Opinion ID: 1965226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Traffic Considerations

Text: We next address the commission's conclusion that the society's application should be denied because the proposed use of the property would create additional traffic congestion and hazards on Boggs Hill Road. The following additional facts and procedural history are relevant to our review of this issue. At the October 17, 2002 public hearing on the society's application, Fred M. Greenberg, a traffic engineer, spoke on behalf of the society and submitted a written traffic evaluation in which he stated that a volume count performed by the [state] [d]epartment of [t]ransportation . . . in 2001 . . . indicated that in the area of the subject site, Boggs Hill Road carried an [a]verage [d]aily [t]raffic . . . volume of [1400] trips. The highest hourly traffic volume of approximately 160 vehicles, or about one every [twenty-two] seconds, occurred between [8 and 9 a.m.]. The proposed use of the property was estimated to generate [forty to fifty] trips per day, some of which already exist. An alternate development for this size . . . would be four single family homes as zoned. This development would generate about [forty] trips per day. Greenberg also stated that, [d]uring a `special event' weekend day, which [is] planned to occur only five times per year, it is estimated that up to 300 trips [or 150 arrivals and 150 departures] may be generated over the course of the day, with a peak hourly flow of about seventy-five vehicles arriving and seventy-five vehicles departing. Greenberg noted that, [f]or purposes of comparison to an existing traffic generator, the Head O'Meadow Elementary School, located on Boggs Hill Road to the north would be expected to generate [between 500 and 600] daily trips, and peak hour flows in the [125 to 175] vehicle range. Greenberg stated that, in his opinion, the traffic demand from [the proposed use] can be readily accommodated. On the basis of statements and letters submitted to the commission by area residents, a commission member and a town selectman, the commission found that Boggs Hill Road is a small paved two-lane country road characterized as winding and narrow. The sole entrance from the society's property to the road is located in the middle of a narrow `S' shaped section of the road. [T]he topography of the curves is notable in that [they] are on a slope, one of the curves is greater than the expected [ninety] degrees and sand/water/ice accumulate on the street. In addition the road is only [twenty-two] feet wide at this point limiting the options for a [driver] attempting to avoid an accident. The town police receive reports of approximately one motor vehicle accident on the road per month, but many accidents take place during the course of the year . . . such as destroyed mailboxes and `fender benders' that go unreported to the police. The commission expressed concern that during a[f]estival's peak traffic period when multiple cars arrive [at the society's property] at approximately the same time [as] each other from one direction or the other or even both directions at once then parking will begin to detain and slow other arriving vehicles. . . . Because of the narrow width of the road and limited visibility around the curve, other vehicles traveling along the road would not have sufficient time to stop safely. The commission also determined that the society's traffic expert had not made himself familiar with the actual use of the road and did not conduct an actual traffic volume survey at the site. Instead he conducted the survey at an elementary school several miles from the site. The commission believe[d] that less than [one] half of these vehicles from the school pass the temple site, so the potential increase in 150 cars [per] hour peak travel at the site will be 100 to 200 [percent] versus the forecasted insignificant increase. In addition, the commission concluded that Greenberg had underestimated the dangerous nature of the location on Boggs Hill Road and that his assumptions concerning use during festival days were inconsistent with other information provided by the [society] regarding the number of cars. [30] Accordingly, the commission concluded that the proposed use of the property did not satisfy the requirements of § 8.04.740 of the regulations. The trial court determined that the record did not support the commission's conclusion because [a] religious structure is a permitted use, [and] an increase in traffic does result from [the] same no matter where the church, synagogue or temple is located. Quoting from the opinion of the Appellate Court in Bethlehem Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 73 Conn.App. at 442, 470, 807 A.2d 1089, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 928, 814 A.2d 379 (2002), the court further concluded that, in any event, a land use agency cannot deny an application for a permitted use because of off-site traffic considerations. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Finally, the court determined that the statements submitted by various persons to the commission regarding the dangers posed by additional traffic under the worst case scenario were based on speculation and did not rise to the level of substantial evidence. Although we disagree that the commission was required to disregard off-site traffic Considerations, we nevertheless agree with the trial court that the record does not support the commission's conclusion that those considerations warranted its denial of the society's application. This court recently has reaffirmed the principle that, when a landowner has submitted an application for a permitted use, the zoning commission may consider off-site traffic conditions only for the limited purpose of reviewing the internal traffic circulation on the site and determining whether the location of the proposed [roads and driveways] would minimize any negative impact of additional traffic to the existing traffic. . . . Pansy Road, LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 283 Conn. 369, 380, 926 A.2d 1029 (2007); see also Friedman v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 222 Conn. at 262, 267, 608 A.2d 1178 (1992) (volume of traffic generated by proposed office building was not proper basis for denying site plan application); TLC Development, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 215 Conn. 527, 529, 577 A.2d 288 (1990) (language of town zoning regulations did not permit offsite traffic considerations to serve as basis for denying site plan application); Reed v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 208 Conn. 431, 432, 544 A.2d 1213 (1988) (inadequacy of local roads was not proper basis for denying subdivision application). This is because [t]he designation of a particular use of property as a permitted use establishes a conclusive presumption that such use does not adversely affect the district and precludes further inquiry into its effect on traffic, municipal services, property values, or the general harmony of the district. (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pansy Road, LLC v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, supra, at 376, 926 A.2d 1029. This court has limited the application of these principles, however, to site plan approvals and subdivision applications that involve uses that are permitted as of right within the zoning district. See id., at 371, 926 A.2d 1029 (plaintiff submitted residential subdivision application in residential zone); see also Friedman v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, at 263, 608 A.2d 1178 (plaintiff sought site plan approval for office building in commercial zone in which such use was permitted); TLC Development, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, at 528, 577 A.2d 288 (plaintiff sought site plan approval for shopping center in zone in which such use was permitted); Reed v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, at 432, 544 A.2d 1213 (plaintiff filed residential subdivision application in residential zone). In contrast, when a use is not allowed as of right, but only by special exception, the zoning commission is required to judge whether any concerns, such as parking or traffic congestion, would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. Barberino Realty &. Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 222 Conn. 607, 613, 610 A.2d 1205 (1992). The reason for this requirement is that, although such uses are not as intrusive as commercial uses . . . they do generate parking and traffic problems that, if not properly planned for, might undermine the residential character of the neighborhood. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 612-13, 610 A.2d 1205; see also Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 270 Conn. at 454, 853 A.2d 511 (the goal of an application for a special exception is to seek permission to vary the use of a particular piece of property from that for which it is zoned, without offending the uses permitted as of right in the particular zoning district [internal quotation marks omitted]). Thus, there is no presumption that a specially permitted use, or the traffic that it will generate, necessarily is compatible with any particular neighborhood within the zoning district. Barberino Realty & Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, at 616, 610 A.2d 1205 (off-site traffic congestion cart provide basis for denying special permit because, [u]nlike a site plan application for a permitted use where the commission has already made a determination that such a use is permitted in a particular area, [specially permitted uses are] theoretically allowed in any zone provided that the proposed [use] meets the standards and regulations set forth in the regulations  [emphasis added] ). To the extent that language in Bethlehem Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, 73 Conn.App. at 470, 807 A.2d 1089, indicates otherwise, [31] we expressly disavow it. Courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that, in order to deny a special permit because of traffic, the project must cause traffic congestion and have a greater impact on the area than other permitted uses for the property not requiring a special permit. [32] R. Fuller, 9B Connecticut Practice Series: Land Use Law and Practice (3d Ed.2007) § 49:14, pp. 138-39. The strict application of this principle, however, would effectively exclude many specially permitted uses from residential zones in which they are expressly allowed. Churches and schools, by their nature, generate different traffic patterns and more intense traffic than residences. Accordingly, we conclude that, if a special permitted use would have a significantly greater impact on traffic congestion in the area than a use permitted as of right, the additional congestion may provide a basis for denying the permit. Cf. Bethlehem Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, 73 Conn.App. at 470, 807 A.2d 1089 (the consideration that applies to zoning applications is not the overall volume of traffic . . . but whether the increase in traffic will cause congestion). Moreover, the significance of the impact should not be measured merely by the number of additional vehicles but by the effect that the increase in vehicles will have on the existing use of the roads. An increase of 100 vehicles per hour may have a negligible impact at one time or location and a ruinous impact at another time or location. In making this determination, the commission may rely on statements of, neighborhood residents about the nature of the existing roads in the area and the existing volume of traffic, and its own knowledge of these conditions. See, e.g., Primerica v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 211 Conn. 85, 97-98, 558 A.2d 646 (1989). Applying these principles to the commission's decision in the present case, we conclude that there are several flaws in the commission's stated reasons for its conclusion that the proposed use of the property would cause unacceptable traffic congestion and hazards. First, the commission concluded that Greenberg had not conducted a traffic survey at the property but had relied on a survey conducted at an elementary school several miles away. In Greenberg's traffic evaluation, however, he stated that, in estimating current traffic volume on Boggs Hill Road, he had relied on a traffic volume count performed by the state department of transportation in the area of the subject site. . . . In addition, Greenberg stated that he provided the information about traffic flow at the elementary school on Boggs Hill Road [f]or purposes of comparison to an existing traffic generator . . . . Greenberg did not state that he relied on the estimates of traffic flow at the elementary school in estimating traffic flow at the society's property, and the commission has referred us to no other evidence that he did so. Accordingly, the record does not support the commission's determination that Greenberg did not rely on a traffic survey at the site. Second, the commission estimated, apparently on the basis of its own knowledge, that peak traffic flow at the society's property was approximately seventy-five cars per hour, so the potential increase in 150 cars [per] hour peak travel at the site will be 100 to 200 [percent]. . . . Greenberg stated in his traffic evaluation, however, that traffic volume at the property on festival days would be 150 vehicles arriving at the property and 150 vehicles leaving the property per day, not per hour. Greenberg estimated that the peak traffic volume generated by the property would be seventy-five vehicles per hour. Moreover, Greenberg indicated that the peak traffic volume at the property would occur on festival days between 10 and 11 a.m. and again between 3 and 4 p.m. Therefore, peak traffic at the property would not coincide with the existing peak traffic volume on Boggs Hill Road, which, according to Greenberg, occurred between 8 and 9 a.m. on weekdays. Consequently, the commission's determination that peak traffic volume on Boggs Hill Road would be doubled or tripled is not supported by the record. We recognize that an additional seventy-five vehicles per hour during peak hours on festival days would constitute a significant increase in traffic volume at those times, and that the total resulting volume at those times might exceed existing peak volume. [33] We also recognize the commission's legitimate concerns about the dangerous conditions on the portion of Boggs Hill Road adjacent to the property. Nevertheless, in the absence of any determination by the commission that an increase of seventy-five vehicles per hour at peak hours on festival days would increase traffic congestion or hazards on Boggs Hill Road significantly more than a permitted use of the property would, we agree with the trial court that the evidence was inadequate to support the commission's conclusion that the society's proposed use of the property did not satisfy § 8.04.740 of the regulations.