auto show accident lawsuit
DESCRIPTION
1. YOU ARE BEING SUED. 6. The "Appearance" form may be obtained at the above Court address. 2. This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit TO: Any proper officer; BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. you are hereby or damages. ("X" if applicable) 5. The party recognized to pay costs must appear personally before the authority taking the recognizance. Claiming other relief in , Town Attorney, 45 South Main Street, Wallingford, CT 06492 (203) 294-2140 66020TRANSCRIPT
(
STATE OF CONNECTICUT X ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (Except Family Actions) SUPERIOR COURT
JD-CV-1 Rev 1-2000 Amount legal interest or property in CGs sect 51-34651-34751-34951middot350 52-45a wwwjudctgov demand exclusive of interest and 52-4652-259 PB Sees 3-1 thru 3-218-1
INSTRUCTIONS costs is
1 Type or print legibly sign original summons and conform all copies of the summons 0 less than $2500 2 Prepare or photocopy conformed summons for each defendant 0 $2500 through $1499999 3 Attach the onginal summons to the original complaint and attach a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint Also if 0 $15000 or morethere are more than 2 plaintiffs or 4 defendants prepare form JD-CV-2 and attach it to the onginal and all copies of the complaint 4 Mer service has been made by a proper officer file original papers and officers return with the clerk of court (X if applicable)5 The party recognized to pay costs must appear personally before the authority taking the recognizance
Claiming other relief in6 Do not use this form for actions in which an attachment garnishment or replevy is being sought See Practice Book Section 8-1 ~ for other exceptions addition to or in lieu ofmoney
TO Any proper officer BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT you are hereby or damages
RETURN DATE (Mo day yr)commanded to make due and legal service of this Summons and attached Complaint (Must be a Tuesday) 10212008BJUDICIAL DISTRICT I AT (Town in which writ is returnable) (CGS 51-346 51-349) CASE TYPE (See JD-CV1c)
SUMMONS -CIVIL
HOUSING SESSION o GANO New Haven I Maor A Minor 00
ADDRESS OF COURT CLERK WHERE WRIT AND OTHER PAPERS SHALL BE FILED (No street town and zip code) (CGS 51-346 51-350) TELEPHONE NO (with area code)
235 Church Street New Haven CT 06510 (203) 503-6800
PARTIES NAME AND ADDRESS OF EACH PARTY NOTE Individuals Names 10 PTY (No street town and zip code) Last First Middle Initial Form JD-CV-2 attached NO
FIRST NAMED TOWN OF WALLINGFORD 45 South Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 PLAINTIFF
Additional Plaintiff
FIRST NAMED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CITY OF MERIDEN By Service Upon Irene G Masse City Clerk City Hall 142 DEFENDANT East Main Street Meriden CT 06450
Additional MARK DEVELOPMENT LLC 1180 North Colony Road Wallingford CT 06492 By Service Upon Its Agent for Defendant Service MARK C ALrERI 850 Murdock Avenue Meriden CT 06450 Additional Defendant
Additional Defendant
NOTICE TO EACH DEFENDANT
1 YOU ARE BEING SUED 6 The Appearance form may be obtained at the above Court address 2 This paper is a Summons in a lawsuit
01
02
50
51
52
53
DATE
9-25-2008
E ENTER THE APPEARANCE OF
~ Comm of Superior Court
o Assistant Clerk
TYPE IN NAME OF PERSON SIGNING AT LEFT
Janis M Small Town Attorney
NAME AND AD
Janis MS E OF ATTORNEY LAW FIRM OR PLAINTIFF IF PRO SE (No street town and zip code) TELEPHONE NUMBER JURIS NO (If aay or law nrm)
Town Attorney 45 South Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 (203) 294-2140 66020 SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF IF PRO SE NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON RECOGNIZED TO PROSECUTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $250 (No s1Teet town and zjp code)
Barbara Jo Crowther 45 South in Street Wallingford CT 06492 PLFS rRI Comm of Superior Court For Court Use Only
o Assistant Clerk FILE DATE
a The signing has been 0 so that the Plalntiff(s) will not be denied acoess to the courts b It Is the responsibility he Plaintiff(s) to see that service is made in the manner provided by law c The Clerk is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit d The Clerk signing this Summons at the request of the Plaintiff(s) is not respons ble in anyway for any
errors or omissions in the Summons any allegations contained in the Complaint or the service thereof
3 The Complaint attached to these papers states the daims that each Plaintiff is making against you in this lawsuit
4 To respond to this Summons or to be informed of further proceedings you or your attorney must file a form called an Appearance with the Clerk of the above-named Court at the above Court address on or before the second day after the above Return Date
5 If you or your attorney do not file a written Appearance form on time a judgment may be entered inst you by default
7 If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim that is being made against you in this lawsuit you should immediately take the Summons and Complaint to your insurance representative
8 If you have questions about the Summons and Complaint you should consult an attorney promptly The Clerk of Court is not permitted to give advice on legal questions
SIGNED (Pro Se Plaintiff) DATE SIGNED I hereby certify I have read and understand the above
ORIGINAL
1
RETURN DATE OCTOBER 212008 SUPERIOR COURT
TOWN OF WALLINGFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
V AT NEW HAVEN
CITY OF MERIDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ET AL SEPTEMBER 25 2008
TO ANY STATE MARSHAL OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HAVEN OR HIS DEPUTY WITHIN SAID COUNTY GREETING
BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT you are hereby
commanded to summon the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS of the City of Meriden in
the County of New Haven and State of Connecticut and MARK DEVELOPMENT LLC
of the Town of Wallingford County of New Haven and State of Connecticut to appear
before the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven to be held at 235
Church Street New Haven Connecticut on October 21 2008 said appearance to be
made by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden or its attorney by entering
a written statement of appearance with the Clerk of said Court on or before the second
day following complaint and appeal of the Town of Waliingford a Connecticut municipal
corporation with an office at 45 South Main Street Wallingford Connecticut by leaving
with Irene G Masse City Clerk of the City of Meriden at City Hall 142 East Main
Street Meriden Connecticut two true and attested copies of the complaint and appeal
and of this summons and by serving upon Mark Development LLC by service upon its
Agent for Service Mark C Alteri at a business address of 850 Murdock Avenue
Meriden Connecticut a true and attested copy of the complaint and appeal and of this
summons at least twelve days before the return day in the manner provided by law for
the service of civil process
I hereby certify that I have personal knowledge of the financial responsibirity 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 Wallingford Connecticut this 25th day of September 2008
TOWN OF WAWNGFORD bull DEPARTMENT OF LAW
RETURN DATE OCTOBER 21 2008 SUPERIOR COURT
TOWN OF WALLINGFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
V AT NEW HAVEN
CITY OF MERIDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ET AL SEPTEMBER 25 2008
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF MERIDEN
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
AT NEW HAVEN comes the TOWN OF WALLINGFORD appealing a decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and complains and says
1 The Plaintiff the Town of Wallingford is a municipal corporation located in the
County of New Haven and State of Connecticut
2 The Defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden is the
authority designated to hear applications for variances in the City of Meriden
3 On September 2 2008 the Meriden Zoning Board of Appeals heard an
application for a variance filed by Mark Development LLC for its property located at 850
Murdock Avenue Meriden Connecticut
4 850 Murdock Avenue Meriden is in the Regional Development District (ROD)
as set forth in the Zoning Regulations of the City of Meriden
5 The ROD permits hotels executive offices research and development
medical centers colleges and distribution facilities associated with the offices or
research and development
6 Automotive sales and services are not listed as a permitted use in an ROD
zone
7 Mark Development sought a variance of sect213-262C Uses in order to permit
automotive sales and services on its property
8 850 Murdock Avenue is within 500 feet of the town line between the City of
Meriden and the Town of Wallingford
9 The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance on September 2 2008
10 The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to provide any reason for its approval of
the variance
11 Notice of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was published on
September 17 2008 in the ioeal newspaper
12 The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was illegal arbitrary and
capricious and in an abuse of its discretion in one or more of the following ways
( (
(a) The applicant failed to establish a hardship and other legal requirements for
the variance
(b) The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to find and the record did not support a
finding that the variance would not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan
(c) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly considered the financial aspects of
the Applicants request
(d) The decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the Board
considered improperinvalid evidence
(e) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly relied upon the testimony of the
Applicants attorney
(f) The variance was improperly granted for a use which is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the ROD and other uses in the District
(g) The Board improperly considered increased tax revenue in making its
decision
(h) There was insufficient evidence that the failure to grant the variance would
result in confiscation of the Applicants property
(i) The Applicant was not entitled to a variance in that it bought the property with
the knowledge that it could not be used for auto sales and service
0) The variance was improper in that it violated Section 213-11 of the Zoning
Regulations which prohibits any use not specifically permitted and
(k) The Board did not properly apply andor satisfy Sections 213-57C and 213shy
59C of the Zoning Regulations
13 The Town of Wallingford is aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals
decision in that the property of the applicant borders the Town of Wallingford the
applicant submitted a plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals which proposed that most of
the projects traffic would be specifically routed on to Wallingford streets the Applicants
property abuts Town of Wallingford property Northrop Road the Applicant proposes to
design its entrance to its property in such a way as to require large trucks to only use
Wallingford roads
14 The Town of Wallingford in addition to being an abutter has an interest in
the proper use of its roads and the public safety of persons using the roads and living
adjacent to said roads Further the Town has an interest in the Applicants plan which
includes a portion of its property in the Town of Wallingford Further Connecticut
General Statutes sect8-7d(f) provides that a town within 500 feet of the property may
participate in the proceeding
WHEREFORE the Town of Wallingford appeals the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and prays for a judgment of the Court
1 Sustaining the appeal and vacating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
granting the variance and
2 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may find just and proper
THE PLAINTIFF
ALL 1 w Attorney
outh Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 Juris No 66020 Telephone No (203) 294-2140
RETURN DATE OCTOBER 212008 SUPERIOR COURT
TOWN OF WALLINGFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
V AT NEW HAVEN
CITY OF MERIDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ET AL SEPTEMBER 25 2008
TO ANY STATE MARSHAL OF THE COUNTY OF NEW HAVEN OR HIS DEPUTY WITHIN SAID COUNTY GREETING
BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT you are hereby
commanded to summon the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS of the City of Meriden in
the County of New Haven and State of Connecticut and MARK DEVELOPMENT LLC
of the Town of Wallingford County of New Haven and State of Connecticut to appear
before the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven to be held at 235
Church Street New Haven Connecticut on October 21 2008 said appearance to be
made by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden or its attorney by entering
a written statement of appearance with the Clerk of said Court on or before the second
day following complaint and appeal of the Town of Waliingford a Connecticut municipal
corporation with an office at 45 South Main Street Wallingford Connecticut by leaving
with Irene G Masse City Clerk of the City of Meriden at City Hall 142 East Main
Street Meriden Connecticut two true and attested copies of the complaint and appeal
and of this summons and by serving upon Mark Development LLC by service upon its
Agent for Service Mark C Alteri at a business address of 850 Murdock Avenue
Meriden Connecticut a true and attested copy of the complaint and appeal and of this
summons at least twelve days before the return day in the manner provided by law for
the service of civil process
I hereby certify that I have personal knowledge of the financial responsibirity 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 Wallingford Connecticut this 25th day of September 2008
TOWN OF WAWNGFORD bull DEPARTMENT OF LAW
RETURN DATE OCTOBER 21 2008 SUPERIOR COURT
TOWN OF WALLINGFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
V AT NEW HAVEN
CITY OF MERIDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ET AL SEPTEMBER 25 2008
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF MERIDEN
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
AT NEW HAVEN comes the TOWN OF WALLINGFORD appealing a decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and complains and says
1 The Plaintiff the Town of Wallingford is a municipal corporation located in the
County of New Haven and State of Connecticut
2 The Defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden is the
authority designated to hear applications for variances in the City of Meriden
3 On September 2 2008 the Meriden Zoning Board of Appeals heard an
application for a variance filed by Mark Development LLC for its property located at 850
Murdock Avenue Meriden Connecticut
4 850 Murdock Avenue Meriden is in the Regional Development District (ROD)
as set forth in the Zoning Regulations of the City of Meriden
5 The ROD permits hotels executive offices research and development
medical centers colleges and distribution facilities associated with the offices or
research and development
6 Automotive sales and services are not listed as a permitted use in an ROD
zone
7 Mark Development sought a variance of sect213-262C Uses in order to permit
automotive sales and services on its property
8 850 Murdock Avenue is within 500 feet of the town line between the City of
Meriden and the Town of Wallingford
9 The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance on September 2 2008
10 The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to provide any reason for its approval of
the variance
11 Notice of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was published on
September 17 2008 in the ioeal newspaper
12 The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was illegal arbitrary and
capricious and in an abuse of its discretion in one or more of the following ways
( (
(a) The applicant failed to establish a hardship and other legal requirements for
the variance
(b) The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to find and the record did not support a
finding that the variance would not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan
(c) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly considered the financial aspects of
the Applicants request
(d) The decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the Board
considered improperinvalid evidence
(e) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly relied upon the testimony of the
Applicants attorney
(f) The variance was improperly granted for a use which is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the ROD and other uses in the District
(g) The Board improperly considered increased tax revenue in making its
decision
(h) There was insufficient evidence that the failure to grant the variance would
result in confiscation of the Applicants property
(i) The Applicant was not entitled to a variance in that it bought the property with
the knowledge that it could not be used for auto sales and service
0) The variance was improper in that it violated Section 213-11 of the Zoning
Regulations which prohibits any use not specifically permitted and
(k) The Board did not properly apply andor satisfy Sections 213-57C and 213shy
59C of the Zoning Regulations
13 The Town of Wallingford is aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals
decision in that the property of the applicant borders the Town of Wallingford the
applicant submitted a plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals which proposed that most of
the projects traffic would be specifically routed on to Wallingford streets the Applicants
property abuts Town of Wallingford property Northrop Road the Applicant proposes to
design its entrance to its property in such a way as to require large trucks to only use
Wallingford roads
14 The Town of Wallingford in addition to being an abutter has an interest in
the proper use of its roads and the public safety of persons using the roads and living
adjacent to said roads Further the Town has an interest in the Applicants plan which
includes a portion of its property in the Town of Wallingford Further Connecticut
General Statutes sect8-7d(f) provides that a town within 500 feet of the property may
participate in the proceeding
WHEREFORE the Town of Wallingford appeals the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and prays for a judgment of the Court
1 Sustaining the appeal and vacating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
granting the variance and
2 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may find just and proper
THE PLAINTIFF
ALL 1 w Attorney
outh Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 Juris No 66020 Telephone No (203) 294-2140
Street Meriden Connecticut two true and attested copies of the complaint and appeal
and of this summons and by serving upon Mark Development LLC by service upon its
Agent for Service Mark C Alteri at a business address of 850 Murdock Avenue
Meriden Connecticut a true and attested copy of the complaint and appeal and of this
summons at least twelve days before the return day in the manner provided by law for
the service of civil process
I hereby certify that I have personal knowledge of the financial responsibirity 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 Wallingford Connecticut this 25th day of September 2008
TOWN OF WAWNGFORD bull DEPARTMENT OF LAW
RETURN DATE OCTOBER 21 2008 SUPERIOR COURT
TOWN OF WALLINGFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
V AT NEW HAVEN
CITY OF MERIDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ET AL SEPTEMBER 25 2008
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF MERIDEN
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
AT NEW HAVEN comes the TOWN OF WALLINGFORD appealing a decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and complains and says
1 The Plaintiff the Town of Wallingford is a municipal corporation located in the
County of New Haven and State of Connecticut
2 The Defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden is the
authority designated to hear applications for variances in the City of Meriden
3 On September 2 2008 the Meriden Zoning Board of Appeals heard an
application for a variance filed by Mark Development LLC for its property located at 850
Murdock Avenue Meriden Connecticut
4 850 Murdock Avenue Meriden is in the Regional Development District (ROD)
as set forth in the Zoning Regulations of the City of Meriden
5 The ROD permits hotels executive offices research and development
medical centers colleges and distribution facilities associated with the offices or
research and development
6 Automotive sales and services are not listed as a permitted use in an ROD
zone
7 Mark Development sought a variance of sect213-262C Uses in order to permit
automotive sales and services on its property
8 850 Murdock Avenue is within 500 feet of the town line between the City of
Meriden and the Town of Wallingford
9 The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance on September 2 2008
10 The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to provide any reason for its approval of
the variance
11 Notice of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was published on
September 17 2008 in the ioeal newspaper
12 The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was illegal arbitrary and
capricious and in an abuse of its discretion in one or more of the following ways
( (
(a) The applicant failed to establish a hardship and other legal requirements for
the variance
(b) The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to find and the record did not support a
finding that the variance would not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan
(c) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly considered the financial aspects of
the Applicants request
(d) The decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the Board
considered improperinvalid evidence
(e) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly relied upon the testimony of the
Applicants attorney
(f) The variance was improperly granted for a use which is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the ROD and other uses in the District
(g) The Board improperly considered increased tax revenue in making its
decision
(h) There was insufficient evidence that the failure to grant the variance would
result in confiscation of the Applicants property
(i) The Applicant was not entitled to a variance in that it bought the property with
the knowledge that it could not be used for auto sales and service
0) The variance was improper in that it violated Section 213-11 of the Zoning
Regulations which prohibits any use not specifically permitted and
(k) The Board did not properly apply andor satisfy Sections 213-57C and 213shy
59C of the Zoning Regulations
13 The Town of Wallingford is aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals
decision in that the property of the applicant borders the Town of Wallingford the
applicant submitted a plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals which proposed that most of
the projects traffic would be specifically routed on to Wallingford streets the Applicants
property abuts Town of Wallingford property Northrop Road the Applicant proposes to
design its entrance to its property in such a way as to require large trucks to only use
Wallingford roads
14 The Town of Wallingford in addition to being an abutter has an interest in
the proper use of its roads and the public safety of persons using the roads and living
adjacent to said roads Further the Town has an interest in the Applicants plan which
includes a portion of its property in the Town of Wallingford Further Connecticut
General Statutes sect8-7d(f) provides that a town within 500 feet of the property may
participate in the proceeding
WHEREFORE the Town of Wallingford appeals the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and prays for a judgment of the Court
1 Sustaining the appeal and vacating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
granting the variance and
2 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may find just and proper
THE PLAINTIFF
ALL 1 w Attorney
outh Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 Juris No 66020 Telephone No (203) 294-2140
RETURN DATE OCTOBER 21 2008 SUPERIOR COURT
TOWN OF WALLINGFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
V AT NEW HAVEN
CITY OF MERIDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ET AL SEPTEMBER 25 2008
APPEAL FROM DECISION OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF MERIDEN
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
AT NEW HAVEN comes the TOWN OF WALLINGFORD appealing a decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and complains and says
1 The Plaintiff the Town of Wallingford is a municipal corporation located in the
County of New Haven and State of Connecticut
2 The Defendant Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden is the
authority designated to hear applications for variances in the City of Meriden
3 On September 2 2008 the Meriden Zoning Board of Appeals heard an
application for a variance filed by Mark Development LLC for its property located at 850
Murdock Avenue Meriden Connecticut
4 850 Murdock Avenue Meriden is in the Regional Development District (ROD)
as set forth in the Zoning Regulations of the City of Meriden
5 The ROD permits hotels executive offices research and development
medical centers colleges and distribution facilities associated with the offices or
research and development
6 Automotive sales and services are not listed as a permitted use in an ROD
zone
7 Mark Development sought a variance of sect213-262C Uses in order to permit
automotive sales and services on its property
8 850 Murdock Avenue is within 500 feet of the town line between the City of
Meriden and the Town of Wallingford
9 The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance on September 2 2008
10 The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to provide any reason for its approval of
the variance
11 Notice of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was published on
September 17 2008 in the ioeal newspaper
12 The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was illegal arbitrary and
capricious and in an abuse of its discretion in one or more of the following ways
( (
(a) The applicant failed to establish a hardship and other legal requirements for
the variance
(b) The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to find and the record did not support a
finding that the variance would not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan
(c) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly considered the financial aspects of
the Applicants request
(d) The decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the Board
considered improperinvalid evidence
(e) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly relied upon the testimony of the
Applicants attorney
(f) The variance was improperly granted for a use which is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the ROD and other uses in the District
(g) The Board improperly considered increased tax revenue in making its
decision
(h) There was insufficient evidence that the failure to grant the variance would
result in confiscation of the Applicants property
(i) The Applicant was not entitled to a variance in that it bought the property with
the knowledge that it could not be used for auto sales and service
0) The variance was improper in that it violated Section 213-11 of the Zoning
Regulations which prohibits any use not specifically permitted and
(k) The Board did not properly apply andor satisfy Sections 213-57C and 213shy
59C of the Zoning Regulations
13 The Town of Wallingford is aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals
decision in that the property of the applicant borders the Town of Wallingford the
applicant submitted a plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals which proposed that most of
the projects traffic would be specifically routed on to Wallingford streets the Applicants
property abuts Town of Wallingford property Northrop Road the Applicant proposes to
design its entrance to its property in such a way as to require large trucks to only use
Wallingford roads
14 The Town of Wallingford in addition to being an abutter has an interest in
the proper use of its roads and the public safety of persons using the roads and living
adjacent to said roads Further the Town has an interest in the Applicants plan which
includes a portion of its property in the Town of Wallingford Further Connecticut
General Statutes sect8-7d(f) provides that a town within 500 feet of the property may
participate in the proceeding
WHEREFORE the Town of Wallingford appeals the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and prays for a judgment of the Court
1 Sustaining the appeal and vacating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
granting the variance and
2 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may find just and proper
THE PLAINTIFF
ALL 1 w Attorney
outh Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 Juris No 66020 Telephone No (203) 294-2140
4 850 Murdock Avenue Meriden is in the Regional Development District (ROD)
as set forth in the Zoning Regulations of the City of Meriden
5 The ROD permits hotels executive offices research and development
medical centers colleges and distribution facilities associated with the offices or
research and development
6 Automotive sales and services are not listed as a permitted use in an ROD
zone
7 Mark Development sought a variance of sect213-262C Uses in order to permit
automotive sales and services on its property
8 850 Murdock Avenue is within 500 feet of the town line between the City of
Meriden and the Town of Wallingford
9 The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance on September 2 2008
10 The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to provide any reason for its approval of
the variance
11 Notice of the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was published on
September 17 2008 in the ioeal newspaper
12 The decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals was illegal arbitrary and
capricious and in an abuse of its discretion in one or more of the following ways
( (
(a) The applicant failed to establish a hardship and other legal requirements for
the variance
(b) The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to find and the record did not support a
finding that the variance would not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan
(c) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly considered the financial aspects of
the Applicants request
(d) The decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the Board
considered improperinvalid evidence
(e) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly relied upon the testimony of the
Applicants attorney
(f) The variance was improperly granted for a use which is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the ROD and other uses in the District
(g) The Board improperly considered increased tax revenue in making its
decision
(h) There was insufficient evidence that the failure to grant the variance would
result in confiscation of the Applicants property
(i) The Applicant was not entitled to a variance in that it bought the property with
the knowledge that it could not be used for auto sales and service
0) The variance was improper in that it violated Section 213-11 of the Zoning
Regulations which prohibits any use not specifically permitted and
(k) The Board did not properly apply andor satisfy Sections 213-57C and 213shy
59C of the Zoning Regulations
13 The Town of Wallingford is aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals
decision in that the property of the applicant borders the Town of Wallingford the
applicant submitted a plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals which proposed that most of
the projects traffic would be specifically routed on to Wallingford streets the Applicants
property abuts Town of Wallingford property Northrop Road the Applicant proposes to
design its entrance to its property in such a way as to require large trucks to only use
Wallingford roads
14 The Town of Wallingford in addition to being an abutter has an interest in
the proper use of its roads and the public safety of persons using the roads and living
adjacent to said roads Further the Town has an interest in the Applicants plan which
includes a portion of its property in the Town of Wallingford Further Connecticut
General Statutes sect8-7d(f) provides that a town within 500 feet of the property may
participate in the proceeding
WHEREFORE the Town of Wallingford appeals the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and prays for a judgment of the Court
1 Sustaining the appeal and vacating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
granting the variance and
2 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may find just and proper
THE PLAINTIFF
ALL 1 w Attorney
outh Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 Juris No 66020 Telephone No (203) 294-2140
( (
(a) The applicant failed to establish a hardship and other legal requirements for
the variance
(b) The Zoning Board of Appeals failed to find and the record did not support a
finding that the variance would not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan
(c) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly considered the financial aspects of
the Applicants request
(d) The decision was not supported by substantial evidence and the Board
considered improperinvalid evidence
(e) The Zoning Board of Appeals improperly relied upon the testimony of the
Applicants attorney
(f) The variance was improperly granted for a use which is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the ROD and other uses in the District
(g) The Board improperly considered increased tax revenue in making its
decision
(h) There was insufficient evidence that the failure to grant the variance would
result in confiscation of the Applicants property
(i) The Applicant was not entitled to a variance in that it bought the property with
the knowledge that it could not be used for auto sales and service
0) The variance was improper in that it violated Section 213-11 of the Zoning
Regulations which prohibits any use not specifically permitted and
(k) The Board did not properly apply andor satisfy Sections 213-57C and 213shy
59C of the Zoning Regulations
13 The Town of Wallingford is aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals
decision in that the property of the applicant borders the Town of Wallingford the
applicant submitted a plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals which proposed that most of
the projects traffic would be specifically routed on to Wallingford streets the Applicants
property abuts Town of Wallingford property Northrop Road the Applicant proposes to
design its entrance to its property in such a way as to require large trucks to only use
Wallingford roads
14 The Town of Wallingford in addition to being an abutter has an interest in
the proper use of its roads and the public safety of persons using the roads and living
adjacent to said roads Further the Town has an interest in the Applicants plan which
includes a portion of its property in the Town of Wallingford Further Connecticut
General Statutes sect8-7d(f) provides that a town within 500 feet of the property may
participate in the proceeding
WHEREFORE the Town of Wallingford appeals the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and prays for a judgment of the Court
1 Sustaining the appeal and vacating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
granting the variance and
2 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may find just and proper
THE PLAINTIFF
ALL 1 w Attorney
outh Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 Juris No 66020 Telephone No (203) 294-2140
0) The variance was improper in that it violated Section 213-11 of the Zoning
Regulations which prohibits any use not specifically permitted and
(k) The Board did not properly apply andor satisfy Sections 213-57C and 213shy
59C of the Zoning Regulations
13 The Town of Wallingford is aggrieved by the Zoning Board of Appeals
decision in that the property of the applicant borders the Town of Wallingford the
applicant submitted a plan to the Zoning Board of Appeals which proposed that most of
the projects traffic would be specifically routed on to Wallingford streets the Applicants
property abuts Town of Wallingford property Northrop Road the Applicant proposes to
design its entrance to its property in such a way as to require large trucks to only use
Wallingford roads
14 The Town of Wallingford in addition to being an abutter has an interest in
the proper use of its roads and the public safety of persons using the roads and living
adjacent to said roads Further the Town has an interest in the Applicants plan which
includes a portion of its property in the Town of Wallingford Further Connecticut
General Statutes sect8-7d(f) provides that a town within 500 feet of the property may
participate in the proceeding
WHEREFORE the Town of Wallingford appeals the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and prays for a judgment of the Court
1 Sustaining the appeal and vacating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
granting the variance and
2 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may find just and proper
THE PLAINTIFF
ALL 1 w Attorney
outh Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 Juris No 66020 Telephone No (203) 294-2140
WHEREFORE the Town of Wallingford appeals the decision of the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the City of Meriden and prays for a judgment of the Court
1 Sustaining the appeal and vacating the Zoning Board of Appeals decision
granting the variance and
2 Granting such other and further relief as this Court may find just and proper
THE PLAINTIFF
ALL 1 w Attorney
outh Main Street Wallingford CT 06492 Juris No 66020 Telephone No (203) 294-2140