Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100 Long Hill Road / �°� TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR , CONNECTICUT ° PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION c � 4 �� APPLICATION FORM r• j'�� {� 'yA��f.Clrti' /J '�� Application No . : Date Received : / ) - / 7 _ Action/Public Hearing by 4 i7g� Receipt No . : SCUth Kn�S,or INLAND VVETLANDS AGENCY,, APPLICANT : Chester Lubowicki CONSERVATMN nn aAjS ADDRESS : 27C Downev Drive, Hanchester, CT 06040 TELEPHONE : 2n2-070n OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS : Chester and Janina Lubowicki ADDRESS : 27C Dovinev Drive, fla-nchester, CT 06040 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: F-asterl v side of Lone M11 Rd. , ;ssPssnr 'lay #7 , Parcels 4 (see reap arid. -checiul e "A") ZONE: QR NAME, ADDRESS , & TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: John J. Laurence, Jr. , John Lawrence & Assoc. , 486 Prospect Aventae, Fartford, CT 06105 (203 ) 232-4740 TELEPHONE : THIS APPLICATION IS FOR : (Check one of the following ) XXXX 1 . Zone Change to (Public Hearing required ) . 2 . Subdivision . 3 . Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing required ) . 4 . Resubdivision (Public Hearing required ) . 5 . Special Exception to Article ( Public Hearing Required ) . 6 . Site Plan of Development . 7 . Earth Filling [Section 10 ] and/or Earth Removal [ Section 9 ] (Public Hearing Required) . 8 . General Plan of Development . 9 . Regulation Amendment : Zoning Subdivision 10. Other (explain in detail) : CONSULT PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FEE SCHEDULE. THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED IN TRI LICATE WITH ALL MAPS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED ON ATTACH,E-D CHECKLIST . p icant- O"wher Agent _ SCHEDULE A A certain piece or parcel of land with all improvements thereon located on the easterly side of Long Hill Road, shown as noted on attached map, "Shaded Area Denotes Portions of Proposed Zone Change (Area 70,495 s. f. ) from RR to I Zone", and further bounded and described as follows: Nly - Land N/F Andre L. Charbonneau 240 feet more or less Ely - Other lands N/F Chester Lubowicki 285 feet more or less Sly - Land N/F Jean F. Klein 244 feet Wly - Long Hill Road, 299 feet LETTER O F TRANSMITTAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT y TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR 1540 SULLIVAN AVE. SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 (203) 644-2511 Date TO: WE ARE SENDING YOU: t!j-P&Z initial plans Q Drainage comps Q P&Z final plans Q Bond estimate requests Q Inland Wetlands plans Q Bond reduction requuests Q Final plans for filing Q Change order form Q Other Q Correspondence Copies App. No. Project THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: 7M For review and comment Q For your file Q For your use = Returned with revisions Q As requested Q Other PLEASE RETURN/COKKF-NT BY: 2— COMMENTS: All LtA4 (O"oAt QCO Copy to: Io _ m: d 'I �UNe, ` PLANNING DEPART14ENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Jean Zurbrigen, Karl Reichle, Michael Gantick, Mel Stead, Fred Shaw, Sgt. Gerald Lewis, Fire Marshall Lanning, James Snow FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning (�I q/q/ The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project: # c k 2'0r� �Cl�t-ge f,--CL -tv 1 Zone Acreage �- Subdivision Site Plan Residential No. of Lots/Units Commercial Industrial Location: Lt Project Description: Future Town-owned property involved? Yes No_,z (a) new streets (existing frontage also) (b) new open space/recreation area active passive (c) new detention area Planning Department comments Please let me know by / 3 if you will have comments on this application so t at I can follow up with your department when I do a Planning Department report. PL/b I f C led V-' j SC he-61v(ek J J (t , I l`lp- -� PLANNING DEPAR7219W IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Jean Zurbri en i e, Michael Gantick, Mel Stead, Fred Shaw, g ' s Fire Marshall Lanning, James Snow FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning (IIglet/ The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the f o 1 lowing project: # G I y l- r_1c ; L '<,�1� Zone Acreage Subdivision Site Plan Residential No. of Lots/Units Commercial Industrial Location: Project Description: Future Town-owned property involved? Yes No (a) new streets (existing frontage also) (b) new open space/recreation area active passive (c) new detention area Planning Department comments Alp 6*<&r- P1 ase let me know by 1 ' 3 if you will have comments on this application so t at I can follow up with your department when I do a Planning Department report. ZLqi qj y� PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM TO: Jean Zurbrigen, Karl Reichle, Michael Gantick, Mel Stead, Fred Shaw, Sgt. Gerald Lewis, Fire Marshall Lanning, James Snow. FROM: Marcia A. Banach, Director of Planning (.�- /q 1,-t /. The Planning & Engineering Departments have received plans for the following project: # Zone Acreage Subdivision Site Plan Residential No. of Lots/Units Commercial Industrial Location: Project Description: Future Town-owned property involved? Yes No-,Z- (a) new streets (existing frontage also) (b) new open space/recreation area active passive (c) new detention area Planning Department comments Please let me know by I , 3 if you will have comments on this application so t at I can follow up with your department when I do a Planning Department report. ` 6 l j J� C` r / / too � I 3 pow N "4 r 7-a O-P Soa& ?d&2� �c0 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 l��soR-CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 January 15, 1992 John J. Lawrence, Jr. John Lawrence & Associates 486 Prospect Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 Dear Mr. Lawrence: Re: Application #9146P, Lubowicl i Zone Change Please be advised that the public hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, January 28, 1992, at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Averfue. Signs advertising the hearing must be posted for 10 consecutive days prior to the hearing, and must be clearly visible from the road. Please have them posted by Friday, January 17, 1992 . One sign should be placed on Long Hill Road. Signs can be purchased in the Town Hall for $5 . 00 each. Very truly yours, Phyll s M. Mann Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission JAN g 1992 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 1992 THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1992 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, January 28, 1992 at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall to consider the following: 1 . Appl. #91-46P, Chester Lubowicki - Zone Change from Rural Residential to Industrial for property located easterly of Long Hill Road, Assessor Map V, Parcels 4 & 5, 1 .6 ac +/-, RR zone Copies of the application is on file in the office of the Town Clerk and/or the Planning Department of the Town of South Windsor. At this hearing, interested persons may appear and 'be heard, and written recommendations will be received. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Louise Evans, Chairman Bernard Hart, Secretary "LJ is.-It STATE OF CONNECTICUT CONNECTICUT HISTORICAL COMMISSION C MAN it January 23, 1992 - .L _ �l '-- RECEIVED Ms. Louise C. Evans, Chairman South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission Town Hall JAN 23 1992 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 SO. WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT, RE: Elmore Houses, 78 and 87 Long Hill Road South Windsor, Connecticut Dear Ms. Evans: The Connecticut Historical Commission has learned that an application for a zoning change to property adjacent to the above-named historic structures is the subject of a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, January 28, 1992. The South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission in considering this application for a zoning change should be aware that the Elmore Houses were listed on the National Register of Historic Places on August 23, 1985. The National Register of Historic Places is the official list of the nation's cultural resources worthy of preservation. The purpose for the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places was, among other things, to encourage states and local governments to give special consid- eration to registered properties in their actions. Accordingly, the Connecticut General Assembly has enacted legislation to assist in the preservation of these impor- tant historic resources. Two specific state statutes which have application to the above-noted properties are the following: 1. Section 8-2 of the General Statutes of Connecticut provide that "Zoning regula- tions may be made with reasonable consideration for the protection of historic factors. . . . " 2. Section 22a-19a of the General Statutes of Connecticut shall be applicable to the unreasonable destruction of historic structures and landmarks of the state, which shall be those properties which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Connecticut Historical Commission asks that the South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission give special consideration to the importance of these historic resources and the character of the historic settings on which these properties are located, and reject any zoning changes which would have a detrimental impact on this area. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance on this matter. Sincerel JWS:nlw CC: Gary Pitcock John W. Sha ahan South Windsor Historic Director and State Historic District Commission Preservation Officer TEL: (203)566-3005 59 SOUTH PROSPECT ST. - HARTFORD, CT 06106 An Equal Opportunity Employer January 24, 1992 TIIJL'I�Zft.ei ' of South Windsor South Windsor is growing by leaps and bounds. As our neighbourhoods and businesses expand however, the rural atmosphere which has always been such-an important part of our town is disappearing. Now, Long Hill -Road is being threatened by a development effort. The Job Shop is planning an expansion of their Long Hill Road establishment. As it currently exists, the shop is a small operation which sits away from the road, outside of the public eye. An expansion of the Job Shop would increase its visibility and introduce an commercial/industrial atmosphere into this rural environment. The country setting, with its 'hill and dale' feeling would be permanen�fly disrupted. I am not trying to deny'the Job Shop's right to grow. I simply feel that Long Hill Road is not an appropriate site for such an expansion. We need to preserve our landscape and our rural heritage, before it disappears altogether. Sincerely, �.•a=;Ya .:a• .a.•' ..t. - .i r. ti-i, i�t: t1_`n +'i....Z r -r:. ., - - 1r ..—, "4• =�•_ '"i•+. —.. . -::`•�. " .:) i+ �".1;•-.�; '1+ 't:: .`�: •`..S' �'.::/i.•.t••.�.:.J'^;rr-a-r:t��d1 'Si:`w`1, '4'L'�er`.'_,.ln'r • ., ...i'_ .•.. ••ni- _• "~` _ --—�. err -. _::+..:¢Z .....r,',,:L it +"i7�a.�. .r+^r.... ,. '"... .\..:•, _-- � _ =- .ii.:-4•t. _���•.rr y�=yam• 94 �a W 0 '-C LUBOWICKI ZONE CHANGE - PUBLIC HEARING REPORT 1/28/92 ti 1 . ERequ t f or, zone han le of 1 . 6 ages from RR to I on two µ " pro rtie on t e east ide ofong Hi 1 %Road. e r pert sho as Lo 4 on die ma a so con s rear P �P P p per alr ady zo d indu trial, which machine shop i loc td Lot 5 is over 30,000 square feet, which is a nonconforming lot in the RR zone but would be conforming in an industrial zone with 20,000 square feet minimum lot size. 2. Under our current zoning regulations, parking and access are considered an accessory use per Section 3 .4; and since industrial uses are not allowed in the RR zone, technically there should be no driveway access over the RR zone into the I zone. Thus we have been treating the machine shop in the rear of this property as a nonconforming use, which then requires ZBA approval for any further use or expansion on the property. If the zone change is granted, the nonconformity would be eliminated, thus clearing the property for expansion. 3 . The northern property has been affected by an I-291 taking which is not reflected on the map submitted with the application. The DOT has taken about 80 feet of frontage at the northern art of the property, and an area of about . 19 acre. Th' ti �i, g 1 av s abMi5c_ating 80 feet +/- of f rontage#�� ie ta�tew`i��` the existing machine shop driveway from the northern part of the property to the southern part of the property. The highway will pass under Long Hill Road just north of this property. The State DOT is not required to apply for a variance for any nonconformity which they create except for lot size; therefore there is no variance for lot frontage on this property. If this zone change is granted, it should be granted excluding the property owned by the State; and the final zone change boundary map should be 'corrected to reflect only land owned by the applicant. 4 . During the summer of 1989, this Commission denied an application for a zone change from RR to I of just under an acre on the property immediately to the north of the subject property. The Commission's reasons for denial were: (1) Plans for I-291 indicate that the interstate highway will affect the subject property, and the Commission does not wish to impede development of the highway; and (2) intrusion of an industrial zone into the rural residential zone would negatively impact the historic . nature of the residential neighborhood. Commission minutes reflect concerns of residents regarding the historic nature of homes on Long Hill Road. 5. The Town Plan of Development depicts the subject properties as Suburban/Rural Residential, thus the requested zone change is not in conformance with the Town Plan. 6 . If this application is approved, there are no other requested Planning Dept. modifications except as noted above. / C� � F CtAtt- do ZiX� �� G"L• � .Ee2 -�Ilitt.ECe �iG> 6x)Q/1, a6 Try. - _ �. ►- - _ -- _- a- - r - - T- . P r d tea,,, �,� - Xe- , A..O , , 06 7v col - ---- ------ -- S - Qi ✓Qi� � p L o0-f47 • I - o • - �� � -�v - - � d_ -- Sot ccJ /0�07j� 76 06 wy C;kg zz � ee' 0;7(/ •�I. i - ~7 3 d• �L..c�c���.�., � � Z j � j �i�! j, t��.-'�,Lt r�;� � �.•lei Y o6 �'O-f � Ala- a C) 0c 14tl,< �' S. !�J D�O'> 3�� a. le lei az q3. �' 1910 Za. d-e - o� 10 .�•�/lei -S• w , c Lvt `Z D 7 3 . LCI s4. > �. Q rr c� f , �a �J P &uw hao,�7 6, Lt4a44 to g• . ' 3 � � tCT- r a // , r Alb-5 Liz, 17,0 -604Q 5,Ld ' l _.� gam. d qo ot• kL116 -�. ,$, w S Ll �..'t n. r LL �•,L, •( '- t 1 Ile �C� op j&J/, � LG� VV//V 4 qk , f 1 L k, 94. . l�� , 'Al qg Q J I 16 l� , � •. -'"thy t/1.') ✓•���'��T�'_�L f 1 . 1 °/ CCA , S M. Li &bl 3 16 L4 I)l Lk kl`h�l L,A N-V ew r 69 &fZ PC?r47 le, iIL4 ' L 4 Q5 .=A • � 4e /L�2 fl4j = �-�', `� �-�.�•�-�� _����,.�.. � �� /�'� cis< <�--C��-,�..... C L� all. a� 1-31 `i 3-2 ���,�-gam P, .Co" 39, 16, 4A, CAj V�� JQ 4LA VL /?t 7 k U&W Or- c Opt. L4L( /i Pr !S6 .W' J45Ar c4 S-,, L4 Ll-7 Ll it Jo i, 7 Ll �o v ���d 163 vi lip6' S - go , WA It Oki� .;t 9;V 06c? 16qo It^90, c 4 V-c 03. L o C) ?Cal 1-7 /Zev` 1-7 11-77, 6/2, lat, Jle .1 Z-4 2r Y -S 111le) 4�/J,41 ic All - I CM.. 71 �� liq,l p -7 4 r7, 4e, LV iooO rl 101A -91 tc� 4, 7 ///1 ///'/') / 00, -ell 4J/C 00, fy L/ q � j1q . 3, 31 :)63i Y a6 44 r i i I r am/ LL A- e.�,L 3rt wil c1d /673 !C�?7;lv"/q/, ev- I ,I I! I; fi I, ; i �t I t4 / 11 t! l 1 t `f i ,400 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH W INDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 OR-Co'- February 27, 1992 Mr. Chester Lubowicki 27C Downey Drive Manchester, CT 06040 Dear Mr. Lubowicki: CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Application #91-46P, Zone Change Ple ase be advised that the Planning & ZoningCommdission voted on February 25, 1992 to deny the above-reference Hill Road. application for a zone change for 1 .6 acres The reasons for denial are: q 1 . Requested zone change is not in conformance with the Town Plan of Development, 2 . Approval would be inconsistent with previous denial of similar request on adjacent property; 3 . Approval would be detrimental to the historic factors of the neighborhood, 4 Zoning in the vicinity of the requested ion zone chathe is currently being examined In conjunct construction of I-29 , and 5 . There would be insufficient space for adequate site buffering. A Ver truly yours, l Frank Castro Vice Chairman FC/pmm _- cc: Director of Planning Town Engineer Chief Building Official Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission Assessor Fire Marshal Registra of Voters Supt. of Pollution Control • r rm 2 s 1992 ASSISTANT TOWN CLERK TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL INQUIRER MONDAY MARCH 2, 1992 LEGAL NOTICE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION At its February 25, 1992 Special Meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to take the following action: 1. Deny appl. #91-46P, Chester Lubowicki - zone change for property located on the easterly side of Long Hill Road, RR zone PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Frank Castro, Vice Chairman Bernard Hart, Secretary Castro, Gallicchio, Hart, Murrin, March, and Levack voted in favor of item 1 • Complete.items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive thee: • Complete items 3, and 4a &b. following services (for In xtra • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so fee): that w can return this card to you. • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the 1• El Addressee's Address back if space does not permit. • Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece next to 2. ❑ Restricted D livery the article number. 1 Consult postmaster for fee. 3. Article Addressed to: 4P. 0941 Nu 278 CHESTER LUBOWICKI 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered ❑ Insured 2 7C DOWNEY DRIVE -19 Certified ❑ COD MANCHESTER CT 06040 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise 7. Date of Delivery 5. Sign (Ad r ssee OoOr f ' S. Addressee's AddWs(Only if requested and fee is paid) ASgnature(Agent) Ps Form 3811, October 1990 �.�•�;� � DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT United States Postal Servici Official Business A , Ps \ PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 Print your name, address and ZIP Code here P & Z, TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 �ti!l11i�!!f�!!!�lit�fllF�l1�llfltit�i!{il�iif��lfi! 189 Conn 261 FEBRUARY, 1983 261 Burnham v. Planning & Zoning Commission 71 L. Ed. 2d 649 (1982), making a distinction , bekeen private houses and commercial property } for fourth amendment purposes. I-would reverse the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress. ALFRED B. BURNHAM V. PLA:,'NING AND Zo:r'ING COMMISSION OF THE TOwN OF SOUTH WINDSOR (107,%) f HEALEY, PARSSEY, SHEA, GRILLO and DALY, J8. The defendant planning and zoning commission of the torn of , South Windsor appealed to this court from the trial court's judgment sustaining the plaintiff's appeal from the commis- sion's denial of a requested zone change. Held: 1. The trial court erred in determining that the commission could not consider drainage problems and the historical and rural ; . character of the neighborhood in reaching its decision... 1 2. The trial court, by we the evidence and determining the issues of fact, impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the commission. 3. The trial court erred in determining that evidence of a zoning map and the personal knowledge of the commission nie sbers were not proper bases to support the commission's Argued November 10, 1982--decision released February 13, 1983 Appeal by the plaintiff from the action of the defendant planning and zoning commission b deny- ing his application for a change of zone, rp g to the Superior Court in the judicial distdet of to ; Hartford-New Britain at Hartford and tried the court, B. O'Neill, J.; judgment sustaining the appeal from which the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Error; judgment directed. a _ , 262 FEBRUARY, 1983 189 Conn 261 Burnham v. Planning k Zoning Commission Wayne C. Gerlt, with whom, on the brief, was _ Paul W. Smith, for the appellant (defendant). Michael J. W Kelton, with whom, on the brief, was Karen M. Flanagan, for the appellee (plain- tiff). , DAILY, J. The defendant has appealed from a judgment sustaining the plaintiff's appeal from a decision of the defendant denying a zone change. The trial court found the following facts: The f; plaintiff is the owner of 9.1 acres of land in the town of South Windsor. He also oN% property in the town of East Hartford which is contiguous to the South Windsor property. i The property is zoned rural residential which calls-for a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 175 feet. The plaintiff I applied for a zone change of the property to A-20 which requires a 20,000, square foot lot area and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. After a hearing at which opposition was voiced, the defendant denied the application, pointing out that there is no A-20 zoning in the area and the nearest A-20 ► ' zone was one mile away. Since the property bor- . ders on flood plain and stream protection areas-the commission was concerned with drainage if there ' l . was a higher density use. Furthermore there were no sanitary sewers in the area and no agreement 1 with the metropolitan district commission (MDC) for their installation. In disapproving this application, the defendant noted that this zone change would set a precedent in this area for smaller lots and change the rural i and historic character of the neighborhood. Con- cerns were also expressed about the adequacy of . i 189 Conn 261 FEBRUARY, 1983 263 Burnham r. Planning do Zoning Commission the streets in this area to handle larger traffic vol- umes, especially if more of the area were developed i into half-acre lots. In addition, no definite provi- sions have been made with the MDC for installation of sewers. i The defendant 'has raised the following issues: (1) Whether the reviewing court erred in holding that drainage problems, and historical and rural ; factors may not be considered by the defendant commission in reaching its decision; (2) whether the reviewing court erred in finding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the defendant commission's findings and conclusions; s and (3) whether the reviewing court erred in hold- i ing that evidence of the zoning map, and the per- sonal knowledge and experiences of the defendant's members were not proper bases to support their findings. I The trial court held "that the pertinent zoning regulations do not address themselves to historic or historical considerations. Had they so provided, the commission's concern might have substance." Chapter 124 of the General Statutes; General Statutes §§8-1 through 8-13; is a general enabling act. Any municipality may, by vote of its legisla- tive body, adopt the provisions of this chapter. and exercise through a zoning commission the powers granted hereunder. General Statutes §8-1. We have construed this statute as requiring of the municipality's legislative body an affirmative act in which the intent to utilize the zoning provisions of the general enabling act is expressed. Klein- smith v. Planning d- Zoning Commission, 157 Conn. 303, 3082 254 A.2d 486 (1968). i .W i - 1 264 FEBRUARY, 1983 189 Conn 261 Burnham v. Planning k Zoning Commission The provisions of chapter 124 of the General Statutes, (1958 Rev. as amended) relating .to zon- ing, and the provisions of Chapter 126 of the Gen- eral Statutes (1958 Rev. as amended) relating to planning commissions have been adopted. by the town of South Windsor. South Windsor Ordi- nances, § 2.401. i Since the town has adopted chapter 124, we turn to General Statutes §8-2 contained therein, which provides in part: "Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and shall t be designed to lessen congestion in the streets; to (( secure safety from fire, panic, flood and other 1 - dangers; to promote health and the general wel- fare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concen- tration of population and to facilitate the adequate provision for transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consider- ation as to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a } view to conserving the value of buildings and 4 encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such municipality. Zoning regulations may be made with reasonable consideration for the protection of historic factors and for the protec- tion of existing and potential public surface and ground drinking water supplies and may provide that proper provision be made for sedimentation control, and the control of erosion caused by wind or water." The plaintiff concedes that the various factors } mentioned in §8-2, which include "character of the district . . . protection of historic factors" and f matters related to drainage, may properly be con- i !�I 189 Conn 261 FEBRUARY, 1983 265 Burnham v. Planning & Zoning CommiwiOn ' _ sidered in adopting zoning regulations. He con- tends, nevertheless, that the failure to incorporate these express factors in the regulations precluded reliance upon them by the commission in- acting { upon his application for a change of zone. This argument overlooks the fact that the zoning map itself is an integral part of the regulations. Any change in the zoning classification of property f shown on the map, such as that sought by the plain- tiff, would necessarily bring into play the same considerations set forth in §8-2 which are appli- cable to the adoption of the original zoning map. Hence, the defendant mould have been justified in considering drainage, historical and rural factors in making its decision. II The present appeal, involving a decision upon an application for a change of zone, required the trial court to review a decision made by the com- mission in its legislative capacity. In such circum- stances, it is not the function of the court to retry the case. Conclusions reached by the commission ' must be upheld by the trial court if they are reason- ably supported by the record. The credibility of the witnesses and the determination of issues of fact are matters solely within the province of the agency. The question is not whether the trial court would have reached the same conclusion but whether the record before the agency supports the decision reached. Calandro v. Zoning Commission, 176 Conn. 439, 440, 408 A.2d 229 (1979). The action of the commission should be sustained if even one of the stated reasons is sufficient to sup- port it. Goldberg v. Zoning Commission, 173 Conn. 239 25, 376 A.2d 385 (1977). t 1 266 FEBRUARY, 1983 189 Conn 261 # Burnham v. Planning & Zoning Commission From its review of the record the trial court con- eluded that the commission's decision had been based on insufficient evidence. Evidence was pre- sented to the commission concerning drainage, flood- ing, density, traffic, historic and rural factors. The view of the trial court that the regulations pre- cluded the consideration of historic or rural factors, which we have found incorrect, explains this con- elusion that the evidence was inadequate to support the commission's decision. We have said on many occasions that courts can- not substitute their judgment for the wide and liberal discretion vested in local zoning authorities when they have acted within their prescribed legis- lative powers. Courts must not disturb the decision i of a zoning commission unless the party aggrieved by that decision establishes that the commission b acted arbitrarily or illegally. First Hartford Realty Corporation v. Plan & Zoning Commission, 165 Conn. 533, 540-41, 338 A.2d 490 (1973). 1 ; The courts allow zoning authorities this discre- tion in determining the public need and the means of meeting it, because the local authority lives close i to the circumstances and conditions which create t the problem and shape the solution. Stales v. Town Council, 159 Conn. 212, 219, 268 A.2d 395 (1970). Examination of the decision of the trial court reveals that the court itself weighed the evidence in the record and determined the issues of fact involved therein. In so doing, the trial court exceeded the scope of judicial review. The court i was in effect substituting its judgment for that of the commission, which is impermissible. Calandro ' v. Zoning Commission, supra, 441-42. i I 189 Conn 261 FEBRUARY, 1983 267 Burnham v. Planning do zoning Commission III The remaining claim raised by the defendant is that the court erred in holding that evidence of the zoning map and the personal knowledge of the members of the commission were not proper bases to support their findings. As noted previously, zoning in South Windsor is governed by chapter 124 of the General Statutes. I As such, it is subject to the implicit requirement of i §8-2 that any zone change must be in harmony with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan for South Windsor consists of the zoning regula- tions themselves and the zoning map which has been established pursuant to those regulations. Pierrepont v. Zoning Commission, 154 Conn. 463, 466, 226 A.2d 659 (1967) ; South Windsor Zoning Regulations, §2.2 (1971). The commission was warranted in resorting to and relying upon the town zoning map. Furthermore, the members of the board are entitled to take into consideration, . whatever knowledge they acquire by personal � observation. Dubiel v. Zoning Board of Appeals), 147 Conn. 517, 522, 162 A.2d 711 (1960). In summary, we conclude that the record reason' ably supports the denial of the zone change.in this case and that the action of the commission was not arbitrary, illegal, or an abuse of its discretion. There is error, the judgment is set aside and the i 3 case is remanded with direction to dismiss the mi appeal. In this opinion the other judges concurred. y 1 I i i a. LIMIT, OF CONSTRUCTION , S T A: ;5+6 0 Eos errs enf ran A�/qq Town of oui i o �F/gib�04.906 = ,� . Melal eearn Ra// P�verne.*?t , t� ihmP/oc .fT 5 f9 Ado ePlW5lbe.-Tu- (Typ e e e) : ' � ` , 29.7.,4d9 �proxim4f e � � ' t R B r.Zl` e fo Slope Girr�it5\ / � Anchorage Type -I �. r e 1 i — , �e Mefa l Oeorn A9ai/ �fi Ut// t Pole /o b e 9 ° ,„ , rem ved ofh 6rs ° — — 24"6.5.7T C.ohm 3 a (OK, �_ r iPernO✓e: :. IVAI Ri9h\` to Grade End OlLr4qe ` r '''Re pire c/ ' "GjL Existirlq p' e to be �� lI �_ W//aver Jp� r/ t UaderdraI n Removed a �� i ;_ Q `7�8 0 `: toe 60 y I3 �-- y� ,�/,bowFF Z i /42 NO \ // VV ' J 4 yid/:Rcf.5tA. 3 f oil.¢49; Bd. 140 Irv. I2�� d e � � �:G:M.P ���e� pixy ��ta� ��,•c ' �yv/�lbo w _ «o_ Mon ,rc �i�'� - . : ta. 2 f 37 l . . 24,E T : . t � k Fe " _ .'' Mefol beam Ra / e �-8 12'G rC. -' sun T L. k. 5g5M1775 5 04) ' 2„P.C P. 2�' Q"Duf�e wip Edq F w/Paved4p/-O� N /F : / T _ CHESTER L BOWICKI,oe C G Gb. e 9�chora�e Type I ' t , -- - 2841-24 5/oft� , ! / Me d% BIZ ,.q C �ti �i��mi our OrJGrc9. �,u°•:� , r r �a � ..o � ;.. . - -... Meta/ Beam ear I Ij s d, ype 5 y5terns 5-�A) concrete Paverner�t '� Z h -�' T / e 11611 N/F ,r 30'- 12''� ,C. P CHESTER, L B _# � e U OW ..,'e O N S T R U C T IOX- Z '� / T p •4 0 0 -- ,fit o r>5fruof ,. —i " ,� '� -Dry vewa� .} v,•i `` ,.� rropoG e d Orl ve wA `A,�,{^ rein ' ( \ __'w.. _ ~ ..y"'•..•w i 1 p loll �` 1/ '? ....-.,. y '�j't•.M ti id'4' •T it , , ! t " "' .