Preview
RETURN DAY: MARCH 1, 2022 : SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC
Vs. : AT HARTFORD
PLANNING AND ZONING : JANUARY 31, 2022
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HARTFORD
CITATION
TO ANY PROPER OFFICER, GREETING:
By authority of the state of Connecticut you are hereby commanded to summon the
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, City Hall, 550
Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103 to appear before the Superior Court in and for the
judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, to be held at 95 Washington Street, Hartford,
Connecticut 06106 on March 1, 2022, the appearance to be made by the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, or its attorneys, by filing a written statement of
appearance with the clerk of the court, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106,
on or before the second day following the return day, then and there to answer unto the
attached complaint and appeal of FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC, a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having an office and
place of business at c/o Prospect Enterprises, LLC, 231 Farmington Avenue, Suite 2,
Farmington, CT, 06032, by leaving with the Hartford City Clerk/Town Clerk, City Hall, 550
Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, two true and attested copies of the attached
complaint and appeal and recognizance and of this citation, and directing the City
1Clerk/Town Clerk to retain one copy and forward the second copy to the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford at least twelve (12) days before the return day, in
the manner provided by law for the service of civil process.
Farmington-Girard, LLC, c/o Prospect Enterprises, LLC, 231 Farmington Avenue,
Suite 2, Farmington, CT, 06032, as principal and Janet Holik, 2230 Main Street,
Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033, as surety, are recognized in the sum of $500.00, payable
to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford to prosecute this appeal to
effect and comply with the orders and decrees of this Court. | hereby certify that | have
personal knowledge of the financial responsibility of the plaintiff and deem it sufficient to pay
the costs of this action.
Hereof fail not, but of this writ with your doings thereon, make due service and return.
Dated at Glastonbury, Connecticut, this 31st day of January, 2022.
avid F. Sherwood
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Please enter the appearance of:
Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood
2230 Main Street
P.O. Box 1420
Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033-6620
Tel. (860) 657-1010
Fax (860) 657-1011
Juris No. 412152
to
David F. SherwoodRETURN DAY: MARCH 1, 2022 : SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC
VS. : AT HARTFORD
PLANNING AND ZONING : JANUARY 31, 2022
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HARTFORD
COMPLAINT AND APPEAL
To the Superior Court in and for the judicial district of Hartford on March 1, 2022, comes
FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Connecticut, having an office and place of business at c/o Prospect
Enterprises, LLC, 231 Farmington Avenue, Suite 2, Farmington, CT, 06032, appealing from
a decision of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD
denying its special permit application and complains and says:
1. The plaintiff, Farmington-Girard, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having an office and place of
business at c/o Prospect Enterprises, LLC, 231 Farmington Avenue, Suite 2,
Farmington, CT, 06032.
2. The defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford
(“commission”) is the agency designated by and having jurisdiction in the City of
Hartford to hear and consider applications for special permits pursuant to Chapter
124 of the General Statutes and the City of Hartford Planning and Zoning
Commission Zoning Regulations.. At all relevant times herein mentioned, the plaintiff, Farmington-Girard, LLC, was the
owner of certain real property in the City of Hartford, County of Hartford and State of
Connecticut, known as 510 Farmington Avenue (the “property”), and is the current
owner of the property.
. The property is located adjacent to a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window
and is also located adjacent to a residential zone.
. Since acquiring the property, the plaintiff has marketed the property as a prime
location for a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window.
. In September, 2012, the plaintiff became aware that the commission was proposing
to rezone the property from the B-3 zoning district, linear business, to the B-4 zoning
district, neighborhood business, a change that would effectively prohibit the use of
the property as a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window.
. On December 10, 2012, the plaintiff submitted a special permit application to the
commission to construct a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window on the
property, which the commission designated #2012-6263 (the “special permit
application”).
. The next day, December 11, 2012, the commission approved the zone change that
placed the property in a B-4 zoning district.
. On December 19, 2012, Kim Holden, the City of Hartford's chief staff planner, wrote a
letter to the plaintiff advising it that the special permit application was “considered
incomplete and, as such, the time clock on the application has been stopped.” Ms.
4Holden told the plaintiff that, if it wished to proceed with the special permit
application, it should submit the additional required items listed in her letter.
10. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the commission’s December 11,
2012 adoption of the zone change. The appeal was designated Farmington-Girard
LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court,
Judicial District of Hartford, Docket No. 13-6038698-S.
11.While that appeal was pending, the plaintiff negotiated a ground lease with
McDonald’s USA, LLC (“McDonald’s”), which lapsed before the appeal was resolved.
12.On August 19, 2014, the Superior Court sustained the plaintiff's appeal.
13. Immediately thereafter, McDonald's reinstated the lease, began to prepare the
materials required to complete the special permit application and attempted to
schedule a meeting to review the application with Khara Dodds, the Director of the
City of Hartford’s Planning Division and its Zoning Administrator.
14. On September 23, 2014, the commission adopted certain text amendments to the
Hartford Zoning Regulations which, among other things, prohibited establishments
with drive-through windows adjacent to residential zones and within 300 feet of other
establishments with drive-through windows. The text amendments, which were to
become effective on October 18, 2014, would have prohibited the proposed fast-food
restaurant with drive-through window on the plaintiff's property.
15. After Ms. Dodds postponed the meeting several times, a meeting between Ms.
Dodds and representatives of McDonald’s finally took place on October 20, 2014. At
5that meeting, the McDonald's representatives delivered a set of materials to Ms.
Dodds that completed the special permit application that the plaintiff had first
submitted on December 10, 2012.
16.Ms. Dodds informed the McDonald's representatives that, as the result of the text
amendments that took effect two days previously, use of the property as a fast-food
restaurant with drive-through window had become prohibited.
17.On October 28, 2014, Ms. Dodds wrote a letter to counsel for McDonald’s, stating
that, “[a]fter our initial review, it was clear [that] the original site plan application ...
filed in December, 2012, lacked the required materials to be considered valid. The
application was submitted without site and architectural elevation plans; as a result,
the application is void. A new site plan application with the required materials must be
submitted. Please note [that] several changes to the [City’s] Zoning Regulations have
occurred since your last submittal. Please review these changes to ensure [that] all
required materials are submitted with your new application.”
18.On October 28, 2014, the commission readopted the change rezoning the plaintiff's
property from the B-3 to the B-4 district.
19. The plaintiff filed separate appeals from the commission's adoption of both the
September 23, 2014 text amendments and the October 28, 2014 zone change. The
appeals were designated, respectively, Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford,
Docket No. HHD-CV-15-6057526-S, and The Pamela Corporation et al. v. Planning
6and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of
Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-14-6055443-S.
20. Thereafter, on December 9, 2014, the commission readopted the change rezoning
the plaintiff's property from the B-3 to the B-4 district.
21. Thereafter, on April 14, 2015, the commission readopted the September 23, 2014
text amendments to the Hartford Zoning Regulations which would have prohibited
establishments with drive-through windows adjacent to residential zones and within
300 feet of other establishments with drive-through windows.
22. The plaintiff filed separate appeals from the commission’s readoption of the zone
change and the commission's readoption of the text anendments. The appeals were
designated, respectively, The Pamela Corporation et al. v. Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket
No. HHD-CV-15-6056247-S, and Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket
No. HHD-CV-15-6059162-S.
23. The four administrative appeals brought by the plaintiff were consolidated for trial.
24.On January 12, 2016, the commission adopted “form based” zoning regulations that
superseded all prior amendments. As a result, the plaintiff's property was placed in
the MS-1 zone, in which restaurants with drive-through windows are prohibited.
25. The trial court ultimately concluded that the text amendments and zone changes that
were the subject of the plaintiff's consolidated appeals were void as the result of
7defective notices. However, the court also concluded that the plaintiff had failed to
exhaust its administrative remedies when it failed to appeal Ms. Dodds’ decision
voiding its application for a special permit to the Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals
pursuant to § 8-6, and dismissed the consolidated appeals.
26. The plaintiff filed a petition for certification to appeal the dismissal of the consolidated
appeals to the Appellate Court, the petition was granted, and the Appellate Court
affirmed the dismissal. Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission,
190 Conn. App. 743 (2019).
27. The plaintiff filed a petition for certification to appeal the Appellate Court's affirmance
of the dismissal of the consolidated appeals to the Supreme Court, the petition was
granted, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the trial court with
direction to render judgments sustaining the plaintiff's consolidated appeals.
Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 339 Conn. 268 (2021).
The Supreme Court further ruled that there had not yet been a legal decision on the
plaintiff's special permit application.
28.On September 7, 2021, the plaintiff's counsel wrote the City of Hartford Planning
Director and requested that the commission hold a public hearing on its special
permit application and decide the special permit application pursuant to the Hartford
Zoning Regulations amended to November 12, 2013, which were the regulations in
effect when the special permit application was submitted.
29. The commission opened the public hearing on the special permit application on
8November 9, 2021 and immediately continued the public hearing to January 11,
2022.
30. The commission considered the special permit application at the continuation of the
public hearing on January 11, 2022.
31. Immediately prior to the continuation of the public hearing on January 11, 2022, the
City of Hartford Department of Development Services — Planning Division submitted
a “Staff Report” to the commission purporting to analyze the special permit
application, making negative recommendations to the commission concerning the
application, and incorporating a draft resolution to deny the application.
32. The Staff Report concluded that the site plans submitted with the application satisfied
all requirements of the Hartford Zoning Regulations amended to November 12, 2013
except that seven parking spaces were shown without bumper guards and a small
portion of two parking spaces crossed the building line.
33. The Staff Report further concluded that the proposed fast-food restaurant with drive-
through window was not compatible with the “adjacent residential areas” and its
location adjacent to another fast-food restaurant with drive-through window violated
the special permit provisions of the Hartford Zoning Regulations amended to
November 12, 2013, which were, according to the Staff Report, “specifically intended
to avoid this type of drive through use co-location.”
34. The Staff Report concluded also that approval of the special permit application would
be contrary to the Plan of Conservation and Development (“POCD’) due to its of its
9“auto-centric nature” because “the location of a restaurant with a drive through
directly abutting another restaurant with a drive through use places a significant
burden on the residents nearby that use this area as a pedestrian corridor,” while
ignoring statements in the POCD that “service sector jobs have always played an
important role in Hartford's economy [and] they have never been as critical to the
economic functioning of the City as they are at the present time,” that the City should
attempt to “Build the City’s Grand List by continuing to aggressively promote and
encourage commercial infill development in the following corridors: (the list includes
Farmington Avenue)” and “Pursue policies and planning strategies that will create
critical densities of economic development in established corridors.”
35.In response to the Staff Report, and prior to the continuation of the public hearing,
the plaintiff submitted a revised site plan adding bumper guards and eliminating the
two parking spaces crossing the building line, a supplemental traffic report
demonstrating that the special permit application is compatible with pedestrian and
bicycle use in the area, photographs showing three locations in the City of Hartford
where fast-food restaurants with drive-through windows directly abut one another,
and photographs showing the commercial nature of the neighborhood in which the
property is located.
36.At the continuation of the public hearing on January 11, 2022, the Staff Report was
read into the record verbatim, the plaintiff's representatives made a brief
presentation, and dozens of area residents spoke or submitted letters in opposition to
10the special permit application. The majority of the opponents to the special permit
application were members of the West End Civic Association, which is the
“Neighborhood Revitalization Zone” committee for the area in which the property is
located.
37. The commission closed the public hearing on January 11, 2022, and unanimously
voted to deny the special permit application by adopting the resolution incorporated
into the Staff Report.
38. Subsequent to the close of the public hearing, the plaintiff learned that Commissioner
Guy Neumann, who participated in the public hearing, asked questions of the
plaintiff's representatives, made the motion to deny the special permit application,
and voted to deny the special permit application, lives in close proximity to the
property, and is the vice president of the West End Civic Association, which
submitted a letter in opposition to the special permit application and urged the
commission to deny the application.
39. Notice of the commission’s decision was published in then Hartford Courant
newspaper on January 27, 2022.
40. In denying the special permit application, the commission acted illegally, arbitrarily
and in abuse of the discretion vested in it in that:
a. The plaintiff presented substantial evidence that the special permit application
conformed to the requirements of the Hartford Zoning Regulations amended to
November 12, 2013, governing special permits for restaurants with drive-
11through windows.
. The plaintiff presented substantial evidence that the site plans accompanying
the special permit application conformed to the requirements of the Hartford
Zoning Regulations amended to November 13, 2013, governing site plan
review.
.. In rendering its decision, the commission ignored expert testimony and written
evidence that the special permit application would present no traffic safety
hazards and would have a negligible effect on traffic conditions in the area.
. In evaluating the special permit application, the commission applied provisions
of the Hartford Zoning Regulations adopted on September 23, 2014 and April
14, 2015, which were subsequently invalidated by the Court in Farmington-
Girard, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior
Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-15-6059162-S and
Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-15-
6057526-S (August 19, 2014).
. Commissioner Neumann’s role in participating in the public hearing and
deliberations on the special permit application was illegal due to bias and
predetermination, and rendered the conduct of the public hearing fundamentally
unfair.
The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the commission’s
12decision.
g. The commission's decision cannot be sustained in light of the reliable, probative
evidence before the commission.
h. The commission's decision is based on such errors of law and fact as the record
may reveal.
41,The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the commission on the special permit
application pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8 (a) because it is the owner of property
at 510 Farmington Avenue which is the subject of the commission’s decision.
42.The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the commission on the special permit
application pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8 (a) because it is the applicant for the
requested relief.
43. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the commission on the special permit
application because it has a specific, personal and legal interest in the decision of the
commission on its application which is specifically and adversely affected by the
decision.
44.The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the commission on the special permit
application because it has a specific, personal and legal interest in the application as
the owner of the property at 510 Farmington Avenue, the value of which is specifically
and negatively affected by the commission's decision.
45. This appeal is brought pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8.
13WHEREFORE, the plaintiff appeals the decision of the defendant, Planning and
Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, on special permit application # 2012-6263 and
prays that the Court sustain this appeal and that the decision of the commission be declared
null and void and that the commission be directed to approve the application and for such
other relief as the court deems appropriate.
Dated at Glastonbury, Connecticut this 31st day of January, 2022.
PLAINTIFF
FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC
By. -—Z- oo _
David F. Sherwood
Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood
2230 Main Street, P.O. Box 1420
Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033-6620
Tel. (860) 657-1010
Fax (860) 657-1011
Juris No. 412152
Its Attorneys
14RETURN DAY: MARCH 1, 2022 : SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD
FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC
VS. : AT HARTFORD
PLANNING AND ZONING : JANUARY 31, 2022
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HARTFORD
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND
The plaintiff is claiming other relief in addition to or in lieu of money or damages.
PLAINTIFF
FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC
2
By.
David F. Sherwood
Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood
2230 Main Street, P.O. Box 1420
Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033-6620
Tel. (860) 657-1010
Fax (860) 657-1011
Juris No. 412152
Its Attorneys
15
Preview
RETURN DAY: MARCH 1, 2022 : SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC Vs. : AT HARTFORD PLANNING AND ZONING : JANUARY 31, 2022 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD CITATION TO ANY PROPER OFFICER, GREETING: By authority of the state of Connecticut you are hereby commanded to summon the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, City Hall, 550 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103 to appear before the Superior Court in and for the judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, to be held at 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106 on March 1, 2022, the appearance to be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, or its attorneys, by filing a written statement of appearance with the clerk of the court, 95 Washington Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, on or before the second day following the return day, then and there to answer unto the attached complaint and appeal of FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having an office and place of business at c/o Prospect Enterprises, LLC, 231 Farmington Avenue, Suite 2, Farmington, CT, 06032, by leaving with the Hartford City Clerk/Town Clerk, City Hall, 550 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, two true and attested copies of the attached complaint and appeal and recognizance and of this citation, and directing the City 1Clerk/Town Clerk to retain one copy and forward the second copy to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford at least twelve (12) days before the return day, in the manner provided by law for the service of civil process. Farmington-Girard, LLC, c/o Prospect Enterprises, LLC, 231 Farmington Avenue, Suite 2, Farmington, CT, 06032, as principal and Janet Holik, 2230 Main Street, Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033, as surety, are recognized in the sum of $500.00, payable to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford to prosecute this appeal to effect and comply with the orders and decrees of this Court. | hereby certify that | have personal knowledge of the financial responsibility of the plaintiff and deem it sufficient to pay the costs of this action. Hereof fail not, but of this writ with your doings thereon, make due service and return. Dated at Glastonbury, Connecticut, this 31st day of January, 2022. avid F. Sherwood Commissioner of the Superior Court Please enter the appearance of: Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood 2230 Main Street P.O. Box 1420 Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033-6620 Tel. (860) 657-1010 Fax (860) 657-1011 Juris No. 412152 to David F. SherwoodRETURN DAY: MARCH 1, 2022 : SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC VS. : AT HARTFORD PLANNING AND ZONING : JANUARY 31, 2022 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD COMPLAINT AND APPEAL To the Superior Court in and for the judicial district of Hartford on March 1, 2022, comes FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having an office and place of business at c/o Prospect Enterprises, LLC, 231 Farmington Avenue, Suite 2, Farmington, CT, 06032, appealing from a decision of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD denying its special permit application and complains and says: 1. The plaintiff, Farmington-Girard, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having an office and place of business at c/o Prospect Enterprises, LLC, 231 Farmington Avenue, Suite 2, Farmington, CT, 06032. 2. The defendant Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford (“commission”) is the agency designated by and having jurisdiction in the City of Hartford to hear and consider applications for special permits pursuant to Chapter 124 of the General Statutes and the City of Hartford Planning and Zoning Commission Zoning Regulations.. At all relevant times herein mentioned, the plaintiff, Farmington-Girard, LLC, was the owner of certain real property in the City of Hartford, County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, known as 510 Farmington Avenue (the “property”), and is the current owner of the property. . The property is located adjacent to a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window and is also located adjacent to a residential zone. . Since acquiring the property, the plaintiff has marketed the property as a prime location for a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window. . In September, 2012, the plaintiff became aware that the commission was proposing to rezone the property from the B-3 zoning district, linear business, to the B-4 zoning district, neighborhood business, a change that would effectively prohibit the use of the property as a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window. . On December 10, 2012, the plaintiff submitted a special permit application to the commission to construct a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window on the property, which the commission designated #2012-6263 (the “special permit application”). . The next day, December 11, 2012, the commission approved the zone change that placed the property in a B-4 zoning district. . On December 19, 2012, Kim Holden, the City of Hartford's chief staff planner, wrote a letter to the plaintiff advising it that the special permit application was “considered incomplete and, as such, the time clock on the application has been stopped.” Ms. 4Holden told the plaintiff that, if it wished to proceed with the special permit application, it should submit the additional required items listed in her letter. 10. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the commission’s December 11, 2012 adoption of the zone change. The appeal was designated Farmington-Girard LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Docket No. 13-6038698-S. 11.While that appeal was pending, the plaintiff negotiated a ground lease with McDonald’s USA, LLC (“McDonald’s”), which lapsed before the appeal was resolved. 12.On August 19, 2014, the Superior Court sustained the plaintiff's appeal. 13. Immediately thereafter, McDonald's reinstated the lease, began to prepare the materials required to complete the special permit application and attempted to schedule a meeting to review the application with Khara Dodds, the Director of the City of Hartford’s Planning Division and its Zoning Administrator. 14. On September 23, 2014, the commission adopted certain text amendments to the Hartford Zoning Regulations which, among other things, prohibited establishments with drive-through windows adjacent to residential zones and within 300 feet of other establishments with drive-through windows. The text amendments, which were to become effective on October 18, 2014, would have prohibited the proposed fast-food restaurant with drive-through window on the plaintiff's property. 15. After Ms. Dodds postponed the meeting several times, a meeting between Ms. Dodds and representatives of McDonald’s finally took place on October 20, 2014. At 5that meeting, the McDonald's representatives delivered a set of materials to Ms. Dodds that completed the special permit application that the plaintiff had first submitted on December 10, 2012. 16.Ms. Dodds informed the McDonald's representatives that, as the result of the text amendments that took effect two days previously, use of the property as a fast-food restaurant with drive-through window had become prohibited. 17.On October 28, 2014, Ms. Dodds wrote a letter to counsel for McDonald’s, stating that, “[a]fter our initial review, it was clear [that] the original site plan application ... filed in December, 2012, lacked the required materials to be considered valid. The application was submitted without site and architectural elevation plans; as a result, the application is void. A new site plan application with the required materials must be submitted. Please note [that] several changes to the [City’s] Zoning Regulations have occurred since your last submittal. Please review these changes to ensure [that] all required materials are submitted with your new application.” 18.On October 28, 2014, the commission readopted the change rezoning the plaintiff's property from the B-3 to the B-4 district. 19. The plaintiff filed separate appeals from the commission's adoption of both the September 23, 2014 text amendments and the October 28, 2014 zone change. The appeals were designated, respectively, Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-15-6057526-S, and The Pamela Corporation et al. v. Planning 6and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-14-6055443-S. 20. Thereafter, on December 9, 2014, the commission readopted the change rezoning the plaintiff's property from the B-3 to the B-4 district. 21. Thereafter, on April 14, 2015, the commission readopted the September 23, 2014 text amendments to the Hartford Zoning Regulations which would have prohibited establishments with drive-through windows adjacent to residential zones and within 300 feet of other establishments with drive-through windows. 22. The plaintiff filed separate appeals from the commission’s readoption of the zone change and the commission's readoption of the text anendments. The appeals were designated, respectively, The Pamela Corporation et al. v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-15-6056247-S, and Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-15-6059162-S. 23. The four administrative appeals brought by the plaintiff were consolidated for trial. 24.On January 12, 2016, the commission adopted “form based” zoning regulations that superseded all prior amendments. As a result, the plaintiff's property was placed in the MS-1 zone, in which restaurants with drive-through windows are prohibited. 25. The trial court ultimately concluded that the text amendments and zone changes that were the subject of the plaintiff's consolidated appeals were void as the result of 7defective notices. However, the court also concluded that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies when it failed to appeal Ms. Dodds’ decision voiding its application for a special permit to the Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to § 8-6, and dismissed the consolidated appeals. 26. The plaintiff filed a petition for certification to appeal the dismissal of the consolidated appeals to the Appellate Court, the petition was granted, and the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal. Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 190 Conn. App. 743 (2019). 27. The plaintiff filed a petition for certification to appeal the Appellate Court's affirmance of the dismissal of the consolidated appeals to the Supreme Court, the petition was granted, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the trial court with direction to render judgments sustaining the plaintiff's consolidated appeals. Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 339 Conn. 268 (2021). The Supreme Court further ruled that there had not yet been a legal decision on the plaintiff's special permit application. 28.On September 7, 2021, the plaintiff's counsel wrote the City of Hartford Planning Director and requested that the commission hold a public hearing on its special permit application and decide the special permit application pursuant to the Hartford Zoning Regulations amended to November 12, 2013, which were the regulations in effect when the special permit application was submitted. 29. The commission opened the public hearing on the special permit application on 8November 9, 2021 and immediately continued the public hearing to January 11, 2022. 30. The commission considered the special permit application at the continuation of the public hearing on January 11, 2022. 31. Immediately prior to the continuation of the public hearing on January 11, 2022, the City of Hartford Department of Development Services — Planning Division submitted a “Staff Report” to the commission purporting to analyze the special permit application, making negative recommendations to the commission concerning the application, and incorporating a draft resolution to deny the application. 32. The Staff Report concluded that the site plans submitted with the application satisfied all requirements of the Hartford Zoning Regulations amended to November 12, 2013 except that seven parking spaces were shown without bumper guards and a small portion of two parking spaces crossed the building line. 33. The Staff Report further concluded that the proposed fast-food restaurant with drive- through window was not compatible with the “adjacent residential areas” and its location adjacent to another fast-food restaurant with drive-through window violated the special permit provisions of the Hartford Zoning Regulations amended to November 12, 2013, which were, according to the Staff Report, “specifically intended to avoid this type of drive through use co-location.” 34. The Staff Report concluded also that approval of the special permit application would be contrary to the Plan of Conservation and Development (“POCD’) due to its of its 9“auto-centric nature” because “the location of a restaurant with a drive through directly abutting another restaurant with a drive through use places a significant burden on the residents nearby that use this area as a pedestrian corridor,” while ignoring statements in the POCD that “service sector jobs have always played an important role in Hartford's economy [and] they have never been as critical to the economic functioning of the City as they are at the present time,” that the City should attempt to “Build the City’s Grand List by continuing to aggressively promote and encourage commercial infill development in the following corridors: (the list includes Farmington Avenue)” and “Pursue policies and planning strategies that will create critical densities of economic development in established corridors.” 35.In response to the Staff Report, and prior to the continuation of the public hearing, the plaintiff submitted a revised site plan adding bumper guards and eliminating the two parking spaces crossing the building line, a supplemental traffic report demonstrating that the special permit application is compatible with pedestrian and bicycle use in the area, photographs showing three locations in the City of Hartford where fast-food restaurants with drive-through windows directly abut one another, and photographs showing the commercial nature of the neighborhood in which the property is located. 36.At the continuation of the public hearing on January 11, 2022, the Staff Report was read into the record verbatim, the plaintiff's representatives made a brief presentation, and dozens of area residents spoke or submitted letters in opposition to 10the special permit application. The majority of the opponents to the special permit application were members of the West End Civic Association, which is the “Neighborhood Revitalization Zone” committee for the area in which the property is located. 37. The commission closed the public hearing on January 11, 2022, and unanimously voted to deny the special permit application by adopting the resolution incorporated into the Staff Report. 38. Subsequent to the close of the public hearing, the plaintiff learned that Commissioner Guy Neumann, who participated in the public hearing, asked questions of the plaintiff's representatives, made the motion to deny the special permit application, and voted to deny the special permit application, lives in close proximity to the property, and is the vice president of the West End Civic Association, which submitted a letter in opposition to the special permit application and urged the commission to deny the application. 39. Notice of the commission’s decision was published in then Hartford Courant newspaper on January 27, 2022. 40. In denying the special permit application, the commission acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion vested in it in that: a. The plaintiff presented substantial evidence that the special permit application conformed to the requirements of the Hartford Zoning Regulations amended to November 12, 2013, governing special permits for restaurants with drive- 11through windows. . The plaintiff presented substantial evidence that the site plans accompanying the special permit application conformed to the requirements of the Hartford Zoning Regulations amended to November 13, 2013, governing site plan review. .. In rendering its decision, the commission ignored expert testimony and written evidence that the special permit application would present no traffic safety hazards and would have a negligible effect on traffic conditions in the area. . In evaluating the special permit application, the commission applied provisions of the Hartford Zoning Regulations adopted on September 23, 2014 and April 14, 2015, which were subsequently invalidated by the Court in Farmington- Girard, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-15-6059162-S and Farmington-Girard, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HHD-CV-15- 6057526-S (August 19, 2014). . Commissioner Neumann’s role in participating in the public hearing and deliberations on the special permit application was illegal due to bias and predetermination, and rendered the conduct of the public hearing fundamentally unfair. The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the commission’s 12decision. g. The commission's decision cannot be sustained in light of the reliable, probative evidence before the commission. h. The commission's decision is based on such errors of law and fact as the record may reveal. 41,The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the commission on the special permit application pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8 (a) because it is the owner of property at 510 Farmington Avenue which is the subject of the commission’s decision. 42.The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the commission on the special permit application pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8 (a) because it is the applicant for the requested relief. 43. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the commission on the special permit application because it has a specific, personal and legal interest in the decision of the commission on its application which is specifically and adversely affected by the decision. 44.The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the commission on the special permit application because it has a specific, personal and legal interest in the application as the owner of the property at 510 Farmington Avenue, the value of which is specifically and negatively affected by the commission's decision. 45. This appeal is brought pursuant to General Statutes § 8-8. 13WHEREFORE, the plaintiff appeals the decision of the defendant, Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hartford, on special permit application # 2012-6263 and prays that the Court sustain this appeal and that the decision of the commission be declared null and void and that the commission be directed to approve the application and for such other relief as the court deems appropriate. Dated at Glastonbury, Connecticut this 31st day of January, 2022. PLAINTIFF FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC By. -—Z- oo _ David F. Sherwood Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood 2230 Main Street, P.O. Box 1420 Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033-6620 Tel. (860) 657-1010 Fax (860) 657-1011 Juris No. 412152 Its Attorneys 14RETURN DAY: MARCH 1, 2022 : SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC VS. : AT HARTFORD PLANNING AND ZONING : JANUARY 31, 2022 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND The plaintiff is claiming other relief in addition to or in lieu of money or damages. PLAINTIFF FARMINGTON-GIRARD, LLC 2 By. David F. Sherwood Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood 2230 Main Street, P.O. Box 1420 Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033-6620 Tel. (860) 657-1010 Fax (860) 657-1011 Juris No. 412152 Its Attorneys 15