Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

i' July 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 14 Zoning Bulletin Authority/Procedure—Town's Planning and Zoning Commission Waives Landscape Buffer Requirements 4 i Parties dispute whether commission has discretionary authority to waive those a requirements Citation: Santarsiero v. Planning and Zoning Coni'n of Town of Monroe, 165 Conn.App. 761, 2016 WL 2977173 (2016) j CONNECTICUT(05/31/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a town planning and zoning commission had the authority to waive land- scape buffer requirements. The Background/Facts: Real Time Investments,LLC("RTI") sought to build a McDonald's restaurant on property that it owned in the Town of Monroe (the "Town"). In 2009, RTI applied for a variance from the Town's Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board")to allow for a restaurant with a drive-up window. The Board granted the variance. In November 2010, relying on that variance, RTI filed an application with the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission(the"Commission"), seeking a special exception and a zone change to allow for the proposed McDonald's restaurant. In August 2013, the Commission approved the special excep- tion,as well as the zone change. Donna MacKenzie, David W. Santarsiero and Colleen M. Santarsiero (collectively, the "Neighbors") owned property within 100 feet (though not abutting) RTI's property. The Neighbors appealed, among other things, the Commission's grant to RTI of the special exception. The Neighbors noted that once RTI's property was rezoned,the Town zoning regulations required a landscape buffer between RTI's property and the bordering residentially zoned properties. Specifically, the regulations provided that the landscape buffer must consist of at least three rows of evergreen trees planted 15 feet apart.RTI had contended that the presence of inland wetlands limited its ability to create a landscape buffer that conformed to the regulations. The Commission, in granting the special exception had waived the landscape buffer requirement. The Neighbors argued that the Commission abused its discretion when it approved RTI's special exception without requiring the landscape buffer of three rows of evergreen trees. The superior court rejected the Neighbors' argument. The court concluded that the Commission had not abused its discretion in granting the special exception because there was "substantial evidence to support 10 ©2016 Thomson Reuters i