that the commission had
FACTS no option but to approve the Plaintiffs' request for an
extension of the permit(ROR 22,p. 11).
*1 This appeal concerns the ongoing attempt of the
Plaintiffs, Handsome, Inc., Todd Cascella and Mona I.n his decision, Judge Owens ruled that any failure to
Cascella,to develop property located at 125 Garder Road, submit progress reports was not a changed condition
Monroe, in accordance with a special exception permit (ROR 22, p. 10, p. 1), and that a review of the record of
issued by the Monroe Planning and Zoning Commission the commission's April 24,2008 meeting found that none
in March of 2003. of the reasons for the refusal to extend the permit,
concerned the failure of the Plaintiffs to satisfy all
The property consists of approximately 9.9 acres, and is applicable regulations and statutes(ROR 22,p.8-10).
located in a Design Industrial (DI-2)Zone.The Plaintiffs
proposed, in their 2003 special exception permit The Defendant, Monroe Planning and Zoning
application, to construct a 20,000 square foot industrial Commission,did not appeal Judge Owens'decision.
building(ROR 1—C).
Following the release of the decision sustaining the
Because 125 Garder Road is zoned Design Industrial Plaintiff's appeal, two letters were written, asking the
(DI-2), any use of the property is subject to the special commission to issue a permit in accordance with Judge
exception permit process (ROR 31, Article XII, 5. Owens' decision (ROR 20A & 20B). The letters were
I I7-1200(a)). An applicant must meet the conditions for dated October 1,2010 and November 1,2010.
the issuance of a special exception permit, as spelled out
in the regulations (ROR 31, Article XVIII, S. *2 Notwithstanding its failure to appeal Judge Owens'
117-1801(A)). decision, and two written requests for action, made by
representatives of the Plaintiffs,the matter was not placed
On March 20, 2003, the Defendant, Planning and Zoning on an agenda for action by the commission until May 5,
Commission, approved the Plaintiffs' special exception 2011. Prior to the meeting of May 5, 2011, the Town of
permit application,for an industrial use.The approval was Monroe cancelled a tax sale regarding 125 Garder Road,
subject to thirty-six(36)specific conditions(ROR 7), which it had been pursuing.
The special exception permit contained a May 15, 2008 On May 5, immediately following the roll call,
expiration date, and was approved by all five of the Commissioner O'Hara moved that the commission enter
commissioners present and voting (Abate, Michaels, into executive session, and that the First Selectman, the
EXHIBIT C
Handsome,Inc,v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of...,Not Reported in A.3d...
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
Land Use Attorney,the Zoning Enforcement Officer, and were originally listed remain; that
the Land Use Director be permitted to attend(ROR 26, p. the Commission be provided with
1). Commissioner O'Hara stated: "Make a motion to go the information on who the current
into executive session to discuss legal matter on general engineer is for the property owner;
zoning enforcement."(ROR 27,p. 1.) that the required reports from the
original approval be provided to the
The motion to enter executive session was approved Commission (work that has been
unanimously, 5-0, without discussion by the commission done, work that will be going on
(Leneker,Zini,O'Hara,Porter,Parsell)(ROR 26,p. 1). and work to close out the program);
that the engineer will provide a
After the commission emerged from the executive status of the condition of the site
session, the first action was a motion by Commissioner (as built of current conditions);and
O'Hara to amend the agenda by moving Item # the final concept plan of what will
22—Legal Issues-125 Garder Road compliance with bring the site to what was originally
extension of approval, to Item # 15, other business(ROR intended per the approved permit
26, p. 2). The motion carried unanimously, without (calculations remaining of how
discussion(ROR 27,p.3). much processed on site removal or
being brought in to complete the
When Item# 15 was reached, the commission acted upon site). Also included are all of the
two motions,both of which were made by Commissioner standing conditions from the
O'Hara(ROR 26,p. 16). original application."
The first motion,according to the minutes(ROR 26)read: x3 A letter was sent on May 13, 2011 (ROR 29) to
(See also ROR 27,p.4-11). Handsome, Inc., indicating approval of. the' permit
extension for five years, retroactive to March 20, 2008.
The Commission is going to grant The permit extension would expire on March 20, 2013,
the extension of the permit through less than two years from the commission's action on the
March 2013 which would be five requested five-year extension.
(5) years from the last extension
and in so doing the need to extend Five "additional requirements" (ROR 29, p. 2-3) were
the permit, it is noted that one of listed, along with what were termed"clarifications"of the
the original conditions of approval original approval in March of 2003.
is the posting of a bond and that a
bond now be set.The posting of the Changes to the conditions voted on March 20,2003 (ROR
bond will be a prerequisite for 7),are applicable to conditions#3,4, 5,6 and 9(ROR 7).
commencement of any on site work These changes are:(new language is in capital letters).
in accordance with the regulations
of the prior approval. All prior 1. Condition # 3—"Based upon his offer to improve
conditions of approval that were Garder Road by paving and related Improvements, the
originally granted with this Permitee shall meet and reach agreement with the
application, including all Director of Public Works on a plan of road
landscaping plans, judiciary plans, improvements. Said plan shall be returned to the
no top soil removal from the site commission for its acceptance prior to the date of any
and anything else from the original building permit. THE REFERENCED ROAD
application should remain in effect. IMPROVEMENT PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED
FOR APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE
After the motion was approved, unanimously, COMMISSION.
Commissioner O'Hara made a second motion:
2. Condition # 4—"The landscape treatment shall be
No work should be conducted at completed generally as shown. Additionally, a separate
125 Garder Road until the Bond as landscape plan of aesthetically agreeable ornamental
recommended by the Town plantings in and around driveway entry area shall be
Engineer is posted. A list of items prepared for approval by the commission prior to
included: that the requirements that installation. THE REFERENCED LANDSCAPING
PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE
Handsome,Inc.v. Planning and Zoning Gom'n of Town of...,Not Reported in A.3d...
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. commencement of activity on the site. Said bond(s)
shall be for the purpose of securing completion of the
3. Condition # S—"The Penmitee shall every 60 days, site work or restoration or stabilization of the disturbed
or within such sooner period as may be required, site dependent on circumstances due to failure to
provide to the Planning & Zoning Department a complete, proceed, abandonment, inactivity or similar
progress print prepared by the supervising engineer, lack of improvement should it be warranted. THE
until the conclusion of grading activities. Such permit COMMISSION IS REQUIRING THAT AS PER THIS
shall detail the status of excavation, coutour levels, CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THE FOLLOWING
amount of earth materials removed, and any conditions BONDING MUST NOW BE POSTED AS A
which may have been encountered which have required SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF THIS EXTENSION:
or may require mitigation or corrective action. ALL
PREVIOUS REPORTS FOR THE VARIOUS 60 DAY A $100,000.00 BOND FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PERIODS MUST BE SUBMITTED. IN ADDITION, STABILIZATION AND RESTORATION OF THE
REPORTS FOR ALL REMAINING WORK SITE,AS DETAILED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER.
(INCLUDING A CALCULATION OF REMAINING
MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED) MUST BE A BOND FOR THE OFFERED ROAD
SUBMITTED EVERY 60 DAYS ONCE WORK IMPROVEMENTS AS REFERENCED IN NUMBER
RESUMES AT THE SITE. 2(ABOVE), WHICH WAS CONDITION NUMBER 3
OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ORIGINAL
4. Condition # 6—"No topsoil shall be removed from APPROVAL LETTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE
the site until completion or stabilization of all areas of REQUIRED SUBMISSION OF PLANS TO THE
disturbance. Excess materials may be authorized for COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AND
removal by the Director of Public Works but only after ACCEPTANCE MUST INCLUDE A BOND
determining that the material is excess and not needed ESTIMATE REFLECTING 100% OF THE
for completion of the work. VERIFICATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF SAID ROAD
STOCKPILED TOPSOIL QUANTITY TO PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS, TO BE REVIEWED BY THE
6 INCH DEEP COVERAGE OVER ALL TOWN ENGINEER FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED. PROVIDING A BOND RECOMMENDATION TO
THE COMMISSION.
5. Condition#9—"All trash dumpster(s),compactor(s)
and related equipment are to be placed within fully Following publication of the commission's decision in the
enclosed facilities, with woven or solid gated access. Connecticut Post, the Plaintiffs, Handsome, Inc., Todd
The locations will be regularly maintained in good Cascella and. Mona Cascella, commenced this timely
condition and repair at all times. VERIFICATION OF appeal.
COMPLIANCE MUST BE PROVIDED.
Prior to trial, the record was supplemented by the
As to each of these changes, the Defendant Planning and deposition testimony of eleven individuals, including the
Zoning Commission claims that the conditions approved commission members who participated in the executive
in 2003 have not been materially changed. The session.
commission contends that the impact of the changes is
merely to re-emphasize the conditions which were already All of the commissioners who voted on the special
included in the 2003 approval of the special exception exception permit extension (Leneker, Zini, O'Hara,
permit. Porter, Parsell) (Supplemental Record A, C, D, E & F)
were deposed, along with three alternate members of the
*4 Condition # 17 of the 2003 commission action (ROR commission (Agatson, Martin & Flader) (Supplemental
7, p. 4), was amended on May 5, 2011 (ROR 29, p. 2). Record 1,G&H).
The commission set the amount of the bond,which it had
not done in 2003, and made the posting of the bond "a Employees of the Town of Monroe were also deposed.
specific requirement of this extension." The commission Town Engineer Scott Schatzlein (Supplemental Record
also added language concerning a road improvement K-1 & K-2), Zoning Enforcement Official, Joseph
bond. The revised condition reads (new language is in Chapman (Supplemental Record B) and First Selectmen
capital letters): Steven Vavrak (Supplemental Record K) responded to
17. The bond or bonds in an amount to be determined questions.
by the commission shall be posted prior to the The Plaintiffs challenge the imposition of conditions
i..mv, €tsL f4 .....t:: `lt ...i _
Handsome, Inc,v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of..., Not Reported in A.3d...
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
which were not included in the March 2003 special trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of appeal.
exception permit approval, and the setting of the permit's Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 237 Conn. 184,
expiration date as May 2013. 192 (1996); Winchester Woods Associates v. Planning&
Zoning Commission, 219 Conn. 303, 307 (1991). The
They also question the propriety of the executive session question of aggrievement is one of fact. Hughes v. Town
held prior to the May 5, 2011 vote on extending the Planning & Zoning Commission, 156 Conn. 505, 508
special exception permit. (1968);and the burden of proving aggrievement rests with
the Plaintiff. London v. Planning & Zoning Commission,
149 Conn.282,284(1962).
Aggrievement falls into two basic categories—statutory
AGGRIEVEMENT aggrievement,and classical aggrievement.
The Plaintiff, Handsome, Inc. acquired title to 125 Garder Statutory aggrievement exists by virtue of legislative fiat,
Road via a quitclaim deed(Ex. 1)recorded on November which grants standing to appeal by virtue of a particular
13, 2001 on the land records of the Town of Monroe at statute, rather than through an examination and analysis
Volume 986, Pages 307-08. The instrument was signed of the facts of a particular case. Weill v. Lieberman, 185
by Todd Cascella,the grantor. Conn. 123, 124-25 (1986); Pierce v. Zoning Board of
* Appeals, 7 Conn.App.632,635-36(1986).
5 In March of 2006, MD Drilling & Blasting, Inc.
instituted an action against Cascella& Son Construction, Classical aggrievement, on the other hand, requires a
Inc. and Handsome, Inc. The action sought foreclosure of party to satisfy a well established twofold test: I) the
a mechanics lien filed against 125.Garder Road(Ex.A). party claiming aggrievement must demonstrate a specific
In a memorandum of decision dated December 29,2009, personal and legal interest in the decision appealed from,
the Court (Mintz, J.) entered a judgment of strict as distinguished from a general interest such as concern of
all members of the community as a whole, and 2) the
foreclosure in favor of MD Drilling&Blasting, Inc., and(Ex party must show that the specific personal and legal
set March 2,2 as the law day. The debt was found to interest has been specifically and injuriously affected by
be$27,271.55(Ex.C.,p. 16), the action of the agency. Cannavo Enterprises, Inc. v.
On April 13, 2010, a written agreement (Ex. 2) was Burns, 194 Conn. 43,47 (1984);Nader v. Alterrrratt, 166
executed between MD Drilling & Blasting, Inc. and
Conn.43,51(1974).
Cascella & Son Construction, Inc., and Handsome, Inc. *6 The owner of the property which forms the subject
The agreement was signed by the Plaintiff,Todd Cascella, matter of an action before a land use agency is aggrieved
on behalf of both Cascella & Son Construction, Inc. and by an adverse decision of the agency. Huck v. Inland
Handsome,Inc. Wetlands & Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525, 530
Although a judgment of strict foreclosure had entered, no (1987); Bossert Corporation v. Norivalk, 157 Comi. 279,285(1968).
certificate of foreclosure has been recorded on the
Monroe land records. Therefore, pursuant to Exhibit I, The Defendant, Handsome, Inc., is the record owner of
Handsome, Inc, remains the record owner of 125 Garder 125 Garder Road, although that interest is subject to an
Road. unrecorded judgment of strict foreclosure. The Defendant
The agreement (Ex. 2, p. 4) provides that the judgment claims, that the entry of a judgment of strict foreclosure,
will be null and void when the Monroe debt is satisfied..
even if unrecorded,vests title in the foreclosing party, and
that Handsome, Inc. has no standing to prosecute this
Testimony at trial revealed that Handsome, Inc. is not in appeal.
default of the agreement, and that monthly payments as
required by the contract(Ex.2,par. 1),have been made. This claim is not well taken.
The Plaintiff, Todd Cascella,who quitclaimed 125 Garder Handsome, Inc. is the record owner of 125 Garder Road
Road to Handsome, Inc. (Ex. 1), is the President of (Ex. 1).Title to real estate is controlled by deeds recorded
Handsome, Inc. His wife, the Plaintiff Mona Cascella, is on the land records. Hawley v. McCabe. 117 Conn. 558,
the Secretary. 564 (1933); Ricci v.. Naples, 108 Conn. 19, 24 (1928).
Pleading and proof of aggrievement are prerequisites to a
General Statutes section 47-10 provides that "no
_ _. _. ._
1'
Handsome, Inc.v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of...,Not Reported in A.3d...
_..... _._.._ _._.._. _.M,_ _ ..._. . _.. _.__-. ._._..__ .__.,_.....__ _ _. ,__._ ...... ,
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
conveyance shall be effectual to hold any land against any Society, and Pong Me, the Society's President, appealed
other person... unless recorded on the records of the town the denial of the application.
in which the land lies,.."
The Supreme Court determined that Pong Me could not
It is found, that Handsome, Inc., as that record owner of sustain a claim of aggrievement, either under the
the property at 125 Garder Road, is aggrieved by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
decision which generated that appeal. The fact that an (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S.2000cc, or S. 52-571b of the
agreement(Ex.2)provides for a mechanism for satisfying General Statutes.'The Court further determined that Pong
the judgment of strict foreclosure, solidifies and enhances Me was neither statutorily aggrieved pursuant to S.
Handsome's interest in the property. 8-8(a)(l)z of the General Statutes, or classically
aggrieved. Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut,
The judgment of strict foreclosure entered in favor of MD Inc. v. Planning&Zoning Commission,Supra, at 392-93.
Drilling & Blasting, Inc. is not sufficient to deny
aggrieved status to Handsome, Inc. Legal title to property The Court found that an individual member of the Society
is not required, in order for a party to satisfy the test for lacked standing to challenge the decision regarding the
aggrievement. Antennucci v. Hartford Catholic Dioceses building of a temple, and that any rights asserted by
Corporation, 142 Conn. 349, 355 (1955). Aggrievement individual members would be adequately protected by the
has been found, where a party was a contract purchaser, religious society.
Shapero v. Zoning Board, 192 Conn. 367, 376 (1984);
had obtained an oral contract to enter into a long-term In this case,Todd and Mona Cascella,in addition to being
lease, Montinho v. Planning& Zoning Commission, 278 officers of Handsome, Inc., derive considerable income
Conn. 660, 669 (2006); held a leasehold interest, Michel from the corporation,and are involved in all management
v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 28 Conn.App. 314, decisions.
324-25 (1992); or held a security interest in the property.
Goodridge v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 58 Conn.App. A party may be aggrieved by a decision of a land use
760,767(2000). agency, even if that party has no legally enforceable
interest in the property. DeBonaventura v. Zoning Board
Since the Plaintiff, Handsome, Inc., is aggrieved by the ofAppeals,24 Conn.App. 369,376(1991).
decision appealed from, it is not necessary to consider
whether Todd and/or Mona Cascella are also able to DeBonaventura involved an application to use property as
establish aggrievement. If any party is aggrieved, the a used car dealership and a car repair business. Richard
court has jurisdiction. Protect Hamden/North Haven fi-onn DeBonaventura Jr., whose father owned the property,had
Excessive Traffic & Pollution, Inc. v. Planning&Zoning obtained permission to use the property from his father,
Commission, 220 Conn. 527,529 n. 3(1991). and was authorized to apply for a certificate of approval
from the municipal zoning board of appeals.
However, in that the Defendant Planning and Zoning Notwithstanding the absence of any formal written
Commission has questioned the aggrieved status of all agreement or any evidence of other consideration for the
three Plaintiffs, the issue of aggrievement will be father's promise, the Court found that the son was
considered as to Todd and Mona Cascella. aggrieved by the denial of the certificate of approval.
DeBonaventura v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Supra, at
Todd and Mona Cascella claim to be statutorily 376.
aggrieved, based upon their status as President and
Secretary of Handsome, Inc. They also contend that they Although the mere status of a corporate or limited liability
receive income from Handsome,Inc. company shareholder or officer would not, in and of
itself, satisfy the test for classical aggrievement,Todd and
*7 The Defendant Plaintiff and Zoning Commission Mona Cascella have provided sufficient proof of
asserts that the Plaintiffs cannot establish aggrievement, aggrievement.
based upon their status as corporate officers. Cambodian
Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & The court believes that there is a distinction between
Zoning Commission, 285 Conn.391,392-93 (2008). membership in a religious society,and owning,operating,
and receiving income from a private corporate entity.One
Cambodian Buddhist involved an application for the who owns and controls a corporation may make
construction of a religious temple, which was denied by application to a land use agency, in his own name,if he is
the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission. Both the the beneficial owner of the property.Loew v. Falsey, 144
i":L_ Gl_t r,i l'o o u ( ..l LJ ,
Handsome,Inc.v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of...,Not Reported in A.3d...
55 Conn, L. Rptr.267
Conn.67, 74(1956). meetings of public agencies. Board of Selectmen v.
Freedom of Iitforrnation Commission, 294 Conn.438,450
It is found, that the Plaintiffs, Todd and Mona Cascella's (2008); Chief ref Police v. Freedom of Information
personal and legal interests have been specifically and Commission, 252 Conn. 377, 387 (2000). Any statutory
injuriously affected by the action of the Planning & exception to the open meetings requirement and
Zoning Commission of the Town of Monroe, which disclosure of public records requirement contained in the
preceded this appeal. They are, therefore, statutorily act must be narrowly construed. Pane v. Danbwy, 267
aggrieved, and have alleged a colorable claim of injury Conn. 669, 679-80 (2004); Glastonbury Edncation Assn.
based upon the decision appealed from. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 234 Conn. 704,
711-13 (1995); Gifford v, Freedom of Information
Commission, 227 Conn.641,651 (1993).
Consistent with the public policy favoring openness and
THE EXECUTIVE SESSION OF MAY 5,2011 WAS transparency, the act mandates a two-thirds vote of all
NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW members present and voting to enter into executive
*8 Immediately following the commission's roll call on session. Furthermore, S. 1-231(a) of the General Statutes
May 5, 2011, a motion was made by Commissioner
expressly restricts the right of persons to attend an
executive session:
O'Hara, to convene an executive session. The minutes
(ROR 26)reflect that the executive session began at 7:10
p.m., and was held: "To go into Executive Session (7:10 (a) At an executive session
p.m.) to discuss general enforcement. Invited to attend public agency, attendance shalll be
were the First Selectman, Land Use Attorney, Zoning limited and persons
members of said body
ons invited by said body to
Enforcement Officer and Land Use Director"(ROR 26,p. present testimony or opinion
1).
pertinent to matters before said
Section 1-200(6) of the General Statutes defines body, provided that such persons'
"Executive Session." The statute permits a public agency attendance shall be limited to the
to enter an executive session for five purposes,which are period for which their presence is
exceptions to the general requirement that all municipal necessary to present such testimony
agencies must conduct their proceedings in meetings or opinion and, provided further,
which are open to the public. The only exception which that the minutes of such executive
the Defendant Planning and Zoning Commission claims is session shall disclose all persons
applicable to the May 5, 2011 proceedings, is S. who are in attendance, except job
I-200(6)(B)of the General Statutes,which reads: applicants who attend for purposesof being interviewed by such
(B) strategy and negotiations agency.
with respect to pending claims or
litigation, to which the *9 The Defendant Planning and Zoning Commission did
pending
public agency a member thereof not keep minutes of the executive session, and the
... is a party, until such litigation or proceedings were not transcribed,
claim has been finally adjudicated
or otherwise settled ... However, the record was supplemented to include the
depositions of those present during the executive session
Although the Defendant Monroe Planning and Zoning (Supplemental Record,Ex.A through K-2).
Commission claims that the executive session was held Although, according to the deposition testimony,those in
for a proper purpose, Commissioner O'Hara's motion did attendance during the executive session did not recall the
not reference any of the exceptions to the open meetings discussion in great detail, most acknowledged that
requirement, as required by S.1-225(f)' of the General Handsome, Inc. and its property on Garder Road was one
Statutes. of the topics discussed (Supplemental Record E.P. 6, 11;
Courts have consistently recognized, that the overarching Ex. B, p. 8; Ex. D,p.22-23;Ex. C, p. 11; Ex.J,p. 8; Ex.
K-1, p. 39). Discussion also concerned the bond which
legislative policy of Connecticut's Freedom of ,was to bee posted consistent with Condition # 17
Information Act, favors the open conduct of government, contained the posted,
approval of the special exception
and free public access to government records and the
— _ _.
Now; c-s g 201 r i i 3 F ,x1 f
Handsome, Inc.v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of..., Not Reported in A.3d...
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
permit(Ex.K-1,p. 68;Ex. K-2,p. 81, 103; Ex. E,p. 24; (b) The ... planning and zoning
Ex. F,p.25). commission of any municipality
shall hold a public hearing on an
Judge Owens' decision was rendered in September of application or request for a special
2010. Seven months later, when the Defendant Planning exception permit or special
and Zoning Commission considered the decision, there exception, as provided in section
was no pending litigation, concerning 125 Garder Road. 8-2, and on an application for a
The commission did not seek to challenge the decision by special exception, as provided in
requesting certification, pursuant to S. 8-8(o) of the section 8-2g. Such hearing shall be
General Statutes. held in accordance with the
provisions of section 8-7d ...
Therefore, the executive session cannot be sanctioned, Whenever a commission grants or
consistent with the"pending claims or pending litigation" denies a special permit of special
exception contained in S. 1-200(6)(B) of the General exception, it shall state upon the
Statutes, record the reason for its decision...
The chronology following the executive session, after the *10 The Monroe Zoning Regulations (ROR 31) provide
commission reconvened at 7:55 p.m.,clearly supports the that a public hearing is required for a special permit
recollection of those who recall discussing the property at (Article XVIII, Section 17-1700B). The commission is
125 Garder Road, and the subject of the bond, during the required to find, in the case of a special exception permit,
course of the executive session, that certain conditions have been met (Article XVIII,
Furthermore, a commission member who had publically Section 117-1801).
recused herself concerning the 125 Garder Road parcel The Monroe Planning and Zoning Commission approved
(Supplemental Record, Ex. 6), was present during the the Plaintiffs' special exception permit after a full public
session, hearing and subject to multiple, specific conditions(ROR
7) in March of 2003. Judge Owens found that the 2008
Based upon a review of the record and the Supplemental request for an extension sought the same relief, as the
Record, it is found that the Defendant Monroe Planning earlier application, and that the record reflected no
and.Zoning Commission entered into an executive session changed conditions affecting the special exception permit.
on May 5, 2011, contrary to the commends of the He therefore found that the commission had "no option"
Connecticut Freedom of Information Act. but to approve the requested five-year extension (ROR
It is also found that discussion occurred during the 22,P. 11).
executive session, concerning 125 Garder Road, and the The commission correctly argues,that a special exception
bond which the Plaintiffs were required to post, may include conditions necessary to protect the public
concerning the project. health,safety,convenience and property values.Mobil Oil
Corporation v. Zoning Commission, 30 Conn.App. 816,
819 (1993), This is true,notwithstanding the fact that the
commission sits in an administrative capacity, and its
COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER DID NOT function is to determine whether the standards set forth in
PERMIT IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS NOT the regulations and statutes are satisfied. A.P. & W
CONTAINED IN THE 2003 SPECIAL EXCEPTION Holding Corporation v. Planning & Zoning Board, 167
PERMIT Conn. 182, 185(1974).
The process by which a special exception or special It therefore argues that it may impose additional
permit application obtains the approval of a municipal conditions following Judge Owens' decision,on remand.
planning and zoning commission, involves compliance
with provisions of the General Statutes, and municipal Based upon the procedural posture of this case, that claim
zoning regulations. is not persuasive.
Section 8-3(b) of the General Statutes mandates Judge Owens determined that the record before him did
transparency, including a public hearing regarding any not reveal any "changed conditions or other
proposal.The statute reads: considerations materially affecting the matter decided ..."
:=,:it z' 1�1�✓q _ s s S l,-.;�:'€ .€11t 3;::1.,._:... Nt)f t:.l..s3 t t�€?E_t r ..f IIJ overn rri e.ji: ,. 33 -,r, � s,
Handsome, Inc,v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of...,Not Reported in A.3d...
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
A review of the record complied on May 5, 2011, as Any justification for a road improvement bond must be
supplemented by the depositions, provides no basis for discovered independent of the 2003 special exception
questioning that conclusion. permit conditions, and cannot be made a condition for
extending the permit.
Had the commission's initial decision in 2003 resulted in
a denial of the Plaintiffs' application for a special Furthermore, all of the items labeled "additional
exception permit, and had a court reversed and remanded requirements" (ROR 29) in the May 5, 2011 approval
that decision, then the imposition of conditions of represent an unauthorized addition to the conditions
approval would have been appropriate, even without the imposed in 2003.
need for an additional public hearing. Cervasi v. Town
Plan&Zoning Commission, 184 Conn.450,452(1981). Permitting additional substantive requirements to be
imposed would allow a commission to circumvent the
Here, the issue before the commission involved an public hearing process. Nothing in the record indicates
extension of a special exception permit,not the basis upon that any member of the present commission had consulted
which that permit was issued in 2003. the record of the 2003 commission public hearing and
deliberations, prior to May 5, 2011 vote on the permit
Judge Owens' order cannot be utilized as a vehicle for the extension.
commission to attempt the imposition of conditions in
2011,which a predecessor commission, after hearing,had Furthermore, any variation from the 2003 conditions,
not imposed in 2003. even a slight one, suffers from the contamination of the
illegal executive session which proceeded the
The Defendant Planning and Zoning Commission insists commission's vote.
that its changes to Conditions # 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 have
"changed nothing" and are merely an attempt to
"re-emphasize" terms of the permit which were already
spelled out in 2003,
THE COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE
If the Defendant is correct,then the additional language is THE PERMIT EXTENSION RETROACTIVE TO
unnecessary,and need not be added to the 2003 approval. MARCH 2O08 WAS CONTRARY TO LAW.
It is found that the additional language is contrary to the The special exception permit issued in March of 2003
2003 special exception permit approval, and is therefore (ROR 7) had a five-year life. A five-year extension was
void. requested in 2008.
*11 As to Condition # 17, the original 2003 conditions When the commission acted on May 5, 2011, seven
provided for the posting of a bond "for the purpose of months after Judge Owens sustains the Plaintiffs' appeal,
securing completion of the site work or restoration or the commission calculated the five-year extension from
stabilization of the disturbed site ..." The amount of the March 20, 2008, with an expiration date of March 20,
bond is to be determined by the commission. 2013(ROR 29).
In addition to setting the amount of the bond at$100,000, The Plaintiffs claim that the five-year period must begin
the Defendant added additional language, making the to run after all litigation has been concluded.This claim is
posting of the bond a condition of the permit extension. It valid, and well taken. Fronrer v. Two Hundred Post
also added additional bonding requirements. Associates, 32 Conn.App. 799,810(1993).
All of the additional language constitutes a change in the Fromer involved an appeal from a decision of a municipal
2003 approval, and cannot be imposed by the 2011 inland wetland agency. The Appellate Court found that a
commission, permit to conduct a regulated activity runs with the land
and is not personal to the property owner. The Court then
1f a bond is to be set,as authorized in 2003, it must not be held, based upon the facts presented, that the time
tainted by an unauthorized executive session, but should limitations in the permit were tolled, until litigation is
be set based upon information received and deliberations terminated. Fromer v. Two Hundred Post Associates,
conducted in an open public forum. Supra, at 810.
In the opinion of the court, Judge Lavery highlighted the
: '<1:. ..Nxt L. .� €ta.s. .:a:. i _ .., s°., !si_3 r.1 iI:-'? .., f3
Handsome,Inc.v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of..., Not Reported in A.3d...
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
practical necessity of the rule, declaring that "the
regulatory process is not designed to be a spider's web, The Defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the
snaring one who follows all the regulations and statutes, Town of Monroe is directed to approve the special
obtains all the necessary permits, and successfully exception permit, as ordered by Judge Owens,
defends a series of appeals, but then loses his right to conditioned only upon the conditions as voted by the
proceed because the passage of time has caused the commission in 2003, and recited in the "Final Decision"
permit to expire." Fromer v. Two Hundred Post of March 20,2003(POR 7).
Associates, Supra, at 810.
Pursuant to Condition # 17 of the 2003 approval, the
*12 Although Fromer involved an inland wetlands commission in a subsequent and separate vote, may
permit, the tolling rule announced in that case is one of require the posting of a bond "... for the purpose of
general application. Any distinction, for purposes of the securing completion of the site work or restoration or
tolling provision,between a wetlands permit,a variance,a stabilizing of the disturbed site dependent on
site plan, a special permit, or a subdivision permit is circumstances due to failure to complete, proceed,
irrelevant,since all attach to the land,and are governed by abandonment, inactivity or other similar lack of
§ 8-8 of the General Statutes. Fromer v. Two Hundred improvement should it be warranted."
Post Associates, Supra, at 810; Gozzo v. Simsbury Zoning
Commission, Docket No. CV07--4015865S (July 24, Any discussion or receipt of information concerning the
2008, Cohn, J.) 46 Conn. L. Rptr. 110. The rule has also posting of a bond by the commission shall take place
been applied to an action seeking injunctive relief. during a public session of the commission, so that any
Dean—Moss Family Limited Partnership v. Five Mile vote will not be tainted by deliberations conducted during
River Works, Inc., 130 Conn.App. 363,375(201,1). an improper executive session.
On the facts presented here, where the Plaintiffs The five-year extension shall begin to run from the date
prosecuted a successful appeal from the commission's the commission extends the special exception permit.
denial of an extension of time, the five-year time limit is
tolled, until all appeals are exhausted, including any Should an appeal of this decision be initiated, the
appeal which might result from a granting of certification five-year period, consistent with Fromer v. Two Hundred
by the Appellate Court pursuant to §8-8(o). Post Associates, Supra, shall begin at the time the
Appellate Court refuses to grant certification pursuant to§
Consistent with Fromer, the commission cannot begin the 8-8(o)of the General Statutes,or at the conclusion of any
running of the five-year extension in March of 2008, and appeal,should certification be granted.
the Plaintiffs' appeal must be sustained for that reason.
Parallel Citations
CONCLUSION 55 Conn.L. Rptr.267
The Plaintiffs appeal is SUSTAINED.
Footnotes
I Section 52-571b, C.G.S."(a)The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not burden a person's exercise of religion
under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability..."
2 Section 8-8(a)(1),C.G.S."Aggrieved person"... includes any person owning land that abuts or is within a radius of one hundred
feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the board.
3 Section 1225(f),C.G.S.=`A public agency may hold an executive session,as defined in subdivision(6)of Section 1-200,upon
the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of such body present and voting,taken at a public meeting and stating the reason
for such executive session as defined in section 1-200."
4 Section 8-8(o),C.G.S.—`'There shall be no right to further review except to the Appellate Court by certification for review,on the
vote of two judges of the Appellate Court so to certify113 ..."
h(toi v,,ioii R,,.: 3 .... 1\4o wl.a! �s J '€€ilE E (,..__ J ;f .T'z�€'st a# !:\..
. f.
Handsome,Inc.v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of..., Not Reported in A,3d...
55 Conn. L. Rptr.267
End of DOCUment C`)210,13 Thomson Reuters.No claim to original U,S.Government Works.
tr L}�i #x,. ..._.._.,.._,_.._.... .........,..._
Sec.8-2h. Zoning applications filed prior to change in zoning regulations not required
to comply with change.Applications for building permit or certificate of occupancy
filed prior to adoption of zoning regulations not required to comply with regulations.
(a) An application filed with a zoning commission,planning and zoning commission,
zoning board of appeals or agency exercising zoning authority of a town, city or borough
which is in conformance with the applicable zoning regulations as of the time of filing
shall not be required to comply with, nor shall it be disapproved for the reason that it does
not comply with,any change in the zoning regulations or the boundaries of zoning districts
of such town, city or borough taking effect after the filing of such application.
(b)An application for a building permit or certificate of occupancy filed with the building
official of a city,town or borough prior to the adoption of zoning regulations by such city,
town or borough in accordance with this chapter shall not be required to comply with, nor
shall it be disapproved for the reason that it does not comply with, such zoning regulations.
(P.A.. 89-311, S. 2.)
Cited. 220 C. 527. P.A. 89-311 cited. 225 C. 1,
Cited. 25 CA 199. Cited. 216 CA.21.2.
Subsec. (a):
Cited. 220 C. 527,
Cited, 26 CA 212. Cited. 28 CA 31=4, ld., 379. Cited. 40 CA 501; Id., 840. States that if
zoning regulations are chai.iged after wi application.is filed, that application need not
comply i:n order to be approved. 6 3 CA 176.
EXHIBIT D
Sec . 8-26a. Effect of change in subdivision or zoning
regulations or boundaries of districts after approval of
plan. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or
special act or local ordinance, when a change in the
subdivision regulations is adopted by the planning
commission of any town, city or borough, or other body
exercising the -powers of such commission, no subdivision
plan which has been approved, prior to the effective date of
such change, by such planning commission or other body, and
filed or recorded with the town clerk, shall be required to
conform to such change.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or
special act or local ordinance, when a change is adopted in
the zoning regulations or boundaries of zoning districts of
any town, city or borough, no lot or lots shown on a
subdivision or resubdivision plan for residential property
which has been approved, prior to the effective date of such
change, by the planning commission of such town, city or
borough, or other body exercising the powers of such
commission, and filed or recorded with the town clerk, shall
be required to conform to such change.
(2) (A) Any construction on a vacant lot shown on a
subdivision or resubdivision plan approved before, on or
after June 1, 2004, shall not be required to conform to a
change in the zoning regulations or boundaries of zoning
districts in a town, city or borough adopted after the
approval of the subdivision or resubdivision.
Notwithstanding subdivision (1) of this subsection, any
construction on an improved lot shown on a subdivision or
resubdivision plan approved before, on or after June 1,
2004, shall be required to conform to a zoning change
adopted subsequent to said lot becoming an improved lot.
(B) For purposes of this subsection, (i) a lot shall be
deemed vacant until the date a building permit is issued
with respect thereto and a foundation has been completed in
accordance with such building permit but shall not be deemed
vacant if any structures on such lot are subsequently
demolished, and (ii) a lot shall be deemed improved after
the date a building permit is issued with respect thereto
and a foundation has been completed in accordance with such
building permit .
(3) This subsection shall not alter or affect a
nonconforming use or structure as provided in section 8-2 .
EXHIBIT E
,SOW N 8�t
r /1Ci71f9'L ��Q7hGG� �L�/Cj V
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
f'toSoa,coN� AREA CODE 880/644-2511
CERTIFIED MAII.
October 17,2001
Mr.Alan Lamson
FLB Architecture&Planning,Inc.
19 Silver Lane
East Hartford, CT 06118
Re: Appl 01-26P,Evergreen Walk at Buckland Hills, General Plan of Development
Dear Mr. Lamson:
At its October 9, 2001, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve your
request for Evergreen Walk at Buckland Hills, General Plan of Development as shown on plans
prepared by FLB Architecture&Planning,Inc,Job No. 99508.00, sheets Z1-Z8, dated
June 18,2001 as revised. This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval is for a General Plan of Development;which does not address many
engineering and site design details. The applicant must submit an application for a site plan
of development approval,at which time the Commission will review all specific details of
the project,including but not limited to concerns raised during the General Plan application
process.
2. In accordance with Section 3.A.4.b of the Buckland Road/Sullivan Avenue Corridor zoning
regulations, a waiver is hereby granted to allow three signalized driveway intersections with
Buckland Road, as shown on the General Plan.
3. The Plum Gulley Brook/Podunk River watershed is a highly sensitive watershed and stream
corridor,hydrologically,hydraulically and ecologically. Storm drainage design at the site
plan stage must thoroughly and adequately address storm water quality and quantity,
including both on-site and downstream impacts.
I
I
4. Views of parking areas from Buckland Road must be minimized through the use of berms
and perimeter landscaping.Parking lot lighting in close proximity to Buckland Road will be
p t3'
pedestrian-style(but may be higher and brighter).
5. In accordance with Section 5.8.6.c.6,the yard setback between Smith Street and the first
building is permitted to be partially combined with the required buffer,with a combined total
building setback and buffer of 115 feet instead of the full separate width of 140 feet.The
General Plan must reflect the 75 foot buffer and it 40 foot building setback from the edge of
the buffer. The berm must be constructed and landscaped in the early stages of the
construction.
6. Roofs and roof equipment must be screened from Buckland Road and Smith Street.
7. Deming Street must be widened to 22 feet up to Grandview Terrace(where right-of-way
exists), and a left turn lane must be provided at the intersection with Buckland Road, in
accordance with traffic plans and correspondence submitted with the application. The poor
geometry of the curve must be improved to a 30 MPH design speed if right-of-way exists.
8. A strong pedestrian interconnection between the lifestyle center("main street"retail center)
and the indoor recreation facility must be provided.
9. Sidewalk widths within the lifestyle center must be wide enough to readily accommodate
outdoor dining and other street activities.
10.Delivery trucks must use routes other than the"main street"to make site deliveries.
11. When details of Buckland Road widening are finalized at the site plan stage, adequate
additional right-of-way along Buckland Road must be provided.
12.An access easement is required to be granted to 207 Buckland Road,in accordance with the
requirements of Section 3.A.,Buckland Road/Sullivan Avenue Corridor.
13. Trees and hedgerows must be preserved to the maximum extent possible;preservation details
to be shown on the site plan.
14.Project sanitary sewers must also serve the east side of Buckland Road.
15.No outdoor storage is allowed in the Gateway zone,per Section 5.8.6.c of the zoning
regulations.
16. Construction phasing,including phasing of external roadway improvements,must be shown
on the site plan.
17. This approval is valid for five years and will expire on 10-09-2006.
18. The applicant must investigate the provision of two lanes exiting from I-84 eastbound at Exit
62 where currently one lane exits.
19.An Operation and Maintenance Plan for maintenance of the berm and all landscaping must
be submitted with the site plan.
20. More"green space"is needed,and it should include some of the site's existing natural
features.
Black and white mylars of sheet 3 of the General Plan of Development(on 24"06"sheets),with
this approval letter reproduced thereon,must be submitted. After the mylars have been endorsed
by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in the office of the Town Clerk. Three
blueprint copies of the entire set of plans must also be submitted.
Sincerely,
Walter J. Mealy
, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
WJM/kag
cc: Fuss&O'Neill
Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
Assessor
i
0
`South Windsor Zoning Regulations
k. Location map drawn on the Town Zoning map;and a data sheet which indicates the total
acreage and zoning district of th&proposed development:
1. Preliminary architectural elevations and a rendering of the proposed buildings.
8.1.1.2 Submission of Preliminary Plans: The applicant may submit to the Town Engineering De-
P
artment the preliminary plans and data, at least two weeks prior to the initial meeting with
Irma
the Commission.
The submission of the preliminary plans does.not alter the requirements or procedures for the
final plans. In the event the applicant chooses to submit only final plans, he shall also supply
all the information required in the preliminary plans in the final plans.
Meeting with Commission: In the two-week period between the submission of the prelimi-
nary plans and the initial meeting with the Commission, the Town Engineer shall meet with
the appropriate Town`Officials fo ieview the plans, compile their comments and gather their
recommendations.
8.1.2 General Plan of Development
i3.1.2;1 A General Plan of Development may be submitted for the purpose of having the Commission
approve of the proposed conceptual development of a site. The purpose of a General Plan of
Development is to show proposed land use; building layout, proposed intensity of develop-
ment (including coverage ratio, setbacks; parking count, building height), general layout of
utility systems and location, circulation and street/road networks, drainage systems and loca-
tion, open space, impervious areas;and recreation areas. The intention of this general plan is
to show details visible to any viewer.The Commission may decide to hold a public hearing on
the General Plan.of Development. The Commission may require submission of the General
Plan of Development to the Architectural and Design Review Committee.
8.1.2.2 The General Plan of Development shall consist of one or more maps prepared by an engineer,
architect, landscape architect or planner and accompanying documents:
a. Drawings at a scale of not less than 1"=100' drawn on South Windsor Topographical
Survey maps showing existing topography with property boundaries, contours, existing
structures, existing roads and rights-of-way, and major topographical features (including
wooded and open areas, inland wetlands, watercourses and flood plains).
b. A layout plan showing type of development and uses; the proposed general system of
utilities (including sewer, domestic water, fire protection and storm water drainage) and
their connection points to existing systems; building layout; road and parking layout in-
cluding access locations from connecting roads and driveways; proposed open space ar-
eas; buffers; and proposed recreation areas.
C. A plan showing land uses and building locations within 500 feet of the site.
d. A plan showing abutting property owners.
e. A report regarding existing traffic conditions and information on traffic generated by de-
velopment of the proposed site and traffic impact of the traffic generated prepared by a
registered professional engineer.
144
Section `IIII: Site Development Plan
f A statement of-the projected impact yst
on the water supply and distribution sem, drain-
age, and sanitary.sewer system shall be included.
g. Limits of phases where development of portions of the site and/or public improvements
f within the bite are proposed to occur in phases.
h. Location"map drawn on the Town Zoning Map and a data sheet which indicates the total
site acreage and the zoning district,of the proposed development.
i. Preliminary architectural elevations and a rendering of the proposed building(s).
j. A plan showing the proposed general landscaping scheme for the site.
8.1.23 Approval: The General Plan of Development shall, upon approval, be signed by the Chair-
person of the.Commission and.filed in the Commission's records. A mylar shall be submitted
by the applicant to the Commission for endorsement of their approval thereon. The endorsed
mylar shall be returned to the Applicant who shall record, at his expense, the mylar in the Of-
fice of the Town Clerk. Timing of filing of the mylar shall be as required in Section 8.1.8.7.
Approval of the General Plan of Development shall be valid for up to five'(5) years from the
date of the Commission approval.
8.1.3 Form and Content of Final Plans: All technical work done in conjunction with the prepa-
ration of the final plans shall be in accordance with the "Rules and Regulations of the State
Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors". The technical por-
tions of the final plans shall be certified by either a Land Surveyor or a Professional Engineer,
licensed to practice in Connecticut, in his/her own respective area.
On each sheet for plans or maps,there shall be a title block with the following information:
a. Name, address and telephone of applicant.
b. Name, address and telephone number of Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer.
c. Name of Development,
d. Date when drawings were made.
IThe plans or maps shall conform to the class A-2 requirements of the "Code of Recommended
Practice for Standards of Accuracy of Surveys and Maps, of the Connecticut Association of
Land Surveyors, Inc." The final plans shall consist of the following documents:
8.1.3.1 Key Map: An overall map drawn to a scale of 1 inch equals either 100 or 200 feet,. This
map will show the overall design of the Development and surrounding property within 500
feet.
a. Data block which gives needed zoning information such as percentage of lot coverage,
acreage of tract,number of apartment units, etc.
b. Outline of buildings.
C. Layout of streets.
d. Surrounding property boundaries within 500 feet.
f. Names of abutting property owners.
145
PLANNING DEPARMENT
IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM
DATE: 10/7/13
TO: Matt Galligan, Fred Shaw, Michael Gantick, Rich Bond, Walter Summers, Jeff Doolittle
Ray Favreau, Mark Owens, Chris Dougan, Sherry McGann, Ron Asselin,
John Caldwell, Dennis Sheridan
FROM: Michele Lipe, AICP, Town Planner
The Planning&Engineering Departments have received plans for the following projects:
Appl 13-44P, Evergreen Walk Unit 14
Location: Unit 14 (across Tamarack from ECHN)
M Site Plan ❑ Subdivision No. Acres 6.3 Zone Buckland GD
❑ Industrial ® Commercial ❑ Residential No. Lots/Units
Water: M Public ❑ Private Well Sewerage: ® Public ❑ Septic System
Project Description: 15,000 sf medical office building and parking
Future Town-owned property involved? ❑ Yes ® No
❑ new street(s) ❑ new detention area
❑ new open space/recreation area ❑ active ❑passive
Planning Department notes:
Please comment by 10/25/13 and return to the Planning Department.
Page 1 of 1
Zar rn L a bo Lauren
en L.
From: McGann, Sherry
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 3:43 PM
To: Zarambo, Lauren L.
Subject: RE: In House Referral for Evergreen Walk Unit 14
No comments or concerns.
Sherry McGann, Bs,nExsxHs
Environmental Health Officer
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor,CT 06074
Ph: 860-644-2511 ext.248
Fax: 860-644-7280
www.southwindsor.org
From: Zarambo, Lauren L.
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 3:38 PM
To: Asselin, Ronald; Bond, Richard; Caldwell, John; Doolittle, Jeffrey; Dougan, Christopher; Favreau, Raymond;
Galligan, Matthew; Gantick, Michael; McGann, Sherry; Owens, Mark; Shaw, Fred; Sheridan, Dennis; Summers,
Walter
Subject: In House Referral for Evergreen Walk Unit 14
Please find attached In House Referral form for Appl. 13-44P, Evergreen Walk Unit 14, 151 Buckland Road.
Please forward any comments or questions to the Planning Department.
Thank you,
Lauren L Zarambo
Planning Department Secretary
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT o6074
86o.644.25n ext 253
10/7/2013
Page 1 of 1
Zarambo, Lauren L. -
From: Bond, Richard
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 3:42 PM
To: Zarambo, Lauren L.
Subject: RE: In House Referral for Evergreen Walk Unit 14
No objections
Lt.Rich Bond
Commander-Special Services Division
South Windsor Police Services
151 Sand Hill Rd
South Windsor CT 06074
860-648-6211 (office)
860-982-0351 (cell)
richard.bond()southwindsor.orq
This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that
is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified
that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error,please notify me immediately by telephone.
From: Zarambo, Lauren L.
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 3:38 PM
To: Asselin, Ronald; Bond, Richard; Caldwell,John; Doolittle, Jeffrey; Dougan, Christopher; Favreau, Raymond;
Galligan, Matthew; Gantick, Michael; McGann, Sherry; Owens, Mark; Shaw, Fred; Sheridan, Dennis; Summers,
Walter
Subject: In House Referral for Evergreen Walk Unit 14
Please find attached In House Referral form for Appl. 13-44P, Evergreen Walk Unit 14, 151 Buckland Road.
Please forward any comments or questions to the Planning Department.
Thank you,
Lauren L Zarambo
Planning Department Secretary
Town of South Windsor
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT o6074
86o.644.25u ext 253
10/7/2013
_.. .SOWN Se4 - -
C�
0JP
y u r
o
c
a v
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
f�OSoR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
CERTIFIED MAIL 7011 1570 0000 6337 4045
October 7, 2013
Town Clerk
Town of Manchester
41 Center Street
Manchester, CT 06040
Dear Madam/Sir:
Re: Notice to Adjoining Municipalities
In accordance with Connecticut General Statutes concerning notification to municipalities regarding
Planning& Zoning Commission applications that could affect the abutting town, we hereby notify you
of the application 13-44P, Evergreen Walk Unit 14 —request for site plan of development for a 15,000
sf medical office building on property located at 151 Buckland Road, GD zone.
If you have any question, please feel free to contact the Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 253.
Very truly yours,
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
Town Planner
MRL/llz
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT
Parcel ID Site Address Owner Name
15300070 70 BUCKLAND ROAD MS TOWN LINE ASSOCIATES LLC
83700345 345 SMITH STREET BEAUPRE GENE N
83700340 340 SMITH STREET FRASER BRENDA J & BRUCE D
83700357 357 SMITH STREET BOUTIN EMILJ & LUCILLE
15300419 419 BUCKLAND ROAD CARMON &COMPANY LLC
15300151 151 BUCKLAND ROAD EVERGREEN WALK LLC
20400610 610 CLARK STREET DUPRE AMY-LYNN
27600083 83 DEMING STREET ETIENNE CYNTHIA
83700367 367 SMITH STREET DOWNEAST ASSOCIATES LTD PARTNERS
83700377 377 SMITH STREET DUFOUR WILLARD&CLAIRE
27600047 47 DEMING STREET KEBALO ANDRIAN S&CHERYL S
83700260 260 SMITH STREET EVERGREEN WALK LLC
83700198 198 SMITH STREET FRENCH MARGAR�T R
83700383 383 SMITH STREET GANCARZ RICHARD & IRENE
83700395 395 SMITH STREET LEONARD SCOTT
27600112E 112E DEMING STREET. GERLT WAYNE CHRISTOPHER
27600112C 112C DEMING STREET GERLT WAYNE CHRISTOPHER
27600130 130 DEMING STREET GRILLI GARY L&JEAN M
83700314 314 SMITH STREET 314 SMITH STREET ASSOCIATES LLC
83700332 332 SMITH STREET HAYES ROBERT J & BEVERLY E TRSTEES
27600112A 112A DEMING-STREET HERSHCOPF STEVEN A
20400500 500 CLARK STREET HOOD DONALD T
15300251 251 BUCKLAND ROAD EVERGREEN WALK LLC
27600067 67 DEMING STREET GAINES MICHELLE L&JASON A
83700140 140 SMITH STREET JACQUES JEAN MARC
27600076 76 DEMING STREET JONES ROBERT A& PHYLLIS T
15300130 130 BUCKLAND ROAD KRAWSKI WILLIAM J
41350200 200 HEMLOCK AVE VISION SALON &SPA LLC
15400031 31 BUCKLAND HILLS DRIVE LOWES HOME CENTERS INC
15300190 190 BUCKLAND ROAD REICHLE EARL A& BARBARA H
15300350 350 BUCKLAND ROAD BUCKLAND COMMONS LLC
15300252 252 BUCKLAND ROAD WOLF&GUERRA LLC
15300274 274 BUCKLAND ROAD WOLF&GUERRA LLC
27600152 152 DEMING STREET SOUTH WINDSOR REALTY CO LLC
20400580 580 CLARK STREET SMITH SHIRLEY W
27600043 43 DEMING STREET SOUCY ARTHUR L& KATE C
15300206 206 BUCKLAND ROAD ROUNSEVILLE MARRION & ROY TRUSTEES
15300015 15 BUCKLAND ROAD LEONARD SCOTT
204OR009 R009 CLARK STREET HOOD DONALD
20400716 716 CLARK STREET WALDRON STANLEY
2040R014 R014 CLARK STREET WALDRON STANLEY
27600075 75 DEMING STREET WISNESKI DAVID A& NATHALIE S
83700302 302 SMITH STREET WHITE LORRAINE M
15300116 116 BUCKLAND ROAD BUCKLAND ROAD ASSOCIATES L L C
15300395 395 BUCKLAND ROAD WOODCOCK JOHN J III &CARLA C
15300179 179 BUCKLAND ROAD EVERGREEN WALK LLC
15300079 79 BUCKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN OF
15300325 325 BUCKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN OF
15300095 95 BUCKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN OF
15300296 296 BUCKLAND ROAD MESSIAH EVANGELICAL
15300300 300 BUCKLAND ROAD MESSIAH EVANGELICAL
49390601 601 KEBALO LANE GOWING ROBERTAJ
49390602 602 KEBALO LANE GRAICERSTEIN RITA
49390603 603 KEBALO LANE DIRRIGL IRENE G
49390604 604 KEBALO LANE TAMARKIN KARIN W.
49390000 KEBALO LANE K F PROPERTIES LLB
27600112 112 DEMING STREET BROOKSIDE OFFICE CONDO ASSOCIATION
31300101 101 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300201 201 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300301 301 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300401 401 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300501 501 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300801 801 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300800 800 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300500 500 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300400 400 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300300 300 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300200 200 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
31300100 100 EVERGREEN WAY EVERGREEN WALK LIFESTYLE CENTER LLC
17850100 100 CEDAR AVENUE EVERGREEN WALK LLC
89302800 2800 TAMARACK AVENUE EVERGREEN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES LLC
31300095 95 EVERGREEN WAY BUCKLAND ROAD RETAIL LLC
31300085 85 EVERGREEN WAY BUCKLAND ROAD RETAIL LLC
31300075 75 EVERGREEN WAY BUCKLAND ROAD RETAIL LLC
89302400 2400 TAMARACK AVENUE EVERGREEN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES II LLC
83700244 244 SMITH STREET BRIN PETER J &JENNIFER J
Mailing Address Mailing City Mailing State Mailing Zip
555 MAIN STREET MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000
345 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
340 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
357 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
807 BLOOMFIELD AVE WINDSOR CT 06095-0000
555 MAIN ST MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000
610 CLARK STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
40 BRIGHTMAN CIR SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
P.O.BOX 6120 INDIANAPOLIS IN 46206-6120-0000
377 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
47 DEMING STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
555 MAIN ST MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000
198 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
383 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
110 LAVENDER LAND ROCKY HILL CT 06067-0000
PO BOX 1132 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
PO BOX 1132 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
435 BUCKLAND RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
332 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
332 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
PO BOX 778 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
500 CLARK STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
555 MAIN STREET MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000
67 DEMING ST SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
658 ELLINGTON RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
76 DEMING STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
130 BUCKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
216 HEMLOCK AVE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
PO BOX 1000 MOORESVILLE NC 28115-0000
247 ABBY RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
1744 ELLINGTON RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
989 ELLINGTON RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
989 ELLINGTON RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
303 SOUTH BROADWAY STE105 TARRYTOWN NY 10591-5422-0000
580 CLARK STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
48 DEMING STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
206 BUCKLAND RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
110 LAVENDER LANE ROCKY HILL CT 06067-0000
500 CLARK ST SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
859 CLARK ST SOUTH WINDSOR ICT 06074-0000
859 CLARK ST SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
75 DEMING STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
302 SMITH STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
PO BOX 684 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
PO BOX 684 SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
555 MAIN STREET MANCHESTER CT 06040-0000
1540 SULLIVAN AVE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
1540 SULLIVAN AVE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
1540 SULLIVAN AVE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
296 BUCKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
300 BUCKLAND ROAD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
601 KEBALO LANE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
602 KEBALO LANE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
603 KEBALO LANE SOUTH WINDSOR . CT 06457-0000
0604 KEBALO LANE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
175 WHEELER RD SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
112 DEMING STREET SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 MEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
2650 THOUSAND OAKS#3150 IMEMPHIS TN 38118-0000
555 MAIN STREET IMANCHESTER CT 06040-0000
95 GLADTONBURY BLVD#214 IGLASTONBURY CT 06033-0000
6410 POPULAR AVE#850 MEMPHIS TN 38119-0000
6410 POPULAR AVE#850 MEMPHIS TN 38119-0000
6410 POPULAR AVEE#850 MEMPHIS TN 38119-0000
95 GLASTONBURY BLVD#214 GLASTONBURY CT 06033-0000
244 SMITH ISOUTH WINDSOR ICT 06074-0000
FUSS&O'1 V EILL ❑56 Quarry Road,Trumbull,CT 06611 ❑317 Iron Horse Way,Ste.204, Providence,RI 02908
TEL:(203)374-3748 FAX:(203)374-4391 TEL:(401)861-3070 FAX:(401)861-3076
❑78 Interstate Drive,West Springfield,MA 01089 ❑80 Washington Street,Ste.306,Poughkeepsie,NY 12601
®146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040 TEL:(413)452-0445 FAX:(413)846-0497 TEL: (800)286-2469 FAX:(845)452-5186
TEL:(860)646-2469 FAX:(860)533-5143 050 Redfield Street,Ste.100,Boston,MA 02122 ❑717 Lady Street,Suite E,Columbia,SC 29201
TEL:(617)282-4675 FAX:(617)282-8253 TEL:(803)376-6034 FAX:(803)376-6035
Letter of Transmittal
To: Date: November 8,2013
Michele Lipe,AICP Project No: 2000481.W30 Task No.:
Director of Planning
Town of South Windsor Re: Unit 14&Evergreen Walk
1540 Sullivan Ave
South Windsor CT 06074 P&Z Submission
Telephone No: 860-644-2511 x252
We are sending you: ❑Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover ❑via Courier
❑ Shop Drawings ❑Prints ®Plans ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑Reports ❑ Other
Copies Date No. Description
6 11/7/2013 P&Z Site Plans
NOV G 8 2013
❑ For approval ❑Returned loaned prints ❑ Furnish as submitted
❑As requested ❑Return signed original ❑ Furnish as noted
® For your use ❑ For bids due ❑Rejected
❑ For review&comment ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑Resubmit copies for approval
Signed:
c:
Phil Forzley,PE
\\Hgfs1\sys\P2000\481\W30\Corres\Sent\Town of South Windsor\2013-11-08-P&Z Transn-ttal.rtf
M>tclaele.
From: Karl L Olson(KOI_50N@rnurthalaw cam]
Sent L TUbiciay, November 1 ,2013 2:50 PM -
To Lipe Michele --
Subject FW:Scanned "document#roan Karl L.Olson(kolson@murthalaw.com)
`Attachments, Unit
14 Evergreen VValk:pdf
Unit,14 Evergreen
Walk pdf(2;:
Dear Michele:: Attached-- is the letter from. Attorney Smith regarding Unit 14,
Evergreen:°I!�7i I 'have reviewed it_ carefully.-and believe that. his posi ion is defensible.
Although th%e circumstances her`e. are; unique and a court could ;-disagree., -I think the
arguments``ar,e _,valid 'and should be considered by the Commission
;Best-
Kari
Kari =L. Olson
Partner
kolson@murthalaw.com
Murtha CullinaLLP I, Attorney._at -Law i www.murthalaw.com CityPlace I, 185 Asylum Street
Hartford { CT_ 1 06103-3469
Direct: 860-240 .6085`
Fax: ' 8'60-240-5885
Mobile,: 860-808-8"267
IRS CIRCULAR 23.0 DISCLAIMER: Any tax advice contained in this e-mail is not intended to
be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding Federal tax
penalties that .may be imposed on the taxpayer._ Further,` to the extent any tax advice
"conta.ined .in this e-mail may have been written to support the promotion or marketing of
-the transactions or matters discussed in-this 'e-mail, every taxpayer should seek advice
based on such t°a xpayer's 'particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
:CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message originates from the law firm of Murtha,Cullina LLP.
The information. contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may_be` a
confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged and
confidential. If the reader of this message, regardless of the address or routing, is not
an intended recipient, you are 'hereby notified that you have received thi stransmittal in
error and any review, use distribution dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please delete this e-mail ,and all files
transmitted with it from your system and immediately notify Murtha Cullina by sending ,a
reply e-mail to the sender of this message. Thank you.:
-----Original Message--- -
From: Kari L. Olson
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 2:33 PM
To: Kari L. Olson
Subject: Scanned document from -Kari L. Olson (kolson@murthalaw.com)
1
Appl 13-44P, EW Unit 14 (at Evergreen Walk)
Nov 12, 2013
Planning Department Report
l. Request for site plan approval to construct a 2-story, 15,000 sf medical office
buildings across from the first ECHN office building, south of Deming Street
and west of Buckland Road, Buckland Gateway Development zone.
2. The General Plan originally showed office buildings occupying the entire area
bounded by Tamarack Avenue, Deming Street, Buckland Road and Cedar
Avenue, so this office building conforms with the master plan in that respect.
Over time, as the actual buildings are designed and located, the concept
locations shown on the master are plan being laced with the realities of
p g replaced
individual client requirements. The.parking configuration is different from the
General Plan but conforms with the desired Gateway Zone parking objective of
distributing the parking and including the 10% interior landscaping within the
parking areas.
3. I would note one change that has been made to the zoning regulations since the
original general plan is the requirement for a 65 foot setback along all property
frontages —in this particular situation that would include the Deming Road
frontage. The original concept plan allowed for a 25 foot setback along the
Deming Road frontage. We did have discussion with the applicant's attorney
and our town attorney about the implications of the change in the regulation.
The applicant provided a letter to Kari Olson, TA and she concurs with his
opinion that this is set back should be allowed based on the approval of the
original General Plan.
4. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is 60%. In the Gateway zone, the
entire project is treated as one lot for development purposes, so the cumulative
impervious coverage on the entire 232-acre site. Proposed building height is 30
feet; 60 feet allowed. Lot size is 6 acres; minimum lot size allowed is 3 acres.
Since the entire Evergreen Walk site is a consolidated lot, individual yard
setbacks do not apply except around the perimeter of the site.
5. This site will be accessed solely from Evergreen Walk's internal road network,
off of Tamarack Avenue. The previously-approved Town Square project
includes an interconnection via Evergreen Way with LA Fitness to the
southeast. The applicant will be required to make this interconnection prior to
CO's on the first apartment building.
i
MEMORANDUM
To: Michele Lipe, Town Planner
From: Jeffrey Doolittle,Town Engineer ►} Q
Date: 11/12/13
RE: Application 13-44P— Unit 14 Evergreen Walk
Engineering has reviewed ,the site plan received for the above application and has
the following comments:
1. A street address for the proposed building should be included on the plans.
2. 1 suggest another catch basin be installed in the parking lot on the south west side
of the center island or in the driveway near the building and be piped to CB2.
This additional CB would collect stormwater from the southern side of the parking
lot, so that all this stormwater would not have to travel along Y the driveway in front
of the building to C132. This driveway is only about 4 inches below the sidewalk in
front of the building and only about 6 inches lower than the building FF El. An
additional CB would help protect the building from potential flooding during heavy
rain storms.
3. Label the slope of the proposed steep bank between the building/parking lot and
sidewalk along Deming Street. The steep part of this slope should be reduced to
31-1:1 V or less if possible.
4. Provide details of the proposed sewer pump station, force main pipe and
connection to existing force main from ECHN.
5. An easement is likely needed to connect to the ECHN sewer force main.
6. An application for the proposed sanitary sewer system and connection must be
made to the WPCA for their review and approval.
7. The curb around islands in parking lot should be sloped curb as shown on the
plans so fire trucks and any other large vehicles can drive over these curbs if
necessary. If plans change these islands should be curbed with bituminous
concrete slope curbing (aka cape cod curb).
Please contact me if you have any questions.
SOWN Se
o
r �� ��� �•
c �
afi
m �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
sox•co TELEPHONE (860) 644 2511
November 7, 2013 Certified #7011 1570 0000 6336 2820
Philip E. Forzley, P.E.
Sr.Associate
Fuss&O'Neill
146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
RE: Appl. #13-44P—Unit 14 Evergreen Walk
Dear Mr. Forzley:
At the November 6, 2013 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission
approved Appl. #13-44P— Evergreen Walk LLC— 151 Buckland Rd.—Inland Wetland/Conservation
Commission application for the construction of an office building, parking areas, stormwater management,
and associated improvements on property located northerly Deming Street and westerly of Buckland Rd.
Gateway Development(GD)Zone, with the following conditions:
1. The final approved copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon must be
submitted to the Planning Department. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior
to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning & Zoning Commission shall
be considered having met this requirement.
2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any
liability, which might result from the proposed operation or use.
3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on November 6, 2018. It is the
Ian downer(s)/appl icant(s) responsibility to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a
renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration.
4. A bond shall be collected in the amount of $10,000 to ensure adequate erosion and sediment
controls are constructed and maintained through the construction process.
5. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site.
6. A contact person shall be identified on the plans.
7. Revise item K on the application to reflect the correct acreage.
8. Install diversion structure that would direct stormwater flow to the south of the basin toward the
existing sediment sump. The plan to be approved by the Town Engineer.
9. Approval based on plans revised and received 11/6/2013.
Very truly yours,
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Elizabeth A. Warren, Chairperson
cc: Town Planner
Chief Building Official
SOW N SC4
X F
s
T101� 07- s-aU� ?d
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
SOR-CO TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511
CERTIFIED MAIL 7011 1570 0000 6337 4168
November 13, 2013
Phillip E. Forzley
Fuss&O'Neill
146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
Re: Appl. 13-44P, Evergreen Walk Unit 14, Site Plan, 151 Buckland Road
Dear Mr. Forzley:
We are pleased to advise you that the Planning&Zoning Commission voted on November 12,
2013 to approve with modifications the above referenced application a site plan modification.
This approval is for a 15,000 sf medical office building in the Evergreen Walk development,
Unit 14, on property located at 151 Buckland Road, GD zone, as shown on plans prepared by
Fuss &O'Neill, dated 10/04/2013, Job#2000 0481.W30 as revised. This approval is subject to
the following modifications:
1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's
office.
3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands
Agency/Conservation Commission, including bonds in the amount of $50,000 to ensure
proper placement and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls; $50,000 for
construction of stormwater systems; and$30,000 for wetland plantings.
4. A landscape bond in the amount of$50,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing
of mylars.
5. All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
6. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Article
9.1.2.13 of the Zoning Regulations.
7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of
the Town of South Windsor.
8. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted
by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
9. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
10. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and
parking areas.
11. All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they
are erected.
12. If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permits will be issued until
the certificate has been issued(per CGS §14-311).
13. The Town Engineer's review comments dated November 12, 2013 must be incorporated into
the final plans.
Black and white transparent mylars of Sheet #'s CS101 - CS104 and CG112 with the above
modifications, together with three blueprint copies of the entire set of plans with live signatures
and raised seals (including architectural elevations and landscaping plans) must be submitted to
this Commission. The letter of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands
Agency/Conservation Commission and the Water Pollution Control Authority must be
reproduced on the mylars must be submitted to this Commission.
After the mylars has been signed by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in
the Office of the Town Clerk. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to
the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
Bart Pacekonis, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
BP/llz
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
Assessor
Superintendent of Pollution Control
Fire Marshal
FUSS&O'NEILL ❑56 Quarry Road,Trumbull,CT 06611 ❑317 Iron Horse Way,Ste.204, Providence,RI 02908
TEL:(203)374-3748 FAX:(203)374-4391 TEL:(401)861-3070 FAX:(401)861-3076
❑78 Interstate Drive,West Springfield,MA 01089 ❑80 Washington Street,Ste.306,Poughkeepsie,NY 12601
171146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040 TEL:(413)452-0445 FAX:(413)846-0497 TEL: (800)286-2469 FAX:(845)452-5186
TEL:(860)646-2469 FAX:(860)533-5143 ❑50 Redfield Street,Ste.100,Boston,MA 02122
❑717 Lady Street,Suite E,Columbia,SC 29201
TEL:(617)282-4675 FAX:(617)282-8253 TEL:(803)376-6034 FAX:(803)376-6035
Letter of Transmittal
To: Date: December 18,2013
Michele Lipe,AICP Project No: 2000481.W30 Task No.:100
Director of Planning
Town of South Windsor Re: 2701 Tamarack Ave—Evergreen Walk Unit 14
1540 Sullivan Ave
South Windsor CT 06074 Medical Office Building Permit Documents
Telephone No: 860-644-2511 x252
We are sending you: ❑Attached ❑Under Separate Cover ®via Courier
❑ Shop Drawings ❑Prints ❑Plans ❑ Specifications
❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Change Order ❑Reports ❑ Other
Copies Date No. Description
3 Site Plan Sets
❑ For approval ❑Returned loaned prints ❑ Furnish as submitted
❑As requested ❑Return signed original ❑ Furnish as noted
❑ For your use ❑ For bids due ❑Rejected
❑ For review&comment ❑Submit copies for distribution ❑Resubmit copies for approval
Michele,
Enclosed is 3 sets of revised Site Plan drawings which include all the revisions necessary to respond to you and your staff comments.
Signed:
c:
Ronald Bomengen,PE,LEED AP
RECEIVED
ED
NO 18 2013
C:\Users\RBOMEN-1\AppData\Local\Temp\asdfrtf
SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT.
SOWN Sfq
-0� Ole Sot� ?d&uaot
w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
SOR-CO TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511
January 16, 2014
Mr. Philip Forzley, PE
Fuss& O'Neill
146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
Re: Proposed Medical Office Building,Unit 14—Evergreen Walk
Dear Mr. Forzley:
The South Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority, at its regular meeting of January 7, 2014,
approved the application as presented for connection to the Town's sewerage system for a proposed
medical office building to be located at 2701 Tamarack Avenue, South Windsor, CT as more
specifically shown on plans entitled "Medical Office Building, 2701 Tamarack Avenue, South
Windsor, Connecticut; Site Development Plans"; Prepared by Fuss & O'Neill, Manchester, CT;
Project No. 2000481.W30, Sheet No. CU-101 "Utility Plan", Dated 10/04/2013 and Revised on
10/31/2013, 11/6/2013, i 1/7/2013, 12/7/2013, and 1/6/2014; Sheet No. CD-508 "Site Sanitary Sewer
and Water Details", Dated 10/04/2013 and Revised on 12/13/2013; and Sheet No. CD-509 "Site
Sanitary Sewer Details"Dated 1/6/2014.
This approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The satisfactory review and approval by Town Engineer of the pump details and flow
calculations for the pump system;
2. Provision for an auxiliary power system for operation of the pump system during times of
commercial power loss;
3. A connection charge will be due in the amount of $4,506.00 for 1.2 acres at the time of
connection,the rates for which will be in effect until July 1, 2014;
4. Technical approval of the Town of South Windsor Engineering Department;
5. Final Authority approval and acceptance of the sanitary sewerage connection will be
conditional upon the installed sewer line having been inspected by the Town staff, and upon the
written verification of the Town staff that said sanitary sewer line was installed in substantial
conformance with the design plans approved by the Authority, and meeting all regulations and
appropriate technical specifications relating to sanitary sewer construction.
This approval letter must be superimposed on the final approval plans.
Very truly yours,
t
Ric and Aries, Chairman
Water Pollution Control Authority
cc: Michael J. Gantick,Director of Public Works
Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
✓Michele Lipe, Town Planner
Chris Dougan, Chief Building Inspector
S�NN Sfq
C U Town o-P SoaiA Vkd4-at
:. wG 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
ry�SOR-00) TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
CERTIFIED MAIL 7011 1570 0000 6337 4359
January 16, 2014
Alan Lamson
FLB Architecture &Planning Inc.
19 Silver Lane
East Hartford, CT 06118
Re: Appl. 13-44P, Evergreen Walk Unit 14, Architectural Changes, 151 Buckland Road
Dear Mr. Lamson:
We are pleased to advise you that the Planning &Zoning Commission voted on January 14,
2014 to approve the architectural changes presented at the meeting for Evergreen Walk Unit 14
at 151 Buckland Road. This approval is subject to the following modification:
l. All prior approval modifications for the above referenced application, approved on
November 121, 2013, remain in effect.
Sincerely, -
22
Bart Pacekonis, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
BP/llz
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
Assessor
Superintendent of Pollution Control
Fire Marshal
SOW N Se
~ F Town O-P Soam ?d
ls
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
f�Osos•co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
CERTIFIED MAIL 70111570 0000 6337 4168
November 13, 2013
Revised Jun 3,2014
Phillip E. Forzley
Fuss & O'Neill
146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
Re: Appl. 13-44P, Evergreen Walk Unit 14, Site Plan, 151 Buckland Road
Dear Mr. Forzley:
We are pleased to advise you that the Planning &Zoning Commission voted on November 12,
2013 to approve with modifications the above referenced application a site plan modification.
This approval is for a 15,000 sf medical office building in the Evergreen Walk development,
Unit 14, on property located at 151 Buckland Road, GD zone, as shown on plans prepared by
Fuss &O'Neill, dated 10/04/2013, Job#2000 0481.W30 as revised. This approval is subject to
the following modifications:
1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff.
2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's
office.
3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands
Agency/Conservation Commission, including bonds in the amount of$10,000 to ensure
proper placement and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls.
4. A landscape bond in the amount of$5,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of
mylars.
5. All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy.
6. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Article
9.1.2.B of the Zoning Regulations.
7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of
the Town of South Windsor.
8. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer, which can only be granted
by the Water Pollution Control Authority.
9. The building street number must be included on the final plan.
10. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and
parking areas.
11. All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they
are erected.
12. If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required, no building permits will be issued until
the certificate has been issued(per CGS §14-311).
13. The Town Engineer's review comments dated November 12, 2013 must be incorporated into
the final plans.
Black and white transparent mylars of Sheet #'s G1103 and CS1022 with the above
modifications, together with three blueprint copies of the entire set of plans with live signatures
and raised seals (including architectural elevations and landscaping plans) must be submitted to
this Commission. The letter of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands
Agency/Conservation Commission and the Water Pollution Control Authority must be
reproduced on the mylars must be submitted to this Commission.
After the mylars has been signed by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in
the Office of the Town Clerk. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to
the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
Bart Pacekonis, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
BP/llz
cc: Town Engineer
Chief Building Official
Assessor
Superintendent of Pollution Control
Fire Marshal
BOND TRANSMITTAL
DATE: June 9, 2014
APPLICANT NAME Swathanthra K. Melekote
A G M Properties, LLC
ADDRESS 23 Pease Farm Road
Ellington , CT 06029
PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS 151 Buckland Road ; Unit 14
SUBDIVISION Evergreen Walk
P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER Appl. 13-44P
AMOUNT OF BOND $ 10,000 E&S Bond
CHECK NUMBER 409383
DEPARTMENT PLANNING
SUBMITTED BY Lauren Zarambo 6/9/14
NAME DATE
PROCESSED BY FINANCE (�,e
NAME DATE
SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER S ® a a-0 7
MUNIS APPLICATION 201301455
WAPlanning Admin\PZC\Bonds\2014 Bonds113-44P Unit14 BvergreenWalk BondTrans.doc
�0,0N seq
Town o-Ye s-ash ?di
• ��` 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
SOR-CO � TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511
June 3, 2014
James P. Galey, President
Fuss & O'Neill Design Build Services, LLC
146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
Dear Mr. Galey:
Re: Preconstruction Meeting for Appl. 13-44P, Medical Office Building,2701 Tamarack Avenue
IN ATTENDANCE
Name Company E-MAIL Phone number
Michele R. Lie SW Planner michele.li e southwindsor.or 644-2511 x252
Jeffrey Folger SW Planning 'effre .fol er southwindsor.or 644-2511 x229
Jeffrey Doolittle SW Engineering jeffre .doolittle southwindsor.or 644-2511 x245
Bernie Drabek SW Engineering bemard.drabek@southwindsor.org 644-2511 x241
Glenn Buonanducci SW Police Dept. glenn.buonanducci@southwindsor.org 860-648-6266
Jim Galey Fuss& O'Neill jgalev@fando.com 860-646-2469
Design Build x5256
Charlie Ahles Fuss& O'Neill cahles@fando.com 860-646-2469
Design Build e x5217
Ron Bomengen Fuss & O'Neill rbomengen@fando.com 860-646-2469
Jeff Burkhart FLB Architecture 'burkhart flbarch.com 860-568-4030
Laurie Fiori Yankee Gas laurie.fiori Lnu.com 860-292-2209
Clinton Lester Yankee Gas clinton.lester� nu.com 860-966-8844
Sean Montie Yankee Gas sea.n.montie@nu.com 860-461=1544
Mark Standish AT&T ms2654@,att.com 860-725-1909
The following is a brief summary of points discussed during the meeting:
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
1. All erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be in place prior to earth moving operations in
each area and maintained/cleaned out during construction. Call Jeffrey Folger, Senior Environmental
Planner for inspection when measures are in place, prior to commencement of site work or if any
problems/concerns arise during construction at 860-644-2511 Ext. 229.
2. All topsoil stockpile areas to be protected(ringed with haybales or equal).
3. During construction a crushed stone tracking pad may need to be installed and maintained to minimize
tracking of dirt/gravel on to Tamarack Avenue. Calcium chloride or water is to be used for dust
control as required.
4. Install and stabilize the detention basin and swale on site first.
Public Works
1. Three complete sets of approved/revised plans to be provided to Town prior to start of
construction. They will be stamped by the Planning Department along with plans developer
needs. Only approved plans are to be used on the job site.
2. The Engineering Department is to be notified forty-eight (48) hours prior to the start of major
construction work on site with inspections and testing per Developers Checklist for the following:
a. After site is staked out
b. All drainage work
c. Preparation of subgrade, compaction tests as per Developer's checklist
d. Placement of bituminous concrete, two (2) inch layers maximum
3. Earth Dynamics from Mansfield is responsible for the site work.
4. A street cut permit is needed for any work in Deming Street.
5. A drain layers permit is needed for the sanitary sewer connection and pump system.
6. Certification of gravel used as subbase and processed stone for base will be required from an
approved testing company
7. Certification of all products used -- storm pipe, structures, pavement, oil/grit separator and sewer
grinder pump system shall be presented to the Town Engineer prior to installation.
8. All pipe and structures to be backfilled with free draining material compacted in maximum one
foot lifts with approved compaction equipment or approved equal if deep trench is encountered.
Any pipe or structure work requires inspection prior to backfilling.
9. No subgrade formation/base in frozen ground/snow. Same for pipe/structure installation.
10. Progress As Built Plans may be submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to paving and
after subgrade formation if desired. Show elevations and location of all storm drainage and
sanitary sewer.
11. An as built plan will be required for the improvements to Tamarack Avenue. A separate as built
plan will be required.
12. As built plans are to include horizontal and vertical location of all underdrains, footing drains,
and sanitary sewers and service laterals located as per revised as-built checklist.
13. Any problems and/or questions regarding construction of this project will be directed to James
Galey in the field at phone 860-966-9302.
14. All filling to be done in accordance with Department of Transportation specifications. To be
compacted in maximum lifts and tested as necessary.
15. Job meetings will be held as needed, and can be called by the developer or Town.
16. Seventy-two (72) hours' notice needed for certificate of occupancy inspection and a $35 C.O.
inspection fee is due at that time.
17. Any proposed changes are to be presented to the Engineering or Planning Department prior to
implementation on change order form in quadruplicate with 4 copies of the drawing. Town will
attempt to turn around within 24 hours.
18.Normal hours of operation 7:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m., no work on Sunday.
19.No paving after October 15 or before April 15 without written approval from Director of Public
Works.
20. Sanitary lateral locations should be tied down to existing structures and shown on the progress as
built.
21. During construction of individual sanitary sewer house laterals,the contractor shall prepare an as-
built sketch on standard form provided by the Engineering Department. This form should be
submitted to the design engineer/surveyor for their use in preparing the as-built plan. The
Engineering Department suggests that the contractor also show locations of foundation drains and
water laterals on this form.
Planning Department
1. Landscaping is to be installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. If there are
changes required, contact the Planning Dept. Additional landscaping installed on one part of a site
will not preclude planting all of the remaining items shown on the landscaping plan.
2. All bonds required;mylar to go on file prior to issuance of building permit.
3. Sign permits are required for all temporary and permanent signs.
Utilities
1. Yankee Gas: A site plan and coordination of extension of gas main in Deming Street will be
required.
2. AT&T: A site plan is needed. Electrical and Telephone are on Tamarack Avenue
3. Contact other utilities for coordination of utilities connection.
Fire Marshal(Commercial Facilities)
1) Documents—Complete set of stamped plans with the following:
a. Plan review paid
b. Code information sheet
c. Exiting plans with travel distances
d. Wall types
e. Door schedule
f. Mechanical, Electrical, reflected ceiling
g. Fire alarm
h. Basic sprinkler layout
** PLAN REVIEW COULD TAKE 30 DAYS FOR APPROVALS **
2) Inspections:
a. Above ceiling
b. Penetrations and separations
c. Sprinkler system
A. Hydraulic calculations and cut sheets
B. Underground flush and hydrostatic test
C. System hydrostatic test
D. Main drain test/inspectors test
E. Outside bell
F. NFPA 13 paperwork
d. Fire Alarm
e. Emergency lighting test
f. Final Inspection
** PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING**
1. Consulting inspection will be welcomed
2. Multiple inspections can be done on the same day
3. Stocking/addition of fixtures to occupancy will only be allowed if the life safety systems are on
line.
Police Services
1. Emergency phone numbers for the duration of the construction must be provided to Police Services on
a company letterhead. If the developer occupies or owns the building after construction emergency
numbers must be provided to Police Services.
2. All buildings located on property that abuts a public highway must be numbered and visible from the
street. All numbering shall comply with Town Ordinance 6-800 through 6-802.
3. Barns, garages, and outbuildings, which are located on the same premises as a numbered structure, are
excluded.
4. Erect temporary sign on the site during construction identifying the project.
5. If an alarm is to be installed contact Police Services.
Building Department
1. Plan review with Building Official/Fire Marshal required prior to application for building permit.
Coordinate with Chief Building Official.
Very truly yours,
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
Town Planner
MRL/llz
cc: Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer
Bernie Drabek, Engineering Inspector
Michael Gantick, Public Works
Christopher Dougan, Chief Building Official
Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control
Walter Summers, Fire Marshal
CL&P
SBC/SNET
PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET
(please print clearly)
NAME COMPANY ADDRESS and / or EMAIL TELEPHONE
h
e - 1 ry
z1l
e, 1-7
r
Q /yIS�6sA T
o y y
P15 POLL,—
A./
--- / 5'Y
Engineers
Scientists FUSS&O'NEILL I FUSS&O'NEILL
De
sign$,Vold Services,LLc
Design Build Services,u.c
j James P.Galey
Charles D.Ahlea,pE 146 Hartford Road President
v'ce President/Project Director
Manchester,CT 06040 �— 86 x5256
t(860)646-2469 x5217•(800)286-2469 �— J9aley@ 2469 ey@fando.com
f(860)533-5146• c(860)966-1972
cahles@fando.com
engineers scientists planners
Power Sy5.tems
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
July 14, 2015
Mr. Charlie Ahles, PE
Vice President
Fuss & O'Neill Design Build Services, LLC
146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
RE: Medical Office Building
2701 Tamarack Avenue
South Windsor, CT
Date of substantial completion:July 14, 2015
Dear Charlie,
This letter is to confirm our conversation that the site lighting at 2701 Tamarack Ave South
Windsor was installed as per Evergreen Walk LLC Lighting Plan CL 101 dated 10/04/2013. All
pole lights are as specified and are installed at locations as shown on the above referenced
plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Respectfully,
Xevin Drost
Kevin Drost
PO Box 1095 Farmington, CT 06034-1095 Ph (860) 676-9004 Fax (860)676-9005
BOND TRANSMITTAL
DATE: October 29, 2015
APPLICANT NAME Fuss & O'Neill Design/Build Services, LLC
ADDRESS 146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS LOT 2701 Tamarack Avenue
SUBDIVISION Medical Office Building at Evergreen Walk
P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER 13-44P
AMOUNT OF BOND _$_2,500 Landscape Bond
CHECK NUMBER 1312604548
DEPARTMENT PLANNING
SUBMITTED BY _Lauren Zarambo _10/29/15
NAME DATE
PROCESSED BY FINANCE 111311
NAME DATE
SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER S O O a/5
MUNIS APPLICATION 201301455
WAPlanning Admin\PZC\Bonds\2015 Bonds\13-44P MedOfficeBldg BondTrans.doc
PERMITS/INSP PAYMENT RECPT#: 20826293
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE
SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074
DATE: 10/29/15 TIME: 15:31
CLERK: laurenlza DEPT:
CUSTOMER#: 0
PARCEL:
CHG: BONDPL BOND FEE - PLAN 2500.00
AMOUNT PAID: 2500.00
PAID BY: FUSS & O'NEILL, INC
PAYMENT METH: CHECK
1312604548
REFERENCE: LANDSCA BOND
AMT TENDERED: 2500.00
AMT APPLIED: 2500.00
CHANGE: .00
i
Laura Galey
From: Charles Ahles
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 1:26 PM
To: Laura Galey
Subject: FW: Lot#14 Landscape bond 2701.Tamarack
Attachments: Bonding Policy-PZC 7-24-12.doc
Print.
Charlie Ahles, PE
Vice President
Fuss&O'Neill Design Build Services,LLC 1 146 Hartford Road I Manchester,CT 06040
860.646,2469 x5217 I cahles@fando.com I cell:860.966.1972
www.fando.com I twitter facebook I linkedin
From: Lipe, Michele [mailto:Michele.Lipe(�bsouthwindsor org]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 4:36 PM
To: Charles Ahles
Cc: Phil Forzley
Subject: RE: Lot #14 Landscape bond 2701 Tamarack
Hi Charles,
1 went by the site and since it has been planted, we will only require a$2,500.00 bond to ensure survival of the
plantings. You can request the release of those fund next spring once the everything is in bloom.
Thanks,
Michele
Michele R. Lipe, AICP
Director of Planning
Town of 3outh Windsor
1540 Sullivan Ave.
South Windsor, CT 06074
(860) 644-2511, ext. 252
From: Charles Ahles [mailto:CAhles0)fando.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:15 PM
To: Lipe, Michele
Subject: Fwd: Lot #14 Landscape bond 2701 Tamarack
Hi Michelle,
In the field today. Thanks for your time. Please forward your policy&options for the$5K LS bond for
Tamarack.
Thanks,
Charlie
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
i
BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 27, 2016
APPLICANT NAME Swathanthra K. Melekote
ADDRESS A G M Properties, LLC
23 Pease Farm Road
Ellington, CT 06029
PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS LOT 151 Buckland Road, Unit 14
Evergreen Walk
Medical Office Building
P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER Appl. 13-44P
MUNIS APPLICATION NUMBER 201301455
SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER 500207 -
ORIGINAL BOND AMOUNT $ 10,000 E&S Bond
Please Release $ 10,000
Please release the bond indicated above as all of the required
work has been completed.
_Lauren L Zaram6o A&27, 2016
NAME DATE
6 / 9 BY 6�gCga4
CHECK # ISSUED DATE
WAPlanning Admin\PZC\Bonds\2016 Bonds\13-44P,Evergm Wlk Med Office Bldg BondReleaseTrans.doc
�OVIN Se4
a
9 a
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
SOR•CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
July 28, 2016
Swathanthra K. Melekote
A.G.M. Properties, LLC
23 Pease Farm Road
Ellington, CT 06029
Re: Appl. 13-44P, Medical Office Building E&S Bond Release, 2701 Tamarack Avenue
Dear Swathanthra:
This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on July 26, 2016 to release the
following bond as follows:
Appl. 13-44P, Medical Office Building $10 000 E&S Bond reduced by$10,000 to leave a balance of-0-
A check will be mailed to you from the Town of South Windsor. If you have any further questions,
please contact the Planning Department at 860-644-2511, ext. 253. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gary Bazzano, Chairman
PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION
GB/llz
cc: Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
Jeff Folger, Senior Environmental Planner
L
BOND RELEASE TRANSMITTAL
DATE: July 27, 2016
APPLICANT NAME Fuss & O'Neill Design/Build Services, LLC
ADDRESS 146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
PROJECT LOCATION/ADDRESS LOT 2701 Tamarack Avenue
Medical Office Building at
Evergreen Walk
P&Z OR IWA/CC APPLICATION NUMBER Appl. 13-44P
MUNIS APPLICATION NUMBER 201301455
SUB ACCOUNT NUMBER 500215
ORIGINAL BOND AMOUNT $ 2,500 Landscape Bond
Please Release $ 2,500
Please release the bond indicated above as all of the required
work has been completed.
Lauren L Zaram6o Ju(j 27, 2016
NAME DATE
BY
CHECK # ISSUED DATE
WAPlanning Admin\PZC\Bonds\2016 Bonds\13-44P,EvergmWlk MedOfficeBldg Landscape BondReleaseTrans.doe
t0W N Sf4
Tlov� ap ?d&U1&)1t
C ^
.1 ti
S �
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074
sox•co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511
July 29, 2016
Fuss& O'Neill Design/Build Services, LLC
146 Hartford Road
Manchester, CT 06040
Re: Appl. 13-44P, Medical Office Building Landscape Bond Release, 2701 Tamarack Avenue
To Whom It May Concern:
This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on July 26, 2016 to release the
following bond as follows:
Appl. 13-44P, Medical Office Building Landscape Bond Bond reduced by $2,500 to leave a balance of-
0-
A check will be mailed to you from the Town of South Windsor. If you have any further questions,
please contact the Planning Department at 860-644-2511, ext. 253. Thank you.
Sincerely,
�eD-
Gary Bazzano, Chairman
PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION
GB/llz
cc: Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer
Jeff Folger, Senior Environmental Planner