A judge ruled last week that Shelton’s Planning and Zoning Commission was within its rights to deny a contentious application for a daycare center in a Platt Road home.
In a 26-page decision Judge Paul Matasavage denied an appeal from the daycare facility’s owner, who had argued the PZC violated its own rules in handling the application and lacked sufficient evidence to deny it.
A lawyer representing the applicant said Wednesday that his client is weighing her options on whether to appeal the ruling.
Background
Deborah Ullrich, the owner of Kids Zone Realty, runs a daycare on Long Hill Cross Road. In January, she applied to the PZC for a “special exception” to put a daycare in a home at 7 Platt Road.
The property is zoned as residential, but Shelton’s zoning regulations allow exceptions like the one Ullrich sought if applicants conform to a list of requirements.
The 0.62-acre parcel, bought by Ullrich’s company for $248,000 in September 2012, according to city land records, borders a light industrial park zone to the west (see map below).
At a public hearing on the proposal last February several area residents opposed the application, saying a daycare would increase traffic and change the residential character of the area.
The opposition included Board of Aldermen President and Long Hill Avenue resident John Anglace, who said a business does not belong in a residential zone.
Two months later, the PZC denied Ullrich’s application, saying that:
- It violated a regulation that called for those running the daycare to live at the residence;
- If granted, the daycare would “impair the residential character” of the area;
- The lot on which the daycare would be sited is too small;
- A play area for the daycare would impact the privacy of an adjoining property owner;
- Too much traffic would be generated if the daycare is approved.
Ullrich appealed that decision to the city’s Zoning Board of Appeals, as well as in Superior Court.
But while the court appeal was pending, the ZBA overturned the PZC’s decision, agreeing with Ullrich’s lawyer that the PZC missed its deadline for ruling on the application by five days.
The proposal had been given to Richard Schultz, the city’s zoning administrator, in City Hall Jan. 4, and the PZC made its decision April 10. The PZC’s own regulations mandate a decision within 90 days, Thomas argued, and they had missed the deadline.
The PZC then filed its own appeal to Superior Court, disputing the ZBA’s decision.
The cases were consolidated and Judge Matasavage heard arguments in the case Feb. 28 and March 31 at Superior Court in Milford.
Decision
In a decision released April 17, the judge sided with the PZC.
The judge ruled that the 90-day clock didn’t start ticking on Ullrich’s application until Jan. 10, when the PZC formally voted to accept it and schedule a public hearing.
He said in the decision that adopting Kids Zone’s argument could “potentially lead to bizarre results.”
The commission doesn’t meet weekly, the judge pointed out, noting that “an application could sit for several weeks” before the PZC knows about it.
“Under Kids Zone’s interpretation, the 90 day time limitation may become unworkable and unreasonable, as the commission would be left with far fewer than 90 days to complete its regulatory obligations,” Judge Matasavage wrote.
He also ruled that the there was ample evidence brought up during the public hearing for the PZC to reject the application.
The judge said there was enough evidence to sustain each of the reasons cited by the PZC except the neighboring property owner’s concern over privacy.
Ullrich’s application did not contain any plans to install any play apparatus on the property, the judge pointed out, so the neighbor’s concerns were “of no consequence.”
But since “there was substantial evidence before the commission to support at least one reason” for the denial, Judge Matasavage dismissed Ullrich’s appeal.
Dominick Thomas, Ullrich’s lawyer, said Wednesday that his client hasn’t reached a decision on whether to appeal the judge’s decision.
“At the present time we’re discussing whether to do a petition for certification (to the Appellate Court),” Thomas said Wednesday (April 23), declining to comment further until Ullrich makes a decision in the matter.
