Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2-- March 10, 1998 Z.B. <br /> <br /> Special Exception Neighbors challenge permit for car wash next to <br /> residenti'. ~l area <br />Downs v. Bridgeport Zoning Board of Appeals, Superior Court of <br />Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV- <br />960334471S (!998) <br /> A.M.S.K. Inc. (applicant) applied to the Bridgeport (Conn.) Zoning Board <br /> of Appeals for a special exception permit to build a ca.r wash on its property. <br /> The applicant's property was 18,689 square feet, 98 percent of which was in <br />a business zone. Th'e remaining 2 percent, at the rear of the property, was zoned <br />residential. The properties on both sides of the front were occupied by busi- <br />nesses, and the area was heavily traveled. The properties to the rear were in a <br />residential zone and occupied by multifamily and apartment buildings. <br /> The proposed car wash would be entirely in the business district, and the <br />applicant agreed to landscape the portion in the residential zone as a buffer to <br />the adjoining residential properties. In the past, the site had been used as a gas <br />station, a car dealership, and an auto repair business. <br /> Zoning regulations required the board to consider before granting a special <br />permit: the size and intensity of the use and its effect on the city's comprehensive <br />plan; the capacity of adjacent and feeder streets to handle traffic; the emission <br />of noise, light, smoke, odor, gas, dust, or vibration; the overall effect on the <br />value of neighborhood properties due to the location, nature, and height of <br />buildings, walls, stocks, and fences; the arrangement of parking facilities, <br />entrances, and exits; and the fire and police hazards involved. The board also <br />had to "make such findings and stipulations as are necessary to protect property <br />values in the district as a whole and the public health, safety and welfare." <br /> The board held a public hearing, at which the applicant's engineer explained <br />the proposed lot plan and traffic considerations. The board expressed concerns <br />with the number of cars that would be accommodated on site and the impact <br />cars waiting to enter the car wash would have on traffic congestion. The board <br />also heard testimony in opposition of the project from owners and employees <br />of other car wash facilities. <br /> After a second hearing, the board unanimously approved the plan with the <br />condition that all wash and rinse water be contained on site. The board gave <br />this reason for its approval: "IT]he use will not cause any negative impact as <br />related to traffic, noise, noxious fumes or the public safety." <br /> A group of neighbors appealed to court. <br />DECISION: Appeal sustained. <br /> The board .improperly granted the applicant a special exception permit. It <br />considered only two of the six factors it had to consider. <br /> The board had to consider the size and intensity of the use and its effect on <br />the city's comprehensive plan, traffic issues, offensive emissions of various <br />kinds, the overall effect on property values, parking facilities and exits, and fire <br />and police hazards. There was no evidence the board considered any factors <br />other than offensive emissions and parking, and entrances and exits -- only <br /> <br /> <br />