.

-[\;i 5
\-:/ j.j _rl
.-Y r1
-! ;t -
L--' * I
i:J
-. 1

rl .

!-, 'r -!]

:l -: i _! i-_ '
-'i'

RETURN DATE: MARCH 30,2010 suPERtoR'chJm

t. c)
-
c^t
T'i
DANIEL WALL JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
Plaintiff ANSONIA.MILFORD

v. AT MILFORD
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
TOWN OF OXFORD, BELMAR FARMS, LLC, ANd
SALTON ENTERPRISES, INC.
Defendants FEBRUARY 11, 2O1O

CITATION

TO ANY STATE IIARSHAL OF THE COUNW OF NEW HAVEN OR HIS DEPUTY WTHIN
SAID COUNW, GREETING:

BY THE AUTHORIW OF THE STATE OF CONNECIKUT, You ore hereby commonded fic

summon the PLANNING & ZONING COltiMlSSlON OF THE TOWN OF OXFORD, in rhe

County of New Horen ond Sfirte of Connecticut ond BELftAR FARMS, LLC ond SATTON

ENTERPRISES, lNC. to oppeor before the Superior Court for the Judiciol District of Ansonio-

Milford to be held ot Milford on Morch 30, 2010, soid oppeoronce to be mode by the

Plonning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Oxford, Belmor Forms, LLC ond Solton

Enterprises, lnc., or eoch of its respeclive ottorneys by entering o written sirtement of

oPPe{Ironce with the Clerk of soid Court on or before the second doy following the return

doy, ond then ond there to onswer unto the {ollowing comploint ond oppeol of Doniel Woll

PETER E. KAF {
of 28 Wedge Hill Drive, Oxford, Connecticut 06478, by leoving with or ot the usuol ploce

ol obode of the Town Clerk of the Town of Oxford, two true ond ottested copies of the

comploint ond oppeol ond of this citotion ond summons, ond in the hqnds of the proper

officer or ogent for service of process of eoch of Belmor Forms LIC ond Solton Enterprises,

lnc. ot leost twelre doys before the return doy, in the monner provided by low for the

service of civil process.

I hereby certify thot I hove personol knowledge of the linonciol responsibility of the

plointiff ond deem it sufficient to poy the costs of this oction.

Hereof foil not but of this writ with your doings thereon, moke due service ond return.

Dqted ot Roxbury this l ls doy of Februory, 2010.

n
u-__
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
RETURN DATE: MARCH 30,2010 SUPERIOR COURT

DANIEL WALL JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

Plaintiff ANSONIA-MILFORD

v. AT MILFORD
PI.ANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
TOWN OF OXFORD, BELMAR FARMS, LLC, ANd
SALTON ENTERPRISES, INC.
Defendants FEBRUARY 11,2010

TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ANSONIA.MILFORD

To BE HELD AT MILFORD oN MARCH 30, 2010, comes DANTEL wALL (the

'Plaintiff) with an address of 28 Wedge Hill Drive, Oxford, Connecticut 0O47g

appealing from the action of the Defendant Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town

of Oxford (the "Defendant') in approving an application for an amendment of the zoning

map and a change of zone filed by the Defendants Belmar Farms, LLC and Salton

Enterprises, lnc. and the Plaintiff complains and says:

1. Plaintiff Daniel Wall is now, and was at all times relevant to this appeal, the
owner of property situated in the Town of Oxford and located at 28 Wedge Hill

Drive, Oxford, Connecticut 06478 in which he resides as his home which

property abuts and is immediately adjacent to one or more parcels of property

owned by one or more of the Defendants Belmar Farms, LLC and/or Salton

Enterprises, lnc. and situated at 108-120 Oxford Road, Oxford, Connecticut,

 which parcel or parcels of property were the subject of an application to the

Defendant Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Oxford, hereafter

sometimes referred to as the "Commission', for an amendment of the zoning

map and a zone change of portions of the aforesaid parcel or parcels of land

from Residence District A to commercial District (the ?pplication').

The Commission is the agency empowered under the General Statutes to

perform the functions of a zoning commission under Chapter 124 otthe General

Statutes and the Commission has the authority to enact zoning regulations and

establish and amend zones and the zoning map for the Town of Oxford and

when acting on such applications, it acts in a legislative capacity.

3. On or about September 29, 2009, Defendants Belmar Farms, LLC and Salton

Enteprises, lnc. acting by someone purporting to be the owner, one Sally N.

D'Souza, filed an application for a zoning map amendment and zone change to

Commercial District. A public hearing was held which public hearing was opened

on November 5, 2009, continued to December 3, 2009 and further continued to

January 7,2010 at which time the public hearing was closed.

4. ln addition to appearing at diverse times personally and through legal counsel to

oppose the Application, Plaintiff also intervened pursuant to Connecticut General

Statutes $ 22a-19, by filing a verified pleading with the Commission, in order to

 raise environmental issues. The Defendants Belmar Farms, LLC and Salton

Enterprises, lnc. are the successful applicants before the Commission.

Because a valid protest petition was presented to the Gommission by the

owners of more than 2to/o of the lots within 500 feet of the property included in

the zone change, approval under Connecticut General Statute S 8-3(b) required

the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members of the Commission. Because

the Commission has five members, approval required four affirmative votes. On

or about January 21,2010, by a vote of 4-1, the Gommission voted to approve

the Application. Notice of that decision was published in the Waterbury

Reoublican-American on February 3, 2010, a copy of which advertisement is

attached as Shlh!!1!.
6. The Commission gave the following reasons for its decision:

"BE lT RESOLVED, that based upon the application and testimony, this
application is approved, for the following reasons:

1. The approval of this application is consistent with the comprehensive

plan.

2. The application is in conformance with the overall recommendation of

the Route 67 Commercial Area within the 2007 Oxford Plan of
Conservation and Development which states that commercial development
should be encouraged along Route 67 at a scale, design and locations to
meet the needs of Oxford residents.

3. The application is on conformance with Strategy #3. of the 2007 Oxford

Plan of Conservation and Development, which states; "The boundaries of
 the Commercial District should continue to be readjusted, upon request to
coincide with parcel boundaries.,'

4. Theapplication is in conformance with the Economic Development Goal

of the 2007 Oxford Plan of Conservation and Development, which c"l6 to,
economic development which will promote economic opportunities for
Oxford residents and provide the tax base to fund a levei of municipal
services required by oxford's growing population

5- The application is in conformance with the Economic Development

gtrgtegy of the 2007 Oxford Plan of Conservation and Development'which
indicates that significant t retail sales dollars are leaving the fodai econ;t;
and their capture would have a beneficial impact on thJbcal economy.

6. The approval of this application would enable the Planning and Zoning
Commission to regulate the scale, appearance and nature oi commercial
development'

7. The reasons assigned are improper and inconect in that

a. Reason No. 1: The zone change and change in the zoning map
requested and approved are not consistent with the comprehensive plan

because said changes would insert a @mmercial zone and use into the

middle of an existing, established residential neighborhood so that the

commercial zone/use would be sunounded on three sides by existing

residential lots in the Residence A District and hence constitutes illegal

spot zoning and is not in conformity with the comprehensive plan of

development or with the requirements of Connecticut General Statutes

S

8-2; and
 b. Reason Nos. 2-5: The zone change and change in the zoning map

requested and approved are inconsistent with numerous other goals and

objectives in the Oxford Plan of Conservation and Development and even

assuming arguendo that it were consistent therewith, compliance with the

comprehensive plan of conservation and development cannot overcome

and does not excuse failure to comply with the comprehensive plan of

development and the provisions of the general statutes, in particular the

provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 5 8-2;

c. Reason No.6: This is not a proper reason for a change of zone or

amendment of a zoning map and even assuming arguendo that the
Commission would be able to regulate the scale, appearanoe and nature

of commercial development, that fact is irretevant and cannot overcome

and does not excuse failure to comply with the comprehensive plan of

development and the provisions of the general statutes, in particular the

provisions of Connecticut General Statutes S 8-2; and

d. The reasons stated were not supported by substantial evidence in the

record.

8. Plaintiff is aggrieved by the Commission's decision in that he is the owner of

property abutting and immediately adjacent to the propefi or properties of

 Defendants on which the zone change was granted, and because Plaintiff will

have commercial uses and the excess light, noise, traffic, pollution, and blight of

commercial uses relative to residential uses brought closer to his property and

will suffer from the likely pollution, impairment and destruction of the natural

resources of the State of Connecticut which will result from the scale, scope and

commercial-type development permitted as a result of the change of zone and

amendment of the zoning map.

9. ln approving the Application, the Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and in

abuse of the discretion vested in it by law as an administrative agency in that:

a. the zone change and change to the zoning map requested and approved

constitutes illegal spot zoning; and

b. the zone change and change to the zoning map requested and approved

ls not in conformity with the comprehensive plan of development and

hence violates Connecticut Generalstatute S B-2;

c. the Commission exceeded its statutory powerc;

d. in light of uncontroverted testimony in the record as to the likelihood

activity resulting from the zone change would cause unreasonabte

pollution, destruction, or impairment of the natural resouroes of the State

of Connecticut, the Commission faibd to make any findings with respect

 to Plaintiffs petition for intervention in violation of the provisions of

Connecticut General Statute S 22a-1g; and

e. the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence in

the record
WHEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF PMYS THAT the appeal be sustained and the
decision of the Commission to approve the zone change and change of zoning map

requested and approved, be declared to be null and void.

DATED at Roxbury, Connecticut, this 1lth day of February, 2010.

THE PI.AINTIFF-APPELLANT

Commissioner of the Superior Court

Pleasq enter the appearance of

Gregory J. Cava
Attomey & Counselor at Law
73 Southbury Road
P.O.B.209
Roxbury, CT 06783
Telephone: 860.350.3050
Facsimile: 860.799.8304
E-mail: gres@qreocavalaw. com

JURIS No.305270