HomeMy WebLinkAbout1299 Main StreetTOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Th Commission will officially receive applicati no
pplication No . at either Special r Regular me tings pr vided they
ece ived Date :wer submitted to th Commission Chairpers n, S cretar-
ction or Public Hearing by.- or agent, at least fourteen (14) days pri r to the
meeting at which they will be officially received.
No application officially received at a Special Meetin,
Receipt No. will be acted upon at that meeting.
I
APPLICANT: Amu' Roe
ADDRESS: 1299 Main St. , South Windsor, CT 06074 ONE 289-4120
OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: Arthur Roe
ADDRESS .1299 Main St. , South Windsor, CT 0607 001
o
COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
1299 Main St. , South Windsor, CT So16
v 110`'
v
ZONE R-4 0
NAME, ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE
DIRECTED: Atty. James H. Throwe, 33 Ct. Blv., E. Hfd. , Cr 06108
TELEPHONE 528-2145
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING)
1 . Zone Change to public hearing required)
X 2. Filing for Subdivision
3 . Filing for Open Space Subdivision (public hearing required)
4 . Filing for Resubdivision (public hearing required)
5. Special Exception to Article public hearing required)
6 . Site Plan of Development
7. Removal of Sands Gravel, Clay or Quarry Stone & Ore (public
hearing required)
8 . Other (explain in detail)
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
AND SUBMITTED WITH 6 SETS OF PLANS (7 sets if public hearing is required)
BEFORE IT IS RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.
I
Ap p 1 scant Owner
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
Fee Schedule and Policy
1. An application processing fee of $25 per lot ($50 minimum) is requir d
for: Subdivisions,, resubdivisions, and open space subdivisions.
2. An application processing fee of $50 is required for: Change of Zone,
Zoning Amendment, Special Exception, and Earth Removal or Land Filling
Operations.
3. An application processing fee of $25 is required for Site Development
Plans, ezcept: where new buildings/additions/renovations of 2,000 s. f.
or more are proposed, said fee shall be $50; said fee shall be $500
for Site Development Plans in the Designed Commercial Zone; $50 plus
5 per dwelling unit for Adult Housing ($500 minimum) .
4. An application processing fee of $10 per acre ($300 minimum) is required
for a Change of Zone/General Plan of Development in the Designed
Commercial Zone.
5. An application processing fee of $100 is required for a Change of Zone/
General Plan of Development in the Multi-Family or DA-15 Residential zones; or
for a Special Exception/General Plan of Development for Adult Housing.
6. An application processing fee of $50 plus $5 per dwelling unit is
required for a Special Exception/Site Plan of Development in the Multi-
Family or DA-15 Residential zones ($500.00 minimum).
1. Application processing fees are non-refundable after the application
has been officially received by the Commission. Application processing
fees may be returned prior to the application's official reception
provided a letter of withdrawal, signed by the applicant, has been
submitted to the Commission prior to the meeting at which said applica-
tion is scheduled to be officially received.
8. Applications unaccompanied by the required application processing fee
are incomplete, and as such may be returned to the applicant and
removed from the Commission's agenda.
9. Complete applications and required fees shall be submitted at least
fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Regular or Special Meeting
at which it will be received.
10. Fees for a previously denied application shall not apply to any
subsequent application. However, when a subdivision, resubdivision,
or open space subdivision application has been denied within the
preceding 12 months or approved for fewer lots than requested, and a
new application for the subject tract is submitted by the same appli-
cant, then the fee for the new application shall be a minimum of $50
plus $25 for each lot above and beyond the number of lots contained in
the earlier application.
11. A fee of $5 per sign is required for signs to be posted by the
applicant on the subject property.
12. Other Fees: Subdivision Regulations - $3.00; Zoning Regulations - $4.00;
Zoning Map $1.00; fees for other documents is as determined by the
Commission.
13. All checks shall be made payable to "Town of South Windsor."
Adopted: 4/10/84
Revised: 12/4/84
C V L[/f2 lJ oill 1/2
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
r''
osoR-0) AREA CODE 203/644-2511
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL-INQUIRER MONDAY, JULY 11 1985
LEGAL NOTICE
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
At the June 25, 1985 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted to take the following action:
1. Approved, with modifications , the application of William Shuteran
for a three-lot subdivision of property located at the inter-
section of Niederwerfer Road and Dart Hill Road, A-40 Zone.
2. Approved, with modifications, the application of Arthur Roe
for a two-lot subdivision of property located on the west
side of Main Street, known as 1299 Main Street, A-40 Zone.
3. Denied the application of Braeloch Associates for an open space
subdivision consisting of 17 lots located on the west side of
West Road, approximately 400 feet south of Sullivan Avenue,
RR Zone.
4. Approved, with modifications, the application of Dart Hill
Realty, Inc. for an open space subdivision property, consisting
of 28 lots in Phase I, located on the north side of Dart Hill
Road, west of Newmarker Road, known as "Mountainview Estates, "
A-30 Zone.
5 . Approved the application of Mark C. Lavitt for a zone change
from RR to A-30 on approximately 9 acres of land located on
the Ellington/South Windsor Town Lines, on both sides of
Newmarker Road.
Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this 26th day of Junem 1985.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
David H. Sorenson, Acting-Chairman and Secretary
D
9 5
South townL000%
RET. DATE: JULY 30, 1985 p%20IL : SUPERIOR COURT
JOHN G. BURGDORF & DORIS P. BURGDORF JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND
VS. AT ROCKVILLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF JULY 89 1985SOUTHWINDSOR
N
Cn CITATION
NCn
Z To Any Proper Officer:
Ln
By authority of the State of Connecticut you are hereby commanded to summon
a the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION of the Town of South Windsor, to appear before theN
Z0
N Superior Court within and for the Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville, on JULY2o
Z 30, 1985, then and there to answer unto the foregoing complaint of JOHN G. BURGDORF &a
2 DORIS P. BURGDORF, both of 1245 Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut, by leaving withao
a c or at the usual place of abode of the Chairman or Clerk of that Commis sion,ssion, a true and0
LU Q attested copy of the complaint and of this citation at least twelve days before the
Y=H
W return date.
n
L
j
The Plaintiffs as principala and Rona C. Lynch of West Hartford, Connecticut,
Z
suretyasQy are recognized is the sum of Two Hundred Fifty ($250.00) Dollars to prosecuteZ
0
z this appeal to effect and comply with the orders and decrees of this court.
Hereof fail not, but of this writ with your doings thereon make due service
and return.
Dated at West Hartford, Connecticut this 8th day of July, 1985.
op
Daniel F. Cavanaugh, Juris #32732
Commissioner of the Superior Court
A TRUE
ItT f,ST
RET. DATE: JULY 30s 1985 SUPERIOR COURT
JOHN G. BURGDORF & DORIS P. BURGDORF JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND
VS. AT ROCKVILLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF JULY 8, 1985
SOUTH WINDSOR
N
M
n
M APPEAL FROM PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
6z
cc To The Superior Court for the Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville. on
July 30, 1985, comes JOHN G. BURGDORF and DORIS P. BURGDORF both of 1245 Main Street,
n
z South Windsor, Connecticut appealing from a decision of the Planning & Zoning Commission
M
N
N of the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut and complains and says:
c-
1. Arthur E. Roe of 1299 Main Street, South Windsor, Connecticut, applied to
to
athe Planning and Zoning Commission of said Town for a subdivision of his, property into
zo three parcels, namely, Parcel #L, on which an existing, house and accessory buildings: are
tu
Y located, Parcel #2, a proposed new building lot, and Parcel #3, consisting of several
W
W 3 acres of farmland.
U •
W2. The Commission granted said application and. notice of such decision was
5Q
o duly published iara newspaper.
c
3. - Then Plalatiffs oum land which abuts the land: involved in said decisiom..
a
2 4. In granting the application, the Commission acted illegally in the fallovirg
respects, namely:
a) The Commission approved said Parcel #Z as a building lot having, at
least the 150 foot frontages required.. by 55.2.3 and 5.Z and I.12f of
the Zoning Regulations.
n' •-^`1, .atx"m''rMk'k'„',.`{'x;.#*4µ'? 'n4"'y t_rr`t:?4 . zin-+'+ .'_i` ti•-:-•
r"' - _
k
06'7n Y,
b) In approving said Parcel #2 as a building lot, the Commission ruled
that said lot has frontage of 154' 9", even though approximately one-
half the distance along the line on which said 154' 9" was measured
does not front on the street, but fronts on and is behind the land of
John N. Howard, Jr., et al.
N
N c) The Commission failed to hold, as it should have, that §1.12f, when
0
z read in the context of the entire Zoning Ordinance, merely requires
that the minimum frontage on the street must extend back at least to
ci
the building line on the lot.
aM
N
M o d) The Commission erred in holding that 51.12f permits the Commission to
N
a • treat as street frontage land of the applicant that in reality is not
o
a o street frontage because it:. fronts- upon and is behind land of a person:
U
or persons other than the applicant.
UA cc
z
5. In granting the application, the Commission also acted illegally in the
Y f-
LU
N
following respect, namely:
LU
U •
Of)a) On March. 7, 1985, the Zoning Board of Appeals of said Town,, by
kzUj
J Q uaanimous vote, denied the application of Arthur E. Roe for a variance
o
i w 65.Z of the Zoning Regulations tar allow said Parcel #2 to be used
a
co as a building lot with less than the required 150 foot width or
frontage; and notice of said decision was duly published in a newspapent;
an& there was no appeal from said decision to the courts as p rmitted
by the General Statutes.
J
b) Plaintiffs herein, along with other concerned persons, appeared before
the ZBA at said hearing on March 7, 1985, protesting that the
applicant had shown no hardship and that even if there was a hardship,
it was self-inflicted.
c) Said application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of
said Parcel #2 as a building lot, after the ZBA had denied such
N
o approval, constituted an attempt by said Arthur E. Roe to bypass the
z
N
cc
statutory appeal procedure to the court; and the Planning and Zoning.
Commission acted illegally in passing upon said application of Arthurd^
fA N
E. Roe which in effect sought to revise and annul the decision of the
V N
C Z$A.
Z .
c d) The Planning and Zoning Commission abused the discretion nested in it
ao
by 53.3c1 of the Subdivision. Regulations when it passed upon said
z u- application without a public hearing and without notice to plaintiffs.
W Q
X Dated at West Hartford, Connecticut this Sth day of July, 1985.
W
y3W
C.1
g W BY C
a' Daniel P. Cavanaugh, Juris #32732z
o Kuehn, Cavanaugh & Cummings,, P.C.
z Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
a
0o
o
l TRUE
ATTES'i
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
TOWN HALL
SOUTH WINDSOR.CONN.06074
TO Richard M. Rittenband, Esq. DATE 7/9/851734EllingtonRoad
South Windsor, CT. 06074
L
UBJEGT: App. #1086 - Arthur Roe Subdivision
FOLD- John G. Burgdorf, et al v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Attached is the Citation and Appeal which was handed.. to me this morning
for Bob Gilligan) by Deputy Sheriff Kostek.
I am also enclosing copies of the PZC' s file in this matter, which
consists of the following:
1. Application form,:.
2. Subdivision map prepared by Petersen & Hoffman,
dated May, 1985;
3. Approval letter dated June 28, 1985;
4. Legal Notice published on July 1, 1985;
5. Minutes ofthe June 25 198.5 meeting when this
application was discussed and approved.
CC: Peter DeMallie, Planning Director
J. SMith, Town Clerk
j By Virginia Gr-a_n_eyF G -c--_
1 PLANNING" & ZONING COMMISSION
1
i
NO. CV 85 0034798-S SUPERIOR COURT
JOHN G. BURGDORF & JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND
DORIS P . BURGDORF
VS .AT ROCKVILLE
CN
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 49 1985
Cn OF SOUTH WINDSOR
N
M
0
N PLAINTIFFS BRIEF
cc
D
FACTS -AID ISSUES:
d Mn
N Under Section 5 . 2 . 3 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations,
y
N
the lot shown as "Parcel (2) " in the Subdivision Plan dated May 1985
o'
Ze
xo will qualify as a building lot only if it has 150 feet of frontage
o
a- on the public street.
1 According to the minutes of the June 25 , 1985 meeting of the
z LL-
W QM_
defendant Commission, at which said• Subdivision Plan was approved,
W
3
e Applicant 's attorney stated "there is 150+ feet of frontage at the
Uj
3Z buildingline of lot #2" ; and the Town Planning Director, Peter DeMallie
W
a
o approved that statement when he advised the Commission that "all the
z
zoning requirements are met by lot #2" .
co
On the other hand, the map of said Subdivision Plan, which is
now before the Court , shows that the building line on Parcel (2) is
only about 80 feet long , and therefore cannot have 150 feet of frontage .
And , even if the Applicant ' s attorney and the Planning Director , were
2 -
i referring to frontage at the 154 .9 ' line shown on the map , rather
i than at the building line , it should have been seen that more than
one-half of that 154 . 9 ' line does not front on the street at all ,
i rather it fronts on and is behind the land shown on the plan as land
N/F Howard" .
CN From the foregoing , and from defendant ' s Answers to 8 , 9 and
N
f')
z 10 of plaintiffs ' Requests for Admissions dated October 15 , 1985 ,
it is evident that the Commission relied upon the conclusion expressed
ci •
d^ by the Town Planner and that the Town Planner reached his conclusion
V1a N
N by construing Section 1 . 12f of the Zoning Regulations to mean that
o
z eParcel (2) of the Subdivision must be deemed to have 150 feet of frontag
a
on the street because the 154 .9 ' line , purportedly drawn as provided
go
ao in Section 1.12f , is more than 150 feet long . According to the Town
o
W Planner , it is immaterial that the lot does not , in fact , have 150
zaY=
3 feet of frontage on the street , either at the 133 .99 foot street line ,
W
W or at the 80 '± building line, or at the 154 .9 ' line drawn in back
o:D
g> of the building line .a
z
0
z
In Part I of this brief , plaintiffs submit that such a distorted
il artificial construction of Section 1 . 12f cannot be countenanced ; and
co
that , when properly construed, Section 1 . 12f simply means that a lot
must have the required frontage or width on a street , measured at
or from a line drawn as provided in Section 1 .12f . In short , the
required frontage (width) on the street must extend to the street
1
3 -
from a line drawn as provided in 1 .12f . The proposed building lot
does not have such frontage .
In Part II of this brief , certain jurisdictional issues are discussL(:
but these issues are important only if the Issues in Part I are decided
against the plaintiffs .
N
n
N
O
z
N
Cn
n
H rnN
z wfM
N
ON_
0
Q •
O
Q CO
U
VCrO
z'i
W cc7a
Cn
Y=H
W
3
WU •
O"
z
g>a
z
O
z
a
rn
i
i
r
I
i
4 _
PART I i
A
UNDER THE ZONING REGULATIONS , CONSIDERED AS A iWHOLEINSUCHMANNERASTORECONCILEALLTHEIR
PROVISIONS , LOT #2 WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE 150
FEET OF FRONTAGE ON THE STREET, AND SUCH FRONTAGEWASREQUIREDTOEXTENDTOTHESTREETFROMALINE
N
DRAWN AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 1 .12f .
CN
n
The Zoning Regulations contain several references to "frontage",0
z
0 including :cc
fie 5 .2 .3 Each lot in future subdivisions of land shall have
the frontage required in the applicable zone upon ay0
ZZ public street***"
N
N 3 .14 .1 no building shall be erected or altered or used
a , for residential purposes that does not have the requiredlotareaandtherequiredlotfrontageona 'streetforeachbuilding" .a o
0 4.1.112c2 "Frontage" At least 100 feet public b is street"o on a p
i Refers to lots in Housing For Elderly)
W QY? 4 . 6 .4 .2b "Frontage : At least 200 feet of frontage on an arterialUj
Uj
or collector road".3
Refersto lots in Restricted Apartment Zone)
W
kW 4 .9 .4. 2b "Frontage - At least 200 feet of frontage on an arterialQorcollectorroad".
o Refers to lots in Restricted Office Zone)
c
z
There is no schedule showing the "frontage requried" in the various
co
zones . Instead, there are two schedules showing "Minimum Lot Width"
in various zones , namely : Section 5 .2 which gives the "Minimum Lot
Width" in various zones , and Section 5 .3 , which gives the "Minimum
Lot Width" for lots in open space subdivisions .
5 _
And then there is Section 1 . 12f reading :
1.12f Lot Minimum Frontage (Width) : The distance
between the side lot lines measured in -a
C4 straight line at right angles to the mean dir-
N
o ection of such side lot lines , which line of
z
Ln
measurement shall touch, but not be in front
of the building line".
y N
N Reading the above Sections of the Regulations in such a manner
0o
vN as to reconcile their provisions , the words "lot width" as used inc
z .
a
5 .2 and 5 .3b , must mean required" frontage on a street" as used in
ao
ao5 .2 .3 and 3 .4 .1; otherwise, there would be no frontage specifications
Wu-in the Regulations to implement the street frontage requirements in
a
Y
N Sections 5 .2 .3 and 3 .14.1.
W
v • In response to plaintiffs ' Requests for Admissions , defendant
OW
Z has admitted that Section 5 .2 .3 mandates that the p gQproposedbuilding
z
lot have 150 feet of frontage on the public street ; and the only way0
z
Qthat mandate can be carried out is by construing "minimum lot width",
CO
as used in Section 5 . 2 , to mean "required frontage on a public street",
as used in Section 5 . 2 .3 .
Also, it should be noted that the word "width" was placed in
parenthesis after the word "frontage" in Section 1.12f , for no apparent
6 _
reason other than to show that minimum lot "width" as used in 5 . 2
and 5 . 3b , means minimum lot "frontage" on a street and is to be measured
in the same way, namely from a line as provided in Section 1.12f .
Because width or frontage on the street is to be measured at
or from a line drawn as provided in Section 1. 12f , rather than at
4
M or from the street line , the Town Planner has concluded and has advised
N
h
z defendant Commission, that a lot is deemed to have the minimum frontage
or width on the street if a line drawn as provided in 1 . 12f is equal
d^ in length to the required lot frontage or width on the street . That
V!N
zM advice is manifestly flawed .N
no
zC-
4
Under the construction of 1.12f suggested by the Planning Director ,,
a
MN frontage on the street is irrelevant if the width at the 1.12f line
z
ao is equal to the width stated in 5 .2 or 5 .3b . Of course , such a construc
oo
WU- tion would nullify the requirements for specific minimum frontageQ
Y=
W on a public street , and would thus defeat a major purpose of the Zoning
W
3
i ' Regulations . "Such a result cannot be countenanced" . Planning and r
jW
z
Q Zoning Commission v. Synanon Foundation Inc . 153 Conn. 305 , 311. To
z
0
z suggest that a lot can meet the minimum frontage on a street requirement
2
at a line drawn some distance in back of the street line , when it
cannot meet those requirements at the street line , is to suggest a
physical impossibility.
A construction similar to the one the Planning Director is urging
in the present case , was proposed to the Court in Tzeses v. Barbahenn
Building Inspector, Court of Errors and Appeals, (New Jersey 1941)
174 A2d 539 . At page 41 , it was held:
7
the word frontage means the extend of frontalongtheroadorstreetandthebuildingildinginspectorsinterpretationoftheregulationsegulationswhichwouldmakefrontage ' synonymous with the words the mean widthOfthelot ' is manifestly artificial"The definition of "frontage" in Sec Ition1 .12f, must , of course,
I
z° not onlyY apply to 5 .2 .3 and 3 .14 . 1, but also t fand4. 9 .4 . 2b •
0 4 .1.11 .2c2 , 4 .6 .4. 2bandtheCourtci • must determine the meanin g by lookingaNattheobjectofsuchprovisions .z Giebert V. Hamdeam— n 135 Conn. 630IN635 .
N
When that• is done, one cannot assume
ao
that Section 1.12f was intendertoproviderelieftopersonswhoselotsdonothavefrontageatthe
the required minimumostreetline . Rather,U.one mu st conclude thatccof1,12E the intent
f
was to strengthen the frontage require
Y=
ments b• 3 frontage to extend from
Y requiringthestreettoalinewhichtouchenotinfrontoftheb
s, but is32buildingline .W
5Q Such a requirement makeso good sense in view ofzSection1 .2T the fact thatallowstheownerofalotmuchflexibilityina
co lishment of the building the estab-line; and without such adoorwouldbeopentoah
requirement, the
odge podge of building lots , somelikeapieceofpie shapedwithlittleornofrontageatbutgraduallythestreetline,increasing in width in back of the street line .Instead of the artificial construction of Section 1.12f proposedbytheBuildingInspector, Plaintiffs submits that Section 1.12f
f
9
I
ai
should be
extend construed to 7a
to me
When S
the
streettreet
an that froSectionl •1
from a ljn ntaSe or w
regulations 2f
s s°
e drawn as
Idth on a
be Pas
and all t construed, t Provided j
street mustSCalev•
he Provj here is
n Sectlo
oZOnjn Board sjons can
no conflictn 1 .12f•
r y rd Of A e
be
reconcj In the
1 als 250 Co
leds as they,Cj nn' Zl3•- ey should
Ce
ry 1
OCsry 1
Q
C7_O
Q OZO
Q V
V
5 i
l
hW
m
r
RECEli`1ED
MAIV
NO. CV 85 0034798 S
JOHN G. BURGDORF AND SUPERIOR COURT
DORIS P. BURGDORF
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 'rOLLAND
VS.
AT ROCKVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF SOUTH WINDSOR MARCH 6, 1986
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On June 189 1985 Arthur Roe applied to the Defendant for subdivision
approval that would allow "Parcel (2)" as shown on the Subdivision Plan dated
May, 1985 submitted by him (and part of Defendant's Return) to be a building
lot. The property is 'located on the west side of Main Street in an A-40
residential zone in South Windsor. Said lot had the required 1.50 foot front-
age, and on June 25, 1985 the Defendant Commission approved tfie application.
It is from that approval that the Plaintiffs have brought this appeal.
Section 5.2.3 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations provides inter-
LAW OFFICES
alia that "Each lot in future subdivisions of land shall have the frontage
RICHARD M.RfrMNSAND
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD required in the applicable zone upon a public street
SoUr"WINOSOR.CONN OW74
203)644.245 Section 5.2 of the Zoning Regulations requires a minimum lot width of
JURIS NO W412
150 feet in an A-40 zone.
The definition of Lot Minimum Frontage and minimum lot width are the
same or interchangeable as shown in Section 1.12f (Definitions) of the
2-
Zoning Regulations which reads:
111.12f Lot Minimum Frontage (Width)The distance between the side
mean
lot lines measured in a straight linewhichat linehofangles to
me
e
asurementshall
direction of such side 1nt ofnthe building line."touch, but not be in fro
In paragraph 8 of their October 15, 1985 Request for Admissions,
Plaintiffs state that ". . . the frontage required (is) 150 feet. . ."The 150
feet could only have come from the minimum lot width requirement for A-40 of
15 0 feet;• so Plaintiffs apparently agree that frontage and minimum lot width,
under the regulations, are the same. Further, throughout their brief
Plaintiffs concede that lot minimum frontage and minimum lot width are the
same.
The frontage or minimum lot width, as shown on the A-2 Survey dated
May, 1985, is 154.9 feet.
ARGUMENT.
I
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether lot frontage (width) is
LAW os/1C[S
measur ed at the building line or at the street line, under the South Windsor
HARD M.RMTENSAND
1734[LLWACTO'1 ROAD
U.w 11V1NOWA.cO"M OW,• Zoning Regulations.
e..•:.e. r the regulations, it is clear that lot frontage (width) is measured
Under g
jUMS Na 50412
at the buildin line and not at the street line Since that is clear' from
din of the regulations themselves, as described hereafter, there is no
the wor g
need to interpret the regulations further.
l a e 6) Plaintiff s admit that under the regulations "• •• •In their brief (p g from a
width or frontage on the street is to be measured at ostreet linene•is
dr
It
awn
is
provided in Section 1.12f, rather than at or from the
just that Plaintiffs don't like the result of that and want the wording
interpreted differently than what it says.
1
3-
Where a statute is clear on its face, there is no room for construct-
ion." Cote v. Gordon 40 Conn. Sup. 15, 478 A.2d 631 (1984) . Where statutory
words are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction.
Doe v. Manson, 183 Conn. 183 (1031) . Primary rule of statutory construction
is that if language of statute is clear, it is assumed that words themselves
express intent of legislature and thus there is no need to construe statute.
State v. Smith, 194 Conn. 213 (1984) . Where wording of statute is plain,
courts will not speculate as to any supposed intention because question for
Court then is not what legislature actually intended but what intention it
expressed by words that it used. University of Hartford v. City of Hartford
2 Conn. App. 152 (1984) .
Let's look, then, at the definition of Lot Minimum Frontage (Width) in
Section 1.12f of the Regulations to see how clear it is and how clearly it was
followed by the Engineer in drawing the Subdivision Plan.
The Engineer determined the mean (average) direction of the northerly
LAW orvlCEs boundary (side lot line) of Parcel (2) and the northerly boundary of Parcel (1)
ICNARO M.RITTENSANO which is the southerly side lot line of Parcel (2)); and at right angles to
1 734 ELLINGTON ROAD
DUTN WINDSOR.cONN 06074
such mean direction made a straight line between the side lot lines touching
1203)6A4.2A54
Ju*mNO 50412 the building line at its northerly terminus on Parcel (2) . It is shown in
the "INSET" on the map as 154.9' .
Most importantly, the definition states that the line of measurement
shall touch, but not be in front of the building line." emphasis added.
i
I
4-
Therefore, if it cannot be in front of the building line, (which is 50 feet
back) it is impossible to be at the street line as plaintiffs feel it should
f be. It is absolutely clear from the wording itself that the frontage line was
not intended to be at the street line because it was not allowed to he in
front of the building line.
Suffice it to say, therefore, that under the primary rule of statutory
construction, as cited above, the definition of Lot Minimum Frontage is clear
on its f ace, and it needs no further interpretation; and the evidence shows
that the minimum requirement of 150 feet has been fulfilled.
II
In view of the above, the other points raised by Plaintiffs in their
brief are irrelevant. However, since they have been raised, Defendant will
comment on them briefly.
1. There is nothing inconsistent or irreconcilable in the regulations
cited on page 4 of Plaintiffs' brief. Section 4.6.4.2b was repealed in 1981.
4.9.4.2b (200 feet in Restricted Office Zone) is consistent with Section 5.2
LAW OFPIC(S
RiCHARDM.RirmNSAND which has a minimum lot width of 200 feet in a Restricted Office Zone.
1734[LLWAGTON ROAO
SOUT64WhN06011.CONN06074
Section 4.1.11.2c is a special designation for Housing for Elderly providing
t2031 44•2456
JUMS No.5"1a for a special use by the Public Housing Authority in a rural residential zone
not A-40 as in the instant case) and allows a 100 foot frontage for such
special use instead of the 175 feet otherwise required in such a zone. However,
that is not irreconcilable with the frontage requirements for residential lots
a
Jb
P
5-
in various zones or the definition under Section 1,12f. Further, Sections
5.2.3 and 3.14.1 are not inconsistent or irreconcilable with the minimum
width requirements of Section 5.2 or the definition under Section 1.12f.
Finally, there is nothing in the zoning regulations that requires a minimum
lot width at the street line for an residential building lot anywhere.Y g Y
2. On pages 6 and 7 of their brief, Plaintiffs contend that it is a
physical impossibility to meet the minimum frontage requirement at a line
back of the street line when it cannot be done at the street line. That is
i simply not true. It has been done in the instant case, and it is done all
i
I
the time where there are cul-de-sacs in an approved subdivision. With cul-de-
sacs, there are pie shaped lots which may have only 25 to 50 feet at the curve
at the street line yet much wider lines at the building line. Plaintiffs
suggest that in the subject zone, every residential lot should have a 150 foot
width at the street line, but that's not what the regulations say. There are
hundreds of lots in subdivisions that don't meet that requirement that have
LAW OFFICES been routinely approved because that requirement is not in the zoning
RICHARD M.RITTENSAND
V1734-ELLMOTON ROAD regulations.
1
SOUTM WINOSOR,CONK 06074
Plaintiffs' citation of the 1941 New Jersey case is misplaced. In
203)641-2156
JURI.NOW412
quoting from the case, it is clear that it is not in point. Plaintiffs refer
I to the "building inspector's interpretation of the regulations which would
5
make 'frontage'synonymous with the words 'the mean width of the lot' ." However,
d 11
t
4it
6-
in the instant case, it was not the Planning Director's interpretation of the
regulations. The definition of frontage under Section 1.12f is clear on its
face. Further, there is no standard definition in zoning regulations in
Connecticut. Each Town is permitted to have, and most do have, different
i definitions. Whatever there may- be in New .Jersey is certainly not applicable
here.
3. As for Plaintiffs' contention that the northerly boundary of Parcel
1) (231.04') is not part of the southerly boundary of Parcel (2) and part of
its side lot line, that is simply not true. It is part of the southerly border
i
which also includes the brook that is part of the property line. There is
nothing in the regulations that requires the side property line or side loti
line to be a straight line its entire length. Extending from the street, thei
property line of Parcel (2) is the center of the brook running northwesterly
to a point where it leaves the brook and runs southwesterly to the northeaster-
ly corner of Parcel (1) where it then runs westerly 231.04' along the southerly
s.
border of Parcel (2) . It does fit the definition of Section 1.12d. It is a
LAW CWFIC[4
RICMARO M.RITTENSANC
continuing) line extending "from a street." It "divides separate lots"
1 734[LLINOTON ROAD
4
OUT 1 WINDfOR.COIVN,06074
1 Parcel (2) and the Howard property) which both abut the street.
1203)"4-24M
JURS No.50Al2 4. As for Brown v. Zoning Board of Appeals, cited by Plaintiffs on
page 9 and 10 of their brief, neither the Town Planner nor the Defendant
Commission considered the Brown decision in approving the subject application.
The Commission merely followed the definition, clear on its face, contained
7—
lat ions. It is interesting, however, that
in Section 1.12f of the Zoning Reg•=
y ears earlier;
did come to the same conownsupraclusion, man y
the Court, in Br s ua a in
Commission, namely that the import of the lang g
as the Defendant the building line not
Section 1•12f "would be to measure frontage width along
a the excerpt attached to Plaintiffs' brief*
the street line. Se
CONCLUSION
ion approve the subject application based upon
The Defendant Commiss P plaintiffs
Zoning Regulations which were clear on their face.
the South Windsor Zo g
a not be happy with the regulations as they exist and would like them
my
hat they say; but that does not alter the fact
interpreted differently from w
ulations-
of the Commission was in accordance with the reg
that the action
held, a local zoning
Connecticut Supreme Court has consistently
As the illegally or in
agency should be overturned only if it has acted arbitrarily,
abuse of its discretion-abuse
ser v, zoningBoard of A eals of Town of Westport
eals, 155 Conn. 558
155 Conn. 236,251 (1967) ; Toffolon v, Zonin¢ Board of APP —
honest judgment has been reasonably and fairly
LAW 560 (1967) . As long as an J
LAW o,FKEg cautious about disturbing
t)cNARDM commission, courts should be
RICNARD M.RffTENeAND b a zoning
73.ELL exercised y 3 Conn.1731ELLroNRO 0 Board of -A eals,
OUTM WJNos orsiello v. Zonin
SOU'.W,,rDSOM.coN+0607. decision.the commission's
203)6.12031 6•4•2136
Ju*M N4 JuMs No so•» APP• 47, 49 (1984) .
stained their burden to prove that the Comm issio(
Plaintiffs have not sus
acted illegally, unreasonably or made other than an honest Judgment.
s
Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.
DEFENDANT SOUTH WINDSOR
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Richard M Rittenband
Its Attorney Juris No. 50412
Service certified to counsel of record this 6th day of March, 1986.
Richard M. Rittenband, Attorney at Law
LAW OFFICES
CHARD M.Rn-MNOANO
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD
UTM WINDSOR.COHN 06074
203)044.245e
JURIS NO 30412
i
i
NO. CV 85 0034798 S SUPERIOR COURT
JOHN G. BURGDORF & DORIS P. BURGDORF JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND
VS.AT ROCKVILLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF MARCH 13, 1986
SOUTH WINDSOR
N
n
M PLAINTIFFS' REPLY BRIEF
0
z
0 MISSTATEMENT OF ISSUES:
I
c
ioAt page 2 of its brief, defendant states
of sole issue in this appeal is
C4
N
no whether frontage (width) is measured at the building line or at the street line, under
o`
the .South Windsor Regulations".
Qo
C8 Clearly that is not the issue, for plaintiffs have stated again and again
U
U.
that under the Regulations frontage (width) is not measured at the street line, rather
zU.
W
it is measured at a line that touches but is not in front of the building line. See
to
W
W 3 Page 2 and 7A of Plaintiffs' Brief.
U •
3 z The issue in this case is whether §1.12f of the Regulations is a definition
W
Q
0 of "frontage (width)" or is a definition of the line at or from which "frontage (width)'
c
is to be measured. See Pages 7 and 7A of Plaintiffs' Brief.
cc
LL
Wt0
Qf
II.
At page 2 of its brief defendant also states: "throughout their brief,
plaintiffs concede that lot minimum frontage and minimum lot width are the same".
Plaintiffs have made no such concession. To the contrary, plaintiffs have
A
I
i
S
argued against that by showing at Page 5 through 7A of their brief that to construe
frontage" as being synonymous with "width" would give the word "frontage" an artifi-
cial meaning and one which would defeat a major purpose of the Zoning Regulations.
What plaintiffs have agreed to is that under the Regulations minimum lot
width and minimum lot frontage are to be measured at or from the same line. That is
N
M
n
quite different from defendant's claim that "frontage" means "width".
o
z
III.
d Also at Page 2 of defendant's brief there is another puzzling statement,
N
c0
namely "since it is clear that the frontage (width) is measured at the building line an
0
not at the street line" there is no need to interpret the Regulations. In otherwords,
d fendant suggests that since street frontage and width are to be measured from the sameggg
line it follows that "frontage" and "width" are synonymous. The to is of that suggg
0
a gestion is not readily apparent.
3 When the Zoning Regulations are read as a whole in such manner as to recon-
nW
WtEcilealltheirprovisionstheonlyrationalpurposeof §1.12f is to strengthen, not
0:)
3ZLU
g a to weaken, the street frontage requirements of the Regulations; and this is done by
z
0
i requiring street frontage to extend from the street to the building line. Plaintiffs'
a Brief, pages 4 to 7A.
CO
Defendant's argument amounts to a suggestion that the intent of §1.12f was
to provide an escape of exception from the minimum street frontage requirements for
S.,
lots that cannot meet those requirements at the street line, and that such escap of/
exception clause was slipped into the ordinance under the guise of a "definition".
r i
r
1
s
d'
To make such a suggestion is to impugn the integrity of those who drafted the ordinance.'
Although §1.12f is inartfully captioned "Lot Minimum Frontage (width)", it
is clear from the context that §1. 12f is not a definition of "frontage", rather it is
a definition of the line at or from which frontage or width is to be measured, for that '
line is expressly stated in §1. 12f to be the "measurement line".
N
N It may be assumed that those who drafted the Zoning Regulations knew the
M
Q
z common every day meaning of the word "frontage" as found in the dictionary and in the
cc
D
reported cases, and intended that meaning rather than some artificial meaning of
ci •
o frontage to apply in §1.12f, to wit:
Q N
t0Cn
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary "The land between the front of
N the building and the street". (Thus the land between the building
line and the street is "frontage" under §1.12f)
N
po
17 Words and Phrases "Frontage": "Fronting or Frontage on a street
or other public improvement means property between which and the
improvement there is no intervening land". ** "Frontage means that
z° part of land that would give frontage access to roadway, alley or
other public way".
N
W
IV.
3 Z give aplaintiffsWAtpage4ofitsbrief, defendant seems to gi the impression that
a
z
c
hav claimed there are inconsistencies in the provisions of the Regulations cited at
z
a pag 4 of plaintiff's brief. Plaintiffs have made no such claim. What plaintiffs have
CO
claimed at page 4 through 7 of their brief is that the street frontage requirements of
the cited provisions of the Regulations would be nullified if §1.12f were to b
interpreted to mean that "frontage" and "width" are synonymous and that a lot is
conclusively presumed to meet the street frontage requirements if it has the required
width at the measurement line, whether or not the required street frontage actually
exists.
V.
At page 5 of its brief, defendant makes a remarkable misstatement, namelyP
that it is physically possible for more frontage at the street to exist at a line in
back of the street line than exists at the street line; and the reason why this is
possible is that defendant says so.
As part of the same statement at page 5 of the brief, defendant injects into
N
M
n
M the case irrelevant factual allegations that are not within the pleadings, namely, a
0
z
statement as to what the Commission has done in the past concerning lots on a cul-de-
sac in a sub-division. Since defendant has injected this into the case, plaintiffs
d^
call attention to §2.1b of the South Windsor Sub-division Regulations which allow the
N
o Commission to approve 10% of the lots in a sub-division with less than the required
o'
minimum lot area, frontage and depth". It is, therefore, highly improbable that
0
sub-division problems were in mind when 61.12f was drafted.
U
V ir0
W a VI.
M_
3 Finally, defendant has cited cases dealing with the reluctance of Courts to
W
Woverturn decisions of zoning commissions "as long as honest judgment has been reasonabl
o
z
a3 and fairly exercised". Those cases do not apply here because the present case in-
z0
zvolves a matter of construction or interpretation of legislation and therefore presents
a question of law for the Court. Pascale v Board of Zoning Appeals, 150 Conn. 113
p. 116; State v Laurel Crest Academy, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 294 p. 297; State v Movotasky,
5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 326, p. 329.
PLAINTIFFS,
BY
niel P. Cavanaugh, Juris #3273*2
NO. CV 85 0034798-S SUPERIOR COURT
JOHN G. BURGDORF E JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND
DORIS P. BURGDORF
VS.AT ROC K V I LLE
PLANNING 6 ZONING COMMISSION OF MARCH 20, 1986
N SOUTH WINDSOR
n
N
M
z REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
D
A. The plaintiff requests defendant to admit that:
i •
cn
1. The language in Section 1.12f of the Zoning Regulations of South Windsor0theRegulations) first became a. , e9 part of the Regulations in April 1969 and has
been a part of the Regulations at all times since that date.r,N
o
C
2. Peter DeMallie first became Director of Planning of the Town of South
Windsor in December 1979 and has remained in that position at all times since
i that date.
U
i o 3. The job description of the Director of Planning states that his dutiesoinclude "provides technical consultation and services" to the Planning and ZoningCommissionandtheZoningBoardofAppealsand "plans agenda items and coordinates
meetings, records and material's of commissions or committees as needed".
W
3
4. The defendant is unaware of any decision or ruling, prior to December,1979, by the Zoning and Planning Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals,
W or by any other agency or public official of the Town of South Windsor havingSoresponsibilityfortheinterpretationandenforcementoftheZoningRegulations,holding in subsequence that under the Regulations lot minimum frontage on thezstreetmeanslotminimumwidthatalinedrawnasprovidedinSection1.12f of
the Regulations.
U.
Wcc
CD 5. The official records of the Zoning Board of Appeals of South Windsor
ZBA) from April 1969 to present date contains no record of any case in which
the ZBA has interpreted the Zoning Regulations to mean that a lot having less
than the required minimum street frontage at the street line. nevertheless qualifies
as a building lot, so far as minimum street frontage is concerned, if it 'has the
required minimum width at a line drawn as provided in Section 1.12f of the Regulations.
r
6. The official records of the ZBA do, however, show that the ZBA, from
time to time, considered and passed upon applications for a variance of the minimum
street frontage requirement in the case of lots which could satisfy the minimum
width requirement at the building line.
7. In none of the cases referred to in 6 above did the ZBA rule that because
the lot had the required width at the 1. 12f line no variance of the minimum street
frontage requirement was necessary.
8. The "Proposed Lot" having an area of 1.434 acres, as shown on the
annexed document, is the proposed lot referred to in the March 7, 1985 decision
N of the ZBA denying the application for a variance of the front footage requirement
N of Section 5.2 of the Regulations.
Z 9. According to defendant's interpretation of the Regulations, the proposed
cclot described in' 8 above met the minimum street frontage requirements of Section
5.2 and 5.2.3 of the Regulations.
d
6:0 10. On or about July 28, 1980, the ZBA approved application of Marion D.
Nz Case for a variance of the minimum street frontage requirement on a lot which
N had at least the minimum width at its building line, and the board's decision
N granting said'variance was defended in an appeal to the Superior Court without
any claim by the ZBA that no variance was required because the lot had sufficient
00
width at the 1.12f line.
11. At the hearing of the present case defendant will produce in court a
copy of the map of the lot referred to in 10 above.
0
a 12. Except for any action -the Planning and Zoning Commission may have
taken as to lots on cul-de-sacs in approved subdivisions, the instant case involving
3 a proposed lot of Arthur E. Roe on Main Street is the first case wherein the
Planning and Zoning Commission has held that a lot qualifies as a building lot,Uzi
o Uj so far as minimum frontage on the street is concerned, if the lot has the required
minimum width at a line drawn as provided in Section 1.12f of the Regulations.
Q
PLAINTIFFS,
Z
i
LL
By:
Danrel P. Cavanaugh, T it Attorneys
Kuehn, Cavanaugh E Cummings, P.C.
I hereby certify that a copy of the
foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid,
to all counsel of record, this day
of March, 1986.
C/_-6
Da'hiel P. Cavanaugh
Salary Range $28, 975--$399552
Subject to Adjustment
As of 7/1/86
2gmn of South Windsor
T,l;a. Director of Planninc ate,;
Position gml•
Plans, organizes, and directs the development of comprehensive planning in the
functional areas of land use, economic growth, housing, transportation and related
municipal planning areas.
Performance Racmna i bi 1 i t i Rao
Plans, supervises, and coordinates the review and updating of the Town's Master Plan.
Administers the Department in the functional areas of land-use, environmental,
economic development, transportation, and general planning Administers, reviews,and
makes r tions on land development, including commercial, recreational,
office, industrial,and residential development proposals. Provides technical
consultation and services to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Zoning Board of
Appeals, the Econaaic Development Commission, the Inland Wetlands Commission; and
other Boards, Caamissions and is and special committees concerned with land
development and cmmmity growth. Plans agenda items and coordinates meeting records
and materials of Commissions or committees as needed. Coordinates Planning and
Zoning review and actions with Town Departments. Oversees preparation of planning
maps. Administers, coordinates, and makes reo ---- -x ations concerning land use
regulations. Compiles and analyzes data on econ mic,social, and physical factors
affecting land use. Confers with attorneys, builders, and members of the public on
planning and development matters. Prepares applications for intergovernmental
grants. Administers approved grants. Addresses public and private groups on
lanning mutters. Prepares and makes budget roc-, , mdations for Department.
culministers adopted Department budget. Provides supervision and direction to
professional and para-professional planning staff, office staff, temporary employees,
contracted services, and others. Administers personnel regulations and collective
bargaining agreement for t. Oversees consultant agreements as needed.
Provides narrative and statistical reports to the 'town Manager and to the Town
Council upon request.
Additional a tLi_bil_i i _
Reviews economic base, employment, demographic, housing, and income data for economic
development. Participates in professional planning organizations to maintain current
on technological and legal developments and change.
1A=ism By
Receives general direction from the Town Manager.
ifica _ipns Prof'1-AS
The skills and knowledge required would usually be acquired with a Masters Degree in
city, urban, or regional planning, and five years experience as an urban or regional
planner with supervisory experience desirable.
License or C?rt i f i cnt p-
Connecticut Motor Vehicle Operator's license.
Career Path:
Promoted From: Planner.
TCOMed TO: Increased responsibilities with the growth of the Town.
h• Iry
N%Rt
VL
00 YEAR FLOOD L/NEQCONTOUR32J Of
9 9 LOCI
4g/3' Oo V BASE
MON p pQ ASSE
O 1
00
1
v
N ,q e
O,oOS 900 00 c
1 4
ses•' 1 Q q QQ
G O 53:25
270q.00100,
E DECK NONCONFDRM
O ho SIDE YARD REOUIREI
S2
3•
S
co
Z yON T
O?`'
s
4 S
R N '
v MOoyN
F STNOTE: AREA (1984) = 32.46 ACRES EXCLUDING HOUSE LOT)
O)
3
LAW OFFICES
KUEHN, CAVANAUGH AND CUMMINGS, P.C.
966 FARMINGTON AVENUE DANIEL P.CAVANAUGH
OF COUNSEL
WEST HARTFORD,CONN. 06107
203)236-2973
SOUTH WINDSOR OFFICE:
EDWARD R.KUEHN 1665 ELLINGTON RD.
HAROLD R.CUMMINGS SOUTH WINDSOR,CONN.06074
FRAZIER G.SCOTT
LORRAINE PAULHUS 203)644-3473
RONA C.LYNCH
MICHAEL J.LANZA PLEASE REPLY TO: W, Hartford
March 211 1986
Mr. Robert Gilligan
Planning and Zoning Commission
MAPTownHall 1986
1540 Sullivan Avenue
South Windsor, CT 06074 SouthPlannin Windsor
Re: Burgdorf vs. Planning and Zoning Commission
8 & Zoning CommissioA
of South Windsor
Dear Bob:
Because of your long time service on the Planning and Zoning Commission, I
expect to ask you to testify in the above case when it comes up for court hearing,
unless the Town Attorney is willing to agree to the facts listed in the annexed
Request For Admissions dated March 20, 1986.
Therefore, to appraise you of the issues that have been raised and the testimony
that may be needed from you, I also send you herewith (a) a copy of pages
1 through 7a of Plaintiff's brief dated 12/4/85 (b) a copy of Defendant's brief
dated 3/6/86 and (c) a copy of Plaintiff's reply brief dated 3/13/86.
Yours truly,
3?X
Daniel P. Cavanaugh
DPC:Isb
Enclosures
cc: Richard M. Rittenband, Esq.
AUGRECEIVED4I986AUG11986
South Windsor M.RITTf BANDN0, 34798 Planning & Zoning Commission ' SUPERIOR COURT
JOHN C. BURGDORF AND JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND
DORIS P. BURGDORF
AT ROCKVILLE
VS,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OF SOUTH::WINDSOR JULY 292 1986
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Plaintiff Doris P. Burgdorf brings this administrative
appeal from the decision of the defendant granting the sub-
1.
division application of Arthur A. Roe (Roe) ' by Revised
Complaint, dated October 18, 1985.
FACTS
The following- facts were admitted by answer to requests
for admission:
Under the Zoning Regulations of South Windsor
the proposed building (sic) is in the A-40 Zone, "
Inasmuch as the proposed building lot is a 'lot
in a future subdivision of land, as specified
in Section 5 .2,3 of the Zoning Regulations, said
Section 5.2.3 mandated that said lot "have the
frontage required, namely 150 feet upon a public
street. "
1
1. Although the defend:=.t "[a]pproved with modificatiins,r the'
application of Arthur Roe for a two-lot subdivision.,. . -C,3
it appears in fact to be a three-lot subdivision, C,G.'S-0 §8-1
I
iNo, 34798 2-
The lot subject to' the present appeal, is
the lot shown as Parcel (2) on the Sub
division Plan prepared by Petersen &
Hoffman dated May, 1985, which Subdivision
Plan constitutes item 2 of Defendants i
re turn, "
The northeasterly corner of said land
marked "N/F Doris P. Burgdorf" on said
Subdivision Plan, abuts the southwesterly
corner of the lot shown as "Parcel 2" on
said Subdivision Plan,"
On June 18, 1985 , Roe filed an application for
subdivision approval. Such approval would,- permit a portion of
Parcel (2)" as shown on the Subdivision Plan, dated May, 1985 ,
submitted by Roe to be a building lot. Section 5 .2 of the
South Windsor Zoning Regulations (Regulations) requires a minimum
lot width of 150 feet in this A-40 zone, The proposed lot is
oddly shaped. It has 154.9 feet in width just beyond the i
building line; about 74 feet in width just in front of or at
the building line ; and some 133.97 feet at the street line,
On June 25, 19855 the defendant approved the application.
Section 5 .2.3 of the South Windsor Zoning Regulations
provides inter alia that "Each lot in future subdivisions of
land shall have the frontage required in the applicable zone i
upon a public street. . . , "
No, 34798 3-
The building line is 50 feet north of and parallel
to the street line,
ISSUE
The sole issue is whether the Regulations require
that the lot width of 150 feet exist at the street line,
I,AW
The Regulations providd, inter alia, the following
definitions :
011,2f Building Line: ' A line parallel to a street
at a distance equal to the required front
yard;
1,12c Lot Lines Front: All lines - dividing the
lot from the street or streets.
1. 12d Lot Lines Sides: All lines extended from a
street ,which divide separate lots abutting
f
the street,"
1, 12f ,Lot„Minimum FrQnta&e_ (Width) : The distance
between the side lot lines measured in a
straight line at right angles to the mean
direction of such side lot lines, which line
of measurement shall touch but not be in
front of the building line. 2•
2 . This court does not know what the "mean direction of such
side lines" is but accepts that Roe 's engineer used it
to arrive at his figure of 154.9 for the lot width measured
at the building line.
No, 34798 4-
Section 5 provides as follows :
AREA, YARD AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS
5.1 Except as provided for existing lots in
Section 3.5, no building shall hereafter
be erected, enlarger., altered or rebuilt,
or premises used except in conformity with
these regulations, and as prescribed in the
schedule which is part of this section and
is labeled "Schedule of Areas, Yards and
Height Requirements.*
5,2 Schedule of Areas, Yards.;and Height Re, uireEgents
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Zone Lot Area Lot Width Lot Dgpth
I
t.A-40 40,000 s, f, 150 ft. 200 f
When interpreting these complex regulations, it helps
to look at all of them. Section 3.14 is entitled Rear Dwellings
Restricted and subsection 3. 14.1 thereof reads as follows:
3. 14. 1 Except for accessory buildings, no
building shall be erected or altered or
used for residential purposes that does
not have the required lot area and the
required lot frontage on a street for
each building. Permitted accessory
buildings may be used for housing
domestic and non-paying guests of the
occupant of the principal building."'
No. 34798 5_
This regulation appears to be directed against the development
of rear dwellings,
The court, reads §5, 1 and 5.2 together with §1,12f
to mean that the narrowest that a lot may be at any place is
150 feet.
r
The purpose served by the regulatory requirement
picking a special place to measure the width of a proposed lot
is so that the measurement will not be increased by measuring
on the bias. If we think of a lot with tide lines parallel to
each other but not perpendicular to the street 4nd we have an
actual street frontage of exactly 150 feet, it is clear that
the width of the lot will be less than 150 feet when measured
in accordance with §1. 12f of the Regulations, The Regulations
demand a minimum of 150 feet in width for the entire lot -
street frontage , building line , rear line and everything in
between.
No, 34798 6-
This lot is not a minimum of 150 feet wide. It is
not 150 feet wide at the street nor does it become 150 wide
3,
for at least some 60 feet -back from the street.
Judgment for plaintiff,
r
O'Nei 1 Nudge
1
l
3, It also may not become 150 feet in width for some 300 feet
back from the street line because the claimed side line
identified as being 231,04 feet which the engineer used
may not be a side line at all. Because the court need not
decide that issue it does not,
7 ' 3
RICHABD M. RITTENBAND
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1734 ELLINGTON ROAD
SOUTH WINDSOR,CONNECTICUT 06074
203)644-2456 is t
AUG 4 1986
ll South WiPlanning ndsortoningComm/sslon
t
a
l
V
NO. 34798 (Judicial District of Tolland) STATE OF CONNECTICUT
JOHN C. BURGDORF AND
DORIS P. BURGDORF APPELLATE COURT
VS.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 1986
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
DEFENDANT'S SEC. 3098 STATEMENT
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE: This is an appeal from a decision of the defendant
granting a subdivision approval brought by an abutting property owner in the
Hartford Judicial District, then transferred to the Tolland Judicial District
where a Memorandum of Decision was issued , O'Neil1,J., on July 31, 1986 in
favor of the plaintiff.
FACTS ON WHICH DEFENDANT RELIES: Defendant's attorney received the Memorandum
on August 1, 1986. Defendant, Commission, which should decide whether it wishes
to appeal the Decision, is on vacation and is not expected to meet during the
month of August, 1986, some members being out of town. Defendant's attorney
LAW OFFICES
AROM.RITrENSAND will be on vacation from August 3,1986 to August 11, 1986. The time for filing
34 ELLINGTON ROAD
WINDSOR.CONN D4074 a Petition for Certification expires August 20, 1986, and prior thereto defendant
203)614.2436
will not be able to consider whether or not to appeal.
JURIS NO 50412
LEGAL GROUNDS ON WHICH DEFENDANT RELIES: Sec. 3139 of the Practice Book which
requires a Petition for Certification to be filed within twentydays of the
issuance of notice of the decision or judgment, and Sec. 3142 of the Practice
Book which provides for a Motion for Extension of Time in which to file
a Petition for Certification.
DEFENDANT
BY:
Richard/M. Rit t enbmtd,
its attorney
Service certified to counsel of record in accord ce with the Rules of
Practice this 2nd day of August, 1986.
Richa d M. Rittenband,
Attorney at Law
LAW OFFICES
RD M.RITMNSAND
i4 ELLINGTON ROAD
WINDSOR.CONN 06074
203)644-2456
JURIS NO 50412
r
0`551011
NO. 34798 rJpt2't C+
JOHN C. BURGDORF AND Q,aD' & SUPERIOR COURT
DORIS P. BURGDORF
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
VS. TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF
THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR AUGUST 20 1986
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
APPEAL AND/OR PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION
Defendant represents that the Memorandum of Decision was filed
on July 31, 1986 and received by defendant on August 1, 1986 and that the
defendant Planning and Zoning Commission, which will have to decide wht:her to
appeal, is on vacation and does not meet during the month of August,1986,
some members being out of town.
Wherefore, defendant moves that the time for filing an appeal
and/or petition for certification for appeal be extended thirty days until
LAW OFFICES September 20, 1986.
4RD M.RIrrENBAND
DEFENDANT34ELLINGTONROAD
BY L
WINDSOR CONN 06074 TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED Richard' M. RittenbandORALARGUMENTNOTREQUESTED
its attorney203)644.2456
JURIS NO 50412
ORDER
The above motion having been duly presented or heard, it is hereby
granted/denied, and the time for filing an appeal and/or petition for
certification for appeal is hereby extended to September 311986.
BY THE COURT:
Clerk
Service certified to counsel record Aug.2,1986.
Richard M'. Rittenband
NO. 34798(Judicial District of Tolland) STATE OF CONNECTICUT
JOHN C. BURGDORF AND
DORIS P. BURGDORF APPELLATE COURT
VS.
AUGUST 2, 1986 .
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION
Defendant, Planning and Zoning Commission, represents that a
Memorandum of Decision was issued in Tolland Superior Court July 31,1986 and
that the defendant Commission will be on vacation and not meet to decide
whether to appeal during the month of August, 1986.
Wherefore, defendant moves for an extension of time of thirty
days in which to file a Petition for Certification.
DEFENDANT
LAW OFFICES Y
Richard . RittenbandARDM.RITTENBAND
34 ELLINGTON ROAD its attorney
I WINDSOR CONN 06074
ORDER
203)644.2456
JURIS NO 5"12 The above motion having been presented, it is hereby ORDERED that
the time for filing a Petition for Certification is extended to September ,
1986.
BY THE COURT:
Clerk
Service certified to counsel of reco d
August 2, 1986 ' in accordance with i Pragtice Book
Richard M,; l:ittenband
RECEIVED
A U G 14 1986
4
ft*h';D M.RITTEMAND
APPELLATE COURT
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
NO. 34798
JOHN C. BURGDORF ET AL.
V.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
O R D E R
THE MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
WITHIN WHICH TO FILE ITS PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION, HAVING
BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTED TO
SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 .
BY THE COURT,
ASS STANT CLERK-APPELLATE
DATED: AUGUST 12 , 1986
NOTICE TO: 8/12/86
o
CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT, TOLLAND-34798
KUEHN, CAVANAUGH & CUM MT_NGS
RICHARD M. RITTENBAND
BUG
Aa So 1°8
T
4i e vlh ,,5
4'. /)dSorCo
ss'o4
sf,<
U 7-OW n O-A
1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074
f
dSoli-co AREA CODE 203/644-2511
September 3, 1986
Richard M. Rittenband, Esq.
1734 Ellington Road
South Windsor, Ct. 06074
Dear Dick:
Re: Burgdorf v. Planning & Zoning Commission
Please be advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted
last night to authorize you to take whatever steps are
necessary to appeal the Superior Court decision in the
matter of Burgdorf v. the South Windsor Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Yours very truly,
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
C r'-'7vgBy:
Louise C. Evans, Chairman
CC: R. J. Sartor, Town Manager
M. Banach, Planning Director