DocketNumber: No. CV93-0308417S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5223
Judges: FULLER, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/11/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
A public hearing was held on the application on August 17, CT Page 5224 1993 and it was denied on September 21, 1993 for seven reasons: (1) inadequate parking on the site; (2) the operation would increase traffic congestion; (3) the application was deficient without a traffic study; (4) a deli is a more intense use than a gasoline station; (5) sanitary concerns with one person running the deli and pumping gasoline when required for handicapped persons; (6) the use will have an impact on abutting residential properties; and (7) noncompliance with 20.2.1(d) of the Zoning Regulations. Since the plaintiff is the property owner and unsuccessful applicant, it is aggrieved by the Commission's denial of the application. Bossert Corporation v. Norwalk,
When a zoning commission denies a special case, the question on appeal is whether the reasons assigned are reasonably supported by the record and whether they are pertinent to the considerations that the agency is required to apply under the zoning regulations. Grace Community Church v.Planning Zoning Commission,
The first and fifth reasons for denial of the application are not supported by the record. The plaintiff is correct that the zoning regulations do not specifically require a traffic study. However, § 20.2.1(d) requires certain specific information on roadway conditions and capacity adjacent to the property, existing and projected traffic volumes, levels of service and adequacy of traffic signals, so that the Commission can determine that the proposed use will not adversely affect safety in the streets, increase traffic congestion or interfere with the pattern of highway circulation. In order to grant a special case the Commission must determine that the standards in the zoning regulations are satisfied, Farina v. Zoning Board ofAppeals,
The Commission was also required to consider "the location, size and intensity of the use in relation to the size of the property and existing neighborhood development." Section 20.2.1(b), Stratford Zoning Regulations. This would include considering whether adding a delicatessen to the existing gas station would have a more significant impact on nearby properties than the current use of the subject property. It is unnecessary to decide whether the record adequately supports denial of the application on this ground as well, since the Commission only has to assign one valid reason for denying an administrative application.
The plaintiff also contends that there is no rational basis for allowing full service gasoline service stations as a permitted use in the zone, while requiring a special case for a self-service gasoline station. While this is an interesting argument, it is beyond the permissible scope of this administrative appeal. The appeal must be decided based upon the existing regulations, and § 7.1.4 of the Zoning Regulations requires a special case for the use proposed by the plaintiff.
The appeal is dismissed.
ROBERT A. FULLER, JUDGE CT Page 5226
Lurie v. Planning & Zoning Commission , 160 Conn. 295 ( 1971 )
Town of Westport v. City of Norwalk , 167 Conn. 151 ( 1974 )
Feinson v. Conservation Commission , 180 Conn. 421 ( 1980 )
Abramson v. Zoning Board of Appeals , 143 Conn. 211 ( 1956 )
Holt-Lock, Inc. v. Zoning & Planning Commission , 161 Conn. 182 ( 1971 )