~ i! ~ .

DOCKET NO. CV 09-5033925-S (subdivision)

VILLAGES, LLC
v.

SUPERIORCOURT
: J.D. of HARTFORD
at HARTFORD
MAY 15, 2012

ENFIELD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

POST-TRIAL REPLY BRIEF OF THE DEFENDANT ENFIELD PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

i. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. The Testimony Elicited Before the Court Did Not Prove Actual Bias
and, Assuming the Court finds Bias, the Plaintiff's Choice to Remain Silent Precludes the Court's Consideration of this Issue.
The court heard conflicting testimony in terms of the alleged bias. Although
socializing between the Tallarita's and the Longhi's had ended, it does not follow that

Commissioner Longhi would have. been unable to consider the subject applications

impartially. Commissioner Longhi believed that she was impartiaL. Hence, .she had no
j

obligation to recuse herself. The burden is on the plaintiff not only to prove bias, but to

; L~ ,-3 :~ \~ if

prove that there was compliance with Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of
Embalmers and Funeral Directors. 291 Conn. 242 (2009).

,
l :, ~L ~.~ n Ii

ij H ii ~1 :1 ;1 ~ il

1
:1 1

With respect to the conflicting bias evidence and plaintiff's failure to properly and

~ : g ~ ~

f i

timely raise bias, the plaintiff's analysis is faulty; and, Mr. Tallarita's testimony on this
issue is equivocal and not credible. He testified at length and in detail about his soured

~ iJ

relationship with Commissioner Longhi. TR pp. 44-47. Mr. Tallarita's concern that Ms.
Longhi could not act impartially was strong enough that he went to the Town Manager

on account of what he saw during the public hearing. TR p. 48. But he was not concerned enough to protect his rights, i.e. to raise his concerns on the Record. TR pp.
53-54. It is clear that from his perspective, this cannot be argued to be only "potential"

bias.
Mr. Tallarita equivocates about when he learned about the alleged conversation

that Mr. DiPace overheard: "the first time that Tony DiPace came to me was after the
proceedings had started. It may have been, actually, after the decision was rendered.",

TR p. 50, lines 16-18. During cross examination by defendant's counsel, Mr. Tallarita
claims to have had more than one conversation about whatever Mr. DiPace heard in the

parking lot. TR pp. 51-52. And, in fact, Mr. Tallarita concedes that Mr. DiPace's version
of when he disclosed the conversation iii the parking lot "may very well be true." TR p.
52, line 17. So, at first Mr. Tallarita is apparently told more generically that

Commissioner Longhi is unhappy with him; and then, between the close of the public

hearing and the filing of this appeal, he is conveniently told with more specificity that

Commissioner Longhi "hoped someday that he would get screwed over the by town."
TR p. 37, lines 6-7. The court should not countenance this eleventh hour attempt to

rescue the plaintiff's failure to speak up about that which he testified that he knew prior
to the public hearing and certainly prior to the close of the public hearing.

This flatly contradicts the testimony of plaintiff's witness, Mr. DiPace, who
testified that when he heard the alleged conversation during which Commissioner
Longhi was supposedly "venting":

it was either during Mayor June of 2006 or 2007 (TR p. 38, lines 13-17)
verified by the fact that Mr. DiPace remembered that he was still Chairman
of the PZC and his term ended at the close of 2007, TR p. 35, lines 23-24;

. Mr. DiPace rolled down the window of his truck to say "hi" to the other
PZC commissioners who were chatting in the parking lot, TR 36, lines 1-6
and 22-23;

. Mr. DiPace shared the information, close in time to when he heard it, "a
few weeks or a month" later, trying to be helpfuL. TR p. 39, lines 23-24.

The plaintiff would have this court believe that Mr. DiPace, who knew Mr.
Talllarita for over 30 years in social and political circles and was by all accounts friendly
and on good terms with him, heard something he considered inflammatory regarding
i~. !J
~ tl :j Ii ~i

pending applications and chose to sugarcoat it with generalities and then 2 ~ years
later relay to Mr. Tallarita the specifics of this conversation. It is not credible that in the
15 days between publication of the decision and the filing of the appeal that Mr. DiPace

sought out Mr. Tallarita to tell him about the alleged conversation. Mr. DiPace testified
that he told his friend about the alleged conversation no more than a month after having

heard it. TR 39, lines 23-24. The plaintiff can't find its own witness credible for one

purpose and then find him not to be believed for another. This is not credible and the
plaintiff has not carried its burden.
Even considering the facts as interpreted by the plaintiff, the bias claim must still

faiL. If the Court were to disregard the evidence which supports that Mr. Tallarita was
Well aware of Commissioner Longhi's antipathy toward him in advance of the application

process, and believed that the first glimmer that there was an issue with his receiving a
fair hearing was after the first public hearing meeting on the applications (TR p. 48, lines

7 -15), legally Mr. Tallarita's obligation was to make his request to the Commission, not

to the Town Manager. This is true despite the plaintiff's elaborate analysis, attempting
to distinguish shades of bias as "potential" and "actual" bias. If Mr. Tallarita's perception

of Commissioner Longhi's feelings prior to the public hearing constituted only the
"potential" for bias, the plaintiff would certainly be on notice about "actual" bias given his

claim of what he perceived from Commissioner Longhi during the hearing. TR p. 48,

,l

q
j~ ill '";1

~
~ ~

~
~ ~
tJ

~ ~

lines 7-1.5.

~ ~
~ tJ

The plaintiff would have this court believe that given all the evidence, "reasonable
promptness" was, very conveniently, after the applications were denied.

d
~ ;! ~

Clisham v. Board of Police Commissioners, 223 Conn. 354 (1992), is inapposite

~ ill ~

because the role there of the board was acting in an adjudicative and fact-finding

capacity in anadversarial proceeding, unlike the PZC which is acting in an

administrative capacity. Even still, the case noted that with the member about whom
bias was known, the Mayor, making the assertion on the record is essentiaL. Id. at 357.

The knowledge Mr. Tallarita had about Commissioner Lonhgi is dissimilar to the
knowledge that Chief of Police Clisham had about Mr. Mason, the member whose bias

came to light much later. .

the court further held "(b)ecause the existence of actual bias on the part of a

board member present(s) an issue of fact on which the plaintiff (has) the burden of proof,

the determination of the trial court that the evidence did not establish such bias cannot

be overturned, unless the subordinate facts or the admitted or undisputed facts would

require a different conclusion as a matter of law." Id. at 370. The facts and the
evidence here are very .much in dispute.

The leading case on the matter makes clear two pertinent steps regarding the
need .for a recusal request 1) it must be made to the Commission; 2) it must be made on

tl ,i
~
~ f4 ~ L

~ ~ ~

~
kl

L
~

the record. Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers & Funeral

* ~
~
'1

Directors, 291 Conn. 242, 264 (2009). Plaintiff concedes as much on page 5 of its posttrial brief.

i ~
fJ

The following excerpt of defendant's counsel's questioning of Mr. Tallarita

validates that the plaintiff has not complied with the law:

fl

OJ

ill f~

:1 \J tJ

Q: And, at any time, did you or any representative before the

town Planning & Zoning Commission in Enfield object to Ms.
Longhi's participation in this case?

j
; , ~ '1

A: In public forum, no, because I felt it was inappropriate to do

that. !3 1 ;j 11 :'t

Q: So, neither you nor your Villages' Counselor anyone raised

the issue with the Planning and Zoning Commission or with Ms;
Longhi at the time the application was made?

j
:1 ! 'i .1 '~j

A: No, i did not......

j ~

Q: So you chose not to raise that issue in the public forum at the
Planning and Zoning Commission?

A: Yes, we did.

TR pp.53-54.
The plaintiff wrongly claims it is the PZC's obligation to rebut Mr. Tallarita's claim

;j :1 ~I 1 3

that he told the Manager after the first meeting on the public hearing; the Town has no
such burden and the plaintiff cites no legal authority for this unique proposition. In fact,
as noted on p. 5 of plaintiff's post-trial brief, "the importance of raising the issue of bias
II II 11 :1 II il I !~

:j
l;~

~
/1

ij

~ ~ ~
l~

;
t~ ,

.~
to-the finder of fact is premised not only on interests of judicial economy, but also

on the

~
:i

need for an adequate record for review." Citing Moraski. Emphasis added. In
Connecticut, the Supreme Court has put the burden squarely on the shoulders of the
plaintiff to speak up timely and not wait for an unfavorable decision to cry "fouL." As is

@ 'i

tl
~ ~

~
11 ii m :1 :i '1 :1

unequivocally shown in the testimony above, "at no time prior to or during the hearing
before the board did the plaintiffs raise the issue of bias." Moraski at 264. Emphasis

~l :~

added.
B. Each Commission Member, Most of Whom Had Been on the

~l,~

Commission for Many Years, Contributed Independently to the

Denial of the Applications.
The fact that the majority of the Commission members agreed with one another
and that the waivers were denied with a 1 (in favorJ-5 (opposedJ-O vote for the boulevard

j
j
~ .1 :1

\
j ''3

design; and a 5-1-0 vote for the Cape Cod curbing vote; indicates unanimity of thought
and analysis rather than "poisoning" of the welL.

As noted in the Commission's original brief, from the very beginning of the
q

boulevard discussion and prior to the public hearing, in June 2008, before Commissioner
Longhi was even a member of

~ ;1 j :j

the PZC1, there were repeated, serious and valid concerns

1
~ ;1

about the boulevard concept, a street not even provided for in the Regulations:
1/ "i think it was February of '09 that I got on the Board." Testimony of L. Longhi, TR p. 14, lines

1 :1 i i~ Ii

18-19.

.~ 'fi i~ 1 ~ ~

Commissioner Ladd: "likes the concept but the maintenance thing' is the only
issue." R 1, p. 3.
Commissioner Falk: ".. .sees the island as a maintenance issue" R 1, p. 4.

Chairman Duren: "there is still the question of maintenance" R 1, p. 4.

Chairman Duren (in conclusion): "the biggest concern raised tonight is

maintenance. R 1, p. 7

Moreover, although Commissioner Longhi disagreed with the Cape Cod curbing
waiver and shared her opinion on the record, the other Commissioners voiced their

support of this waiver. This underscores that the membership did not pay undue attention
to Commissioner Longhi's opinion, but independently and appropriately considered the
issues upon which they were voting.
Additionally, on the issue of whether proper notice to abutters' signs was given, all

the other Commission members did not concur with Commissioner Longhi's analysis. R
39, pp. 5-6.

C. "Ugly" Does Not Qualify as a Legal Hardship.

Although the PZC believes that the hardship issue has been thoroughly briefed

~ i~ ,1 : ,!

on pages 10-15 of the PZC's original brief, because the plaintiff puts forth, for the first
time, the unique proposition that "ugly" qualifies as a hardship, the following is submitted
for the court's consideration. This new claim ought not to be allowed as the plaintiff

~ , : !, .1 ll I! :1 i I ii Ii ~ :1

~ i ~ :1

lJ ~i ;

Enfield Planning and ZOt -' - June 19,2008 - Page 9

~
~
R i?

~
gentleman came in from Amherst with some boulevard ideas. The Commission also allowed fs

one on Powder- Hollow;

Commissioner Weseliza asked if Palomba Drive was like a boulevard. Mr. Barry stated all

I ~
~ :j

the ones they looked at, there were no houses in the boulevard section. The boulevard section was clean and the houses started in the loops. This is a little bit different. Palomba Drive is

p, II ill l

more of a divided highway than a boulevard. .

Mr. Tallarita stated they have visited other communities that have boulevards. He presented
pictures to the Commission.
\.

i
~ ~ L'! 1 ~ \~

Commissioner Ladd stated he likes the concept but the maintenanctTthing is the only issue.
Conunissioner Lefakis asked what is the flame retardant in the sprinkler system. Mr. Barry stated it is just

water. It works off domestic water.

W rj 11 ~ r~

Commissioner Falk asked from a vehicle standpoII1t is one design better than another design

from a maneuverability standpoint. Mr. Barry stated one of the reasons a boulevard might be
better is they would operate on one side of the boulevard and leave the other side iniaffected.

They also put a turn aroinid at the end so that they could go all the way down and make a swing with their rigs and come back. That also meets. the turning radius of a fire lane. It is a
50' tunng radius. They discussed about putting in cut throughs but they don't tlunk they can

tum their rig aroinid. Between lots 20 and 28 there is a turn around.

Chairman Duren asked about the radius they have in the area oflot 13. Mr. Barry stated they
can typically drive down any town road so the roads are probably okay. Mr. Tallarita stated as

they move deeper into the development, they will make sure they meet all the requirements.
They are more focused tonight just on the boulevard concept. Mr. Giner stated. in the final . design, all the road systems have to be by spec arid according to the subdivision regulations

meet all the requirements.

Commissioner 'Falk asked if the facilities person for the town looked at tlus concept. Mr.
Giner stated he has. His concern was that they be junipers or low lying trees in the boulevard

islands.

Mr. Tallarita stated each town person at the ART meeting did have some concerns and raised some issues for them to discuss at that meeting. It brought out new ideas and the development went further. The police department did have an opporturuty to look at this. In the first ART
meeting, John Cabibbo pointed out the greater safety aspect to the boulevard rather than

pulling out on to Simon Road with two roads so close together. The same comment came back from the police department. They preferred the boulevard concept because of the fact
that it was one road coming out. It led to the safety aspect which was a concern of

theirs.

Mr. Tallarita stated maintenance is an issue. Mr. Fredrick stated Bill Sperrazza who is in

harge of roads and lughways in Enfield talked about maintaining the boulevards. Mr. Fredrick stated the isIands in the boulevards are going to have sloped granite curbing and the
vegetation in the eight foot wide islands will be low growing spreading junipers. This was

Bill's suggestion. He liked the aesthetics as opposed to painting them blacktop. Some
discussion followed regarding maintenance of the junipers.

Mr. Fredrick stated they have pictures of the junipers they have used in other areas. He noted

they can certairy use other low growing shrubbery. Mr. Tallarita stated there are some

ai, 3
~a.

Enfield Plarining and ZOt .-June 19, 2008 -Page 10\ i.

boulevards like the one in Windsor that have white stone. There is also a granite that is used. There are a numb~r of different options that would be low maintenance as opposed to grass.
Commissioner Falk aSked ifthere is some requirement that you have to have this island in the
middle of two roads. He asked can't you

just have two roads side by side. He sees the island

:; . ~

as a maintenance issue. He discussed the one on Palomba Drive.

Mr. Fredrick stated Palomba Drive has grass and they have sections that are maintained by
local. businesses. Corrnnssioner Weseliza noted the West Hartford boulevards are very well

maintained.. Mr. Giner stated the head of the Highway Department did not want something that has 'to be maintained on a weekly basis and he recommended junipers.

:1 i
~ ~ ~

Commissioner Falk asked if you can do the concept without the island. Mr. Fredrick stated
the regulations would not allow for a long boulevard going in with branches coming out.

~ ~ ~ iii

Mr. Tallarita stated it is a matter of finding something that is acceptable to everyone. They talked about granite curbing and they believe granite curbing would be the right way to go. Whether there f:e plantings in there or it is like a rock concept or there are low bushes with minimal maintenance, it is entirely up to the town professionals to tell them what is wanted. They do want it to look aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Tallarita stated they believe they have a
beautiful piece of land here.

:~

Chairman Duren stated the thing the Commission got hung up on was maintenance and fire. Fire is taken care of but there is still the question of maintenance. Mr. Tallarita stated the boulevard itself is 800' but the islands don't represent that full 800'.
There are two breaks. You are not talking a huge amount of island within tms development.

From their perspective, the boulevard is the best way to approach this piece of land. They
wanted to come before the Commission to see if this is a concept the Commission was willing
to entertain as they move forward. They have a larger vision forthis piece of property. They want this to be a show piece and be cutting edge. They like the idea of the sprinkler systems. They think: they

are a reasonable approach within the building market today. They understand

the requirements and they accept the requirements but they want to be able to offer sprinklers
throughout the whole development.

Mr. Fredrick stated they have done some research and every home will have a security system
as part of the package. If the sprinkler. system and the security system are connected to a
central system, the homeowner can save twenty percent of his homeowner's policy. In a short

I
:1 11

period oftime, ~hat money will be returned in premium savings.

Mr. Tallarita stated they are looking to make this a show piece with green and conservation concepts in mind for this property. They have four goals and the first goal is to be in harmony with the site itself. Before they move into the actual development of the homes, they have to
make sure that they are doing the best thing for the site. That's where they start with the

boulevard concept. It creates the least amount of pavement to be put down so there's less runoff and less maintenance for the Town of Enfield down the road. Under the boulevard concept, there's a total of 42,000 square feet of roadway. Under the roads scenario, then~ is
about 5,000 square feet of pavement. That is an expense to the Town of Enfield when they have to do their capital improvements but also about 47,000 square feet which is a difference of they are considering the amount of water runoff and disturbance to the land. They

are looking

at sewers for this project. Gramte curbing is something they wouldn't necessarily have to

Ili_

etb

Enfield Planning and Zo~i. .) - June 19, 2008 - Page 13

ChaIrnlan Duren asked about the reaction of the boulevard concept. Commissioners Sarno
and Weseliza stated they were for tt.

Mr. Fredrick stated they will be giving their engineer a call tomorrow and have him begin to draw up boulevards on the final plans. These will eventually be submitted to Wetlands and
Planning and Zoning.
Chairman Duren stated the biggest concern raised tomght is maintenance. Mr. Tallarita stated he thinks they will be able to address the maintenance aspect.

b. Applications to be Received

Public Hearings:

PH #2648 - Application for a Special Use Permit for conversion of North School from office use to residential apartments to consist of nine one-bedroom apartments and
common spaces at 51 College Street, Zoned TVC, Map 27, Lot 102, Enfield People for People, Inc., Applicant! North School enterprises, LLC, Owner.
A public hearing will be scheduled for July 24,2008.

PH #2649 - Application for subdivision of merged lots in accordance with section

3.20.2(F) and 5.g of subdivision regs at the site of the former Greek Orthodox Church

Roseland Avenue, Zoned R-33, Map 23/44, Lot L49, Enfield Properties, LLC, Applicant/Owner.
parcel at end of

A public hearing will be scheduled for July 24, 2008.

in accordance with section 3.20.2(f) and 5.g of subdivision regs at former Greek Orthodox Church parcel at south end of Roseland Avenue, ZonedR-33, Map 23/44, Lot L497,
PH #2450 - Application for a Special Use Permit for division of merged lots Enfield Properties, LLC Applicant/Owner.

A public hearing will be scheduled for July 24,2008.

Other Business
Mr. Giner stated the Corrunission received a request from the Town Council which is an 8-24 on closing ScitIco Road partially, They also asked that a public hearing be held so that if any
residents have any input, they can have the benefit of the hearing. Chairman Duren stated

they have had a petition to close the road from the people that live on Scitico Road and this is

their way of handling it. The Commission also discussed it when the plumbing company
bought the land across the street. Mr. Giner will schedule this for July 10, 2008.
J

Mr. Giner stated regarding the closing of Scitico Road, from Hazard Avenue they want to come in a little bit for access to the parcel that is zoned commercial that just has a house on it now. Just a little bit south ofthe package store, they want to dead end it. You will still be able to come in from Hazard Avenue and out but you won't be able to go through. Commissioner
Falk asked if the issue of the cul-de-sac length comes into play. Mr. Giner wi1llook at their

design and that is one of the issues the Commission can look at because this would be creating a cul-de-sac from Leary Road.
Chainnan Duren asked if Commissioner Sarno is giving a final report on her conmuttee. Mr.

Giner stated they will have a meeting next Thursday.

.J

.,q

r C'; "~~".'-:

J
.! jJ ::i

PH#2681 and PH#2682 - Transcript - July 9, 2009 - the Villages - Page 5

1
j
:1

Dave Fredrick: We own this parcel which is contiguous with the main parcel of land. As you can see, we own this parcel.
Commissioner Longhi: Yes, I know that. I can see that on the map.
Dave Fredrick: And this is the second parceL.

1
'l

1
"

j
~ ~ ~ .~

in relation to that parcel? Dave Fredrick: The old house. The old brown house. The old brown house is right here. Okay. And Frank's house is on the north side over here. He lives in this white ranch. This is Frank's white ranch. This is our parcel of land. This is the old brown farm house and this is the parcel of land that we are buying from Frank. So we're concerned about two parcels.
Commissioner Gregory: Where is the house

,~ '1 'f :',i ~ & t~ Ij :1

~
r~

a point up and I would like to do this right now. To make the record clear I disclose that an LLC that I'm a manager of and is registered by the State of Connecticut as a new home
Commissioner Longhi: Okay. Jose, this brings

~
ig

contractor and that I hold the highest form of appraisal license as a certified general appraiser with a special education to appraise conservation
properties used in IRS values. My qualifications are available for inspection

a
1 ,1 ;t

and review. I filed a copy wi.th the Director of Planning. I appraise

properties and look at plans on a daily basis. According to this plan, it's
1
i ~, :1 .1

three parcels and I want to go on the record that I am an expert in this area. And according to this, it's showing three parcels.
Chairman Duren: There is a discussion - therels still discussion on the floor.

A motion has been made to accept the posting as posted. Because otherwise
we dont continue the hearing. Well, itls continued anyway but this would

l
,j 1

stop it cold. So whatever you desire whether the posting was proper or not, is up to your decision people. A motion is on the floor. If therels no more
further discussion -

Commissioner Sarno: These signs - isnlt anyone from the town checking these signs so that the applicants dont have to go through this.

Mr. Giner: I go by there every day. Again some of those parcels for
purposes of signage. Whatever the sign is - the applicant picks up the sign and they say the signs were up. . I've seen the two signs up there.

j -l

Chairman Duren: It's not going to close tonight. I guarantee it. I've got a
list of stuff here that -

:t

Commissioner Sarno: But the question is should it even start.

Chairman Duren: Whether the public was properly notified - that is the question. If you feel it was properly notified then you vote yes. If you feel the public wasnlt, then you vote no. If you think they aren't going to have a

chance to communicate with the Commission, then you vote no as well. So if

someone wants to move the question or we sit here -

Commissioner Sarno: Let's vote. Chairman Duren: The question has been moved. All in favor of the signage

being proper at this time will vote in favor. All in favor? Opposed? The vote

- 5 -

A. '"'"d

~
~1

PH#2681 and PH#2682 - transcript - July 9,2009 -the Villages - Page 6

\:i

is 6 - 1 - O. (Commissioner Longhi voted nay.) We'll continue the hearing 'and it was properly posted as evidenced by the phone call. Jose, the next

,1

~ ~
i1

time please don't mess up. If you will identify yourselves. Now we can continue.
Patrick Tallarita: My name is Patrick Tallarita and I represent the owner and
the applicant.

~
~ ~'l f~

Mr. Fredrick: My name is Dave Fredrick from Mulberry Lane. I am also representing the owners of the property. Thank you.

~
~
tj rn ~1

Mr. Patrick Tallarita: We witnessed obviously yo'ur televised meetings and

thought We would try a little bit of technology to show it on the big screen.

q 1

Commissioner Longhi: If we could see it, it would be good.

Mr. Patrick Tallarita: We do have all of the maps on here as well so if you want to reference a map - I can't say that I'll get it right away.

ri ~

Mr. Fredrick: If I may introduce my credentials - my name is Dave Fredrick

and I have been building homes primarily in the Town of Enfield since 1982. Since my career of building homes, we have built a number of subdivisions in town. You probably know my history.

'I ~ ~

One of the unique things about this piece of land is that it's actually an island

of land. When I sayan island of land, its bordered on the west by Simon
Road, bordered on the north by land owned by the Town of Enfield and a piece of land with a deep ravine that is owned by Susan Starr again on the north. On the east, it Is bordered by the State of Connecticut and they have a number of acres that stretch from the east In Enfield north to North Road

l
d 11

q
j

and on the south it is bordered by the Town of East Windsor. If I was to say
that this was an island piece of land, that is a fairly good representation.

One of the unique things about this piece of land Is that it is truly a lovely piece of land. If one takes a look to the extreme south, this lightened area is
the Scantic River. The nearest home that we are proposing is going to be . approximately 800' away from the Scantic River. We went through the approval process of Wetlands beginning in November of last year and we finally got approved May 5 of this year. They found that the proposal we're
:-1

making for this piece of land will have no significant impact upon the wetlands.
You may remembr we appeared before this body perhaps a year and a half ago and we proposed - we had two options. The first option is we could put two roads in like this or we could propose boulevards. This Commission listened to Fire Marshal Tom Barry In which Tom urged the Commission to consider the boulevards for the reason of safety with one boulevard coming

in heading to the west and one boulevard coming to the east. It would not be as much of a traffic hazard as having two roads as depicted up there on
the sign. Not only did the Fire Department endorse the boulevards you may remember. The police endorsed the boulevards. And as I remember the Town Highway Department, Bill Sferrazd, endorsed the boulevards as welL. I think aesthetics came into the playas well as anything else. We were able to
-6.

".., ~e

1
i

t~

~ ~

~
~
'J

~
~
;,3

~ ~

never discussed the subdivision's "ugliness" either before the PZC, in plaintiff's appeal,
or in its original brief.

;l~

1
~

In any event, as stated more than once at the public hearing by Mr. Tallarita,
L

representative of one of the applicants: "The property can accommodate two roads."

~1

"
~

"They can come in with a two road subdivision." R 1, p. 2. The same comment was

il Ii) :~ ;!

made by Mr. Fredrick, representative of one of the applicants: "They can put in two
roads." R 1, p. 5.

Given that two roads is not a practical hardship, just not preferred by the
applicants, using one road would have been another possibility.

Interestingly, the

applicants failed to put forth a less intensive use that might be very attractive and
comply with the Regulations; e.g., one road of a reasonable length (e.g., 600' allowed

by the Regulations, or up to 1200' with a waiver), obviously because it would not

generate as much income. The "ugly" factor could be eliminated with a less intensive
use and fewer homes. It is not the PZC's responsibility to maximize developer profits.

That said, the plaintiff noted that it had the option to purchase neighboring land which
would have provided

additional choices; plaintiff chose not to do so.

Based upon the evidence on the Record, it cannot be said that the Commission's
finding against waivers was "not legally correct or factually supported."

K H

Enfield Planning and 2m, j - June 19, 2008- Page 8 i

il

~
they would only operate on one side of

:1

the boulevard. :With the boulevard road being 20' you

would be able to get a vehicle by and you wouldn't ~hut down all access to the boulevard section. The other thing they came up with was the possibility of residential sprinklers. All
the houses along the boulevard section would be sprinklered to alleviate any hindrances.

t~ F ~

M ia

Mr. Barry stated mandating sprinklers would be cutting edge technology. He discussed
smoke detectors which prevent casualties. Mr. Barry thought these could be model homes for the community, the state and the country.

~ ~ l

"

:1

Chainnan Duren asked about the 20' wide. Mr. Giner stated 24' is a regular two-lane road.
Chainnan Duren thought the Comnnssion was talking about wider than 20'. He also. would
be more concerned about the people at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Barry stated they

;i :~

looked .

at that and what they were thinking of was a 20' lane on the boulevard section going in and coming out. They would take up a full lane like that. The other people would need a police presence to help direct traffic but two cars could pass each other in a 20' lane.
Chainnan Duren stated with the divider YOl! would use about 50'. Mr. Barry stated with the island in the miiddle there couldn't be any trees but they would have to be low growing plants.
Commissioner Weselza stated the boulevard is just the beginning part. Mr. Barry stated it is
the beginning part but it is 800' long in tills proposal.

Mr. Tallarita stated the Commission has two plans before them. One is a two road subdivision which is possible on this particular parcel ofland. It meets the requirements of the land. Then there is the second, which they are here tonight to discuss infonually, wluch is a proposal for a
boulevard. The property can accommodate two roads but they are suggesting tlus particular piece of property lends itself well to the boulevard concept.

Commissioner Dumont stated Mr. Barry is saying that every house will have sprinklers. Mr. the boulevard meet the requirements of a fire lane and all the houses on the boulevard section have residential sprinklers in the homes. Mr. Barry stated residential sprinklers protect lives unlike a smoke detector which only wakes the person up. He discussed a fire that occurred recently and noted a. residential sprinkler would have kept that fire small and the fire would have been a lot less.
Barry stated to allow this they are asking that each side of

Mr. Tallarita stated when they first went to the ART meetings there was some apprehension. They went to try to find out the staffs concerns. Chairman Duren stated one concern was safety and Mr. Barry has covered tht and all the fire marshals are in agreement. The other
concern was maintenance.

Mr. Tallarita stated after working with the fire marshals and the police, they have worked it up to the level where they are comfortable with the concept from a safety standpoint. The developers are also comfortable with the recommendations that they have suggested.
if. Mr. Tallarita stated they are here to see if this is a concept the Commission is interested in

seeirig in full deveiopment. They can come in with a two road subdiYsion but when they
looked at this, it just makes sense for thi~ particular piece of property to do it in this format.

'I !~ ,'4

They wanted to come here nformally and have an open. discussiory on the Comnussion' s thoughts on boulevards. . .
Commissioner Weseliza asked if there are any developments like this that the Commission

1 ii j

could look at. Mr. Giner stated in Somers off Hall Hill Road. ChaInnan Duren stated a
:1

"

Ill - ~
9t::t

~ :i ;1 :1 !l ;

j
~

Enfield Planning and 20'6 - June 1'9,2008 - Page 11

address but it is an: expense that they understand. That really offsets some of those other
savings withi.u the development.,
Chairmari Duren nequested that they stay with the concept of

boulevards.

Mr. Tallarita stated the concept starts with the boulevard.

Commissioner Ladd asked about a place for a snow shelf. Mr. Fredrick stated the actual
boulevard is twenty feet and you have to allow an additional 30'. Mr. Giner stated there is still

going to be a right of way on either side as you 'would with any road for a snow shelf or for sidewalks.

Mr. Fredrick stated when Bill Sperrazza of the Highway Department looked at t1us, he
realized that there would be sufficient room to plow the snow back on to the snow shelf. Mr.
. Giner stated everything has to be designed to town standards.

Mr. Tallarita stated they met with the fire department and there is that tum around at the end. There is also the advantage for school buses to tum around there.

Commissioner Sarno stated the Comillission needs to focus on boulevards town wide. Other people will be coming in requesting boulevards. The Commissioners have to look at how it
will affect other applicants as this will set the precedent.

Mr. Tallarita stated they are not asking the Commission to change the regulations.

Chairman Duren stated the Comillission allowed a boulevard in Powder Hollow for safety
reasons. Mr. Giner stated they 'asked for a waiver of the regulations in that particular

application.

Mr. Fredrick stated this is a unique piece of property. They can put in two roads with the
''Same number oflots. Also, the fire people and the police are very supportive of

the boulevard concept on this- piece of property for the safety factor. They have all the utilities to this site.

All they are talking about is the entrance or the gateway. The rest of the subdivision is a
typical subdivision. They are testing the waters for a response and they do have th option of coming in with two roads. They wouid prefer not to do so.
Commissioner Sarno stated she would be interested in the boulevard concept.

Commissioner Dwnont asked that they come in with three or four different ideas for the

,j j ~i d '1 .J :J .j ,j .J li il ':1 .~ 1 :1 ..~ '. ~

islands that can be shared with the Commission as far as what they would like to see. Mr. Fredrick stated they need to impress upon everybody that they want an aesthetically attractive
gateway. This is being supported by the Commission. He would like to think that they could

come in with a menu of things to place in the boulevards. Bill Sperrazza seemed to be happy
with the spreading junipers. They can come in with different options. .

Chairman Duren stated the town is going to maintain it because it is going to be a public road. Mr. Giner stated Mr. Sperrazza can comment on any options and the applicant would have the benefit of his comments.

Commissioner Dwnont stated if we set up something that looks good and will sell, there is no

reason why we caiinot do something sinlar especially if it is low maintenance and looks
good.

~ I! :1 1 .i ,l

., '5
9~

d
~
,~ 'j F1

il
tj

~ ~ ~ ~

'1

II. CONCLUSION
Given the co nflcti ng

l.,t i
1

~
ii

evidence presented in this case and the plaintiff's inability to

~
i i

meet its burden, the law is clear that these appeals should be dismissed. Even
assuming Commissioner Longhi was biased, the credible evidence reflects that it was

il
fl :i m II r~ 11

not raised in compliance with Shailer. Even assuming Commissioner Longhi attempted
to obtain ex parte evidence, the plaintiff failed to present what that evidence was and
how it could have influenced either Commissioner Longhi or the rest of the Commission.

a
:1 Ii ~i

The plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of proof. The Record is replete with
substantial evidence, cited in the defendant's original and post-trial brief, that supports

m i1

il
'1 1j :J

the PZC's decision to deny the applications. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the
~ZC's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or an abuse of its discretion. Accordingly,
because the applications were properly denied, both appeals should be dismissed.

d
'I .1 :,i

THE DEFENDANT ENFIELD PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

J
'i

By: 307147
Its Attorney, Kevin M. Deneen Town of Enfield 820 Enfield Street Enfield, CT 06082 TeL.: 860-253-6405; Fax: 860-253-6362

,j l~ 11 !l !l It 11 ;,\ rl 11

il .,
11

K: P1anninglUUgaUonMllages v. PZC/Subdlvlsion/PosHnal Bnef, 5-15-12

!~

10

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, this
15th dayof May, 2012 to th~ following counsel of record:

Gwendolyn S. Bishop, Esq.

Smith & Bishop, LLC P.O. Box 338 27 South Main Street

Windsor Locks, CT 06096 Telephone: 860.627.0513 Facsimile: 860.623.1026

John M. Wyzik, Esq. 11 High Street
P.O. Box 295 Suffield, CT 06078

307147
Kevin M. Deneen
Commissioner of the Superior Court

11