ww ~ DOCKET NO.: CV 09-5033925-S CV 09-5033926-8 ~~ SUPERIOR COURT VILLAGES, LLC JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT vs. HARTFORD ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING ‘ COMMISSION fl MAY 30, 2012 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL FROM. THE DENIAL BY THE DEFENDANT OF ITS APPLICATION FOR A ‘SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND OPEN SPACE SUBDIVISION 1. FACTS AND PROCEDURE: On or about May 28, 2002, the plaintiff (hereinafter also “the Villages”) filed with the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter also “PZC” or “the Commission”) an application for a special use permit and a subdivision application for an open space subdivision consisting of 38 residential housing lots and a boulevard design fora portion of one of the proposed streets. The subdivision would be on approximately 64 acres adjacent to 87 Simon Road in Enfield (hereinafier also the “site” or the “property”). The subject property is located within a Residential District (R-44). Open space subdivision are permitted by special use permits only in an R-44 zone. Public hearings for both applications were held before the Commission on July 9, 2009, July 23, 2009, September 3, 2009 and October 1, 2009. The hearing was closed on October 1, 12009. On October 15, 2009, the Commission denied the special permit application and the subdivision application which had sought a waiver of certain requirements regarding the roadway design and Cape Cod curbing. THébdappéald Gktikifvedy filed 14%w ~ 2. STANDARD OF REVIEW: A trial court may grant relief in an appeal from a decision of a Planning and Zoning Commission only where the authority has acted unreasonably, illegally, arbitrarily or has abused its discretion. Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 227 Conn. 71, 80 (1993). The Court, however, “may not substitute its judgment for the wide and liberal discretion vested in the local authority when acting within in prescribed powers...” (Internal quotation marks omitted). Frito Lay, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 206 Conn. 554, 572-3 (1988). Where the zoning authority has stated the reasons for its decision, the Court is not a liberty to probe beyond them. Harris v. Zoning Commission, 259 Conn. 402, 420 (2002). If the Court finds it is necessary to search the record, its inquiry is limited to whether there is a substantial evidence on the record to support the Commission’s denial. Rural Water Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 287 Conn. 282, 294 (2008). The plaintiff bears the heavy burden of proving that the agency's decision was illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. Shailer v. Planning & Zoning Commission, }26 Conn. App. 17, 25 (1991). The Court must not disturb the decision as long as honest |judgment has been reasonably and fairly exercised the by the Commission. Whittaker v. The Zoning Board of Appeals, 179 Conn. 650, 654 (1980). (Emphasis ladded.) “In reviewing the decision of a zoning board of appeals or planning and zoning |commission, the trial court must determine whether the board has acted fairly or with [proper motives or upon valid reasons” (emphasis added) Stan Cunav v. Zoning Board lof Appeals, 66 Conn, App. 565, 568 (2001). (Emphasis added.)AGGRIEVEMI The plaintiff claims to be aggrieved by the decisions of the Commission. The defendant has not denied the aggrievement and does not oppose a finding of agerievement, CGS Sec. 8-8(a)(1) states in pertinent part as follows: “*Aggrieved person’ means a person aggrieved by a decision of a board...aggrieved person includes a person owning land that abuts or is within a radius of 100 feet of any portion of the land involved in the decision of the Board.” ‘The Court finds that the plaintiff was at all times and still is the owner of the property subject of this appeal. See Warranty Deeds to the plaintiff, plaintiff's Exhibits 1 and 2. Being the owner of the property subject of the application to the Commission and this appeal, the plaintiff is statutoril aggrieved. ISSUES AND FINDINGS: Credibili 1 ‘Was Commission Member Lori Longhi biased against the Plaintiff? The short answer is yes. Lori Longhi (hereinafter also “Longhi”) was a member of the Commission during all relevant times concerning the subject applications, was a major part of the hearings and played a significant role in the deliberations of the Commission and voted to deny the applications. Her bias specifically was against one of the owners of the plaintiff, namely, the wife of former Enfield mayor Patrick Tallarita (hereinafter also “Tallarita”). Her bias was against Tallarita and, therefore, extended to the plaintiff because Tallarita’s |wife was and is one of two members of the plaintiff.