HHD-CV09-5033925S HHD-CV09-5033926S VILLAGES, LLC V.

ENFIELD PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

: : : :

SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT APRIL 3, 2012

BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD M. RITTENBAND, JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S:

Representing the Plaintiff: ATTORNEY GWENDOLYN BISHOP 27 South Main Street Windsor Locks, CT 06096 ATTORNEY PAUL TIMOTHY SMITH 27 South Main Street Windsor Locks, CT 06096 Representing the Defendant: ATTORNEY KEVIN DENEEN 820 Enfield Street Enfield, Connecticut 06082 ATTORNEY MARIA ELSDEN 820 Enfield Street Enfield, Connecticut 06082

Recorded by: Peggy Criscuolo Transcribed by: Peggy Criscuolo Court Recording Monitors Hartford Superior Court 101 Lafayette Street Hartford, CT 06106

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 THE CLERK: THE COURT: Please be seated. Take your time we

are ten minutes early. ready.

Let me know when youre

(off the record) For the record, Plaintiffs Exhibits All set, your Honor.

1, 2 and 3 are full exhibits. THE COURT:

Are you ready? Yes.

ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT:

If you need more time go ahead and

take it, were starting early as it is so. ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Just one minute longer?

Sure. Thank you. All set, your Honor,

ATTY. DENEEN: thank you. THE COURT:

For the record, this is the case of

Villages, LLC verses Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, 09-5033925 and Villages, LLC verses Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission 09-5033926. Counsel, please identify yourselves, for the record? ATTY. BISHOP: Good morning, your Honor, With me

Attorney Gwendolyn Bishop for the Plaintiff. is Attorney Paul Timothy Smith. ATTY. DENEEN:

Attorney Kevin Deneen, for the

Defendant, together with Maria Elsden from the Town Attorneys Office, also. THE COURT: Its nice to see you Attorney Deneen

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 when were not involved with some police officers for a change. ATTY. DENEEN: Its nice to be into some run of

the mill stuff, your Honor, I suppose. THE COURT: For those of you in the audience

that dont know it, I used to be Town Attorney in South Windsor off and on for nine years, depending on which party was in power. And that was approximately

twenty years ago, Ive been on the bench for twenty. So, I do have some interest in zoning. Attorney Bishop, do you want to establish aggrievement? ATTY. BISHOP: Yes, your Honor, we would have

our first witness, Mr. David Frederick for that purpose. THE COURT: Okay.

(witness sworn in) THE CLERK: Would you state your name for the

record, spelling your last name, please? THE WITNESS: i c k. THE CLERK: And would you state your address for Yes, David J. Fredrick, F r e d r

the record please, sir? THE WITNESS: Connecticut. THE COURT: ATTY. SMITH: Go ahead. Thank you, your Honor. 2 Mulberry Lane, Enfield,

3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 D A V I D J. F R E D R I C K, having been sworn, was

examined, and testified under oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. SMITH: Q A Mr. Fredrick, can you tell the Court how old you are? Im seventy-years-old. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Seventy? Seventy. I didnt hear the Seven, zero. It sounded like seven, but go ahead.

I knew that couldnt be true. BY ATTY. SMITH: Q A Q And what is your occupation? Im a real estate developer. And what did you do before you became a real estate

developer? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q High school senior English teacher. How many years did you teach English? About nineteen. Was that in the Town of Enfield? Enfield High School. Are you married? I am married. And how many children do you have? I have two children. Do you represent the Plaintiff in this case,

Villages, LLC?

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A Q I do. And did you represent the Plaintiff before the

Planning and Zoning Committee in the Town of Enfield? A Q Yes. Did you represent the Plaintiff before the Inland

Wetlands Authority in the Town of Enfield? A Q Yes. And have you represented the Plaintiff in this case

before additional town staff and town agencies? A Q I have. And do you manage the day-to-day business of the

Plaintiff, Villages, LLC? A Q Yes. And are you familiar with the assets held by the

Plaintiff? A Q Yes. Does the Plaintiff own property in the Town of

Enfield? A Yes. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: ATTY. SMITH: BY ATTY. SMITH: Q Exhibit 1 is marked as a full exhibit. Mr. Fredrick, Are you a member of Villages, LLC? My wife is, your Honor. Your wife? Yes. May I have Exhibit 1?

can you identify this exhibit for the Court?

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A Road. Q land? A Q A Q A It was in June 07. And does the Plaintiff still own this parcel of land? Yes. And is this parcel part of the subject application? Yes. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: ATTY. SMITH: This is 87 Simon Road? Yes. Your Honor, for clarification And when did the Plaintiff purchase this parcel of This is a deed to my wifes co-interest in Simon

there are several separate parcels that comprise the subject application. And there is always some confusion between what the Assessor has for 87 Simon Road, but its all in that general vicinity right there, which is commonly known as 87 Simon Road. THE COURT: ATTY. SMITH: Okay. The Assessor assigns different --

the Tax Collector has different codes for of these three parcels. THE COURT: But youre familiar with the land

that is subject of this zoning case? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: deeds. I am, yes. And this is the deed, there are two

6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ATTY. SMITH: THE COURT: Three deeds, your Honor. Three. So it is. There are three

deeds and hes going to go over the next two; and did these convey to Villages, LLC? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yes. The land that is subject of the

application for the zoning in this case? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: ATTY. SMITH: under option. Thats correct. Okay. Your Honor, the third deed is

Theres a very tiny slip of .8 acres

and there is an option agreement, which is an exhibit, which I would hope to make full to fully prove the aggrievement. BY ATTY. SMITH: Q But to go through the course, Im handing you, Mr.

Fredrick, what has been marked as a full exhibit, Exhibit 2 can you identify for the Court what this exhibit is? A This is a warranty deed also conveying a parcel of

land on Simon Road to Villages, LLC. Q A Q A Q A And when did the Plaintiff purchase this parcel? June 07. And does the Plaintiff still own this parcel? Yes. And is this parcel part of the subject application? Yes. ATTY. SMITH: May I have Exhibit 3?

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BY ATTY. SMITH: Q Im handing you whats been marked as a full exhibit,

Exhibit 3; can you identify for the Court what Exhibit 3 is? A Yes, this is the third parcel of approximately .8

acres and its an agreement between Frank Legienza and Villages. Q I think youre referring to a different exhibit,

unfortunately. A Q Oh. This is a quit claim deed; right? And does it convey

property from Frank Legienza to a trust created by Mr. Legienza? A Q Yes, Im sorry. Thats correct.

And attached to this deed is a schedule, Schedule A

of property, and if you look at the third-page, which is parcel 3; is that parcel 3 the parcel of land which Villages, LLC has an option to purchase? A Q Thats correct. And is that parcel 3, listed in Schedule A, part of

the subject application? A Yes, it is. THE COURT: Okay. All of this property is the

same property that is owned or has an option for the property that is subject of the Plaintiffs application for a subdivision waivers and what was the other ATTY. BISHOP: Special use permit.

8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: BY ATTY. SMITH: Q And in total the three parcels of land which we just Special use permit, thank you. Thats correct. Thank you.

described found in Exhibit 1 and in Exhibit 2 and partly in Exhibit 3 thats the parcel 3 of Schedule A, comprise the entire area, which is the subject of this application? A Thats correct. ATTY. SMITH: Exhibit 4? BY ATTY. SMITH: Q Im handing you what has been marked as Exhibit 4 for Can you describe to the Court what this I will be very brief. May I have

identification. exhibit is? A

This is the this is the small parcel of land that Its

the Village has agreed to buy from Frank Legienza. approximately eight-tenths of an acre. Q A Q A And are you familiar with this agreement? I am.

And is this did you sign this agreement anywhere? I did sign this agreement, as a witness for the

signatures of Diane Fredrick, who is a member of the LLC and Jeannette Tallarita, also, a member of the LLC. ATTY. SMITH: exhibit. ATTY. DENEEN: No objection, your Honor. Id like to offer it as a full

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 THE COURT: BY ATTY. SMITH: Q And, again, handing you Plaintiffs Exhibit 4, which Okay. Plaintiffs 4.

has been marked as a full exhibit; is this an option agreement for Villages, LLC to purchase that very tiny .8 acre piece that tiny silver, which is a part of the subject application? A Yes. ATTY. SMITH: I dont have any further questions

of you, Mr. Fredrick. THE COURT: cross? ATTY. DENEEN: Just a couple of questions. Attorney Deneen, do you wish to

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FREDRICK BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q With regard to the land purchase agreement, Mr.

Fredrick, does that option contemplate that a final purchase contract would be later drawn up? A We would close on that property, when the Villages

was approved for the subdivision on Simon Road. Q A Q What would happen then? We would execute the option. And did that contemplate that a full contract would

be drawn up at that point? ATTY. DENEEN: If I could see Exhibit 4, please?

Can I approach, your Honor? THE COURT: BY ATTY. DENEEN: You may.

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q Directing your attention toward the bottom of that

land purchase, Exhibit 4; does it contemplate that a final purchase contract would be drawn up prior to closing this purchase of this property? A It reads, "as read": Final purchase contract,

promissory note and mortgage deed to be prepared by buyers attorney and approved by sellers attorney three-days before the closing. Q A And to your knowledge has that ever been done? It has not been executed. ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Nothing further, your Honor.

Any re-direct?

RE-DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF MR. FREDRICK BY ATTY. SMITH: Q Mr. Fredrick, is this option to purchase land from

Mr. Legienzas trust, is that option still alive and well? A Q Yes. So you could, if this is approved, then exercise your

option to purchase that land? A Thats correct. ATTY. SMITH: THE COURT: Thank you. No further questions. Anything further? No, sir.

ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: aggrievment? ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT:

Do you have any objection to the

No, your Honor. I ask this question because I

Okay.

got snookered on a case where it turned out, after

11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 all representations by the Plaintiff, that they didnt own the property. Okay. Do you want to present witnesses? Yes, your Honor.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT:

The Court finds that aggrievement

has been shown since it is the property that is subject to the application and owned by the Plaintiff. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Thank you, your Honor.

I have about ten or twelve

questions, but I think the way we ought to proceed here is hear from the witnesses and then Ill ask the questions. And if you still have some argument after

youve answered the questions, then Ill hear that. ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: if you wish to. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Thank you, very much, your Honor. Thats fine, your Honor.

And you can file post trial briefs,

That was already agreed to? It was reserved as we were in the

ATTY. DENEEN:

various status conferences with -THE COURT: Judge Graham? Judge Graham. He indicated that

ATTY. DENEEN:

it would be whoever heard the cases call, but that he wouldnt rule on that one way or another prior to our being here. THE COURT: Well, I dont have a problem. It

12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ATTY. BISHOP: That sounds prudent, your Honor. depends on what the witnesses say; the response to the questions I have. down the issues here. And then I have some questions, which depending upon how theyre answered, could knock-out this application. I have some questions, which depending upon how its answered could make sure that the application is approved. So, I think you might want to speak to I hope its going to narrow

those in writing. ATTY. DENEEN: I think that would probably be a

Wed like the opportunity. THE COURT: Youre not limited -- somewhere in

the file there is an indication that after the witnesses testify on the issue of bias that you can file briefs. But Im not limiting you to the bias

you can file briefs on anything you want. Although, try to make it less than thirty-pages this time. I spent like a whole day reading them.

And Ive even read some of the cases, which I have here. Im glad to see that you have taken cases that have not yet reached the bound books. ATTY. BISHOP: Longhi. Go ahead.

Your Honor, we would call Lori

13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 * * * * * THE COURT: Okay.

(witnesses sworn in) THE CLERK: Would you state your name for the

record, spelling your last name? THE WITNESS: THE CLERK: Lori Longhi, L o n g h i. And would you state your address for

the record, please? THE WITNESS: 1427 Enfield Street, E n f i e l

d, Enfield, Connecticut. THE CLERK: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Thank you. You may be seated.

Welcome to Hartford. Thank you. Just so you know, the microphone is So, speaking into

strictly for recording purposes.

the microphone will not go through the courtroom, so if you could keep your voice up. THE WITNESS: Okay.

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 L O R I L O N G H I, having been sworn, was examined, and

testified under oath as follows? DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q Good morning, Ms. Longhi. Can you please state your

age, for the record? A Q A Q A Q A Q Ill be fifty this year. And what is your occupation? Um Im a real estate appraiser. And how long have you been doing that? Um eleven years. And what is your marital status? Im married. And do you currently serve on the Enfield Planning

and Zoning Commission? A Q Yes, I do. Okay. And how long have you served on the

Commission? A Board. Q Okay. And did you sit on the Commission while the I think it was in February of 09 that I got on the

Villagess applications were pending before it? A Q A Q A Q Yes. And you voted on those applications? Yes. Do you know personally know Pat Tallarita? Yes. And do you know his wife, Jeannette?

15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A Q Yes. And THE COURT: Did you say, Gena? Jeannette.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q

Jeannette.

And is Mr. Tallarita present here today in the

courtroom? A Q Yes, he is. You currently reside on the same street as Pat and

Jeannette Tallarita, do you not? A Q A Q A Q Yes. And do you live in a house on the street? Yes. Okay. Yes. And the house you live in is across the street from And thats in Enfield?

the Tallaritas? A Q Yes. And its also, I understand, four or five houses down

the street? A Q A Q Yes. So you would consider yourself neighbors? Yes. Okay. And you and your husband have spent time

socially with the Tallaritas in the past; correct? A Yes.

16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q And youve all gotten together for drinks? Yes. And youve had dinner together? Yes. And thats happened multiple times? Yes. Okay. Yes. And youve gone to parties at the Tallaritas house? Yes. And the Tallaritas have also invited you to their In the past?

home as well? A Q What was that, Im sorry? The Tallaritas have invited you and your husband to

their home? A Q Yes. But you didnt have dinner with the Tallaritas while

the Villagess applications were pending before the Commission, did you? A Q No. Okay. And you didnt go to the Tallaritas house for

a party while the applications were pending? A Q No. And you didnt invite the Tallaritas to your house

while these applications were pending? A Q Correct. Okay. So you basically didnt engage in these types

17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 of social activities while these applications were pending; is that fair? A Q Correct. And the year prior to the applications being filed

that would be 2008, did you have drinks with the Tallaritas during 2008? A Q A Q 2008? A Q 2008? A Q I dont believe so. And so you didnt engage in these types of social I dont believe we did. And did you invite the Tallaritas to your home in I dont believe so. Okay. And did you have dinner together?

I dont believe so. And did you go to a party at the Tallaritas house in

activities the year before the applications were filed either? A Q Correct. Now the year before that, that would be 2007, did you

engage in any of these social activities with the Tallaritas in 2007? A I dont remember the last time we did, so I couldnt

be specific. Q A Q Did you engage in these activities in 2004? I dont know. I have no idea.

How long have you lived at your current address?

18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A In the 90s. I want to think we moved in when my

daughter went to sixth grade, I think it was in the 90s. Q And do you recall when you first became socially

active with the Tallritas? A school. I dont remember. I know that the kids went to

Um I know that my son played on baseball and

thats where we started to you know, just see them. Q A Q With one of he Tallaritas children? Yes. Okay. Is it fair to say that you had been friends

and engaged in these social activities with the Tallaritas in the past, but all of that had stopped prior to the Villagess application being filed in 2009? A asking? Q I can repeat it. Is it fair to say that you engaged Im not sure I dont know exactly what youre

in these social activities youve been testifying about with the Tallaritas, but that had stopped prior to 2009? A I dont know the date that it stopped. But we

stopped, you know, Pat would have parties.

He didnt have

parties we didnt go over, so I dont know exactly the dates that its kind of like you have your kids in dance and

you see people all of the time and then they arent in dance anymore so you dont socialize. I dont know the exact dates that it stopped or actually started. Q We were neighbors.

But the question isnt what is the exact date that it

19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 stopped, maam. The question is: Did the social activities

stop prior to the Villagess applications being filed in 2009? A Q Oh, prior to the Villages? Yes. Yes, it stopped.

And you were no longer having drinks with the

Tallaritas? A Q A Q Correct. And you no longer go to dinner at their house? Correct. And you no longer invite them to your house for get-

togethers? A Correct. THE COURT: When was the application filed? May of 2009, your Honor.

ATTY. BISHOP: BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q

Do you recall contacting Mr. Bryon Meade of the

Hazardville Water Company about the Villagess application outside the public hearings on this matter? A Q No. Do you recall making a telephone call to the

Hazardville Water Company about the Villagess applications? A Q No. Do you recall visiting the Hazardville Water Company

offices while these applications were pending? A Q No. So you dont recall contacting anyone at the

Harzardville Water Company concerning these Villagess

20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 applications? A Correct. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Nothing further.

Cross? Just a couple of questions, your

ATTY. DENEEN:

Honor, obviously, subject to my right to call her back depending on where the rest of the witnesses go. CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MS. LONGHI BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Ms. Longhi, under direct examination there were a

number of questions about your social relationship with Mr. Tallarita. for dinner. Prior to whenever it stopped in 2007/2008, how often did that occur on a monthly basis, weekly basis; how often did you get together? A Q Maybe monthly. Every couple of months. One of which would have been getting together

And were there other social settings in which you ran

into each other or you were both involved in? A Q A Yes. And what were those? It was mostly political. Um Pat would have a lot

of fundraisers at the house. events and we would go.

He would have parties or

There would be a lot of people and

there were times where we had just smaller occasions to go over. Q And how often would you have just you and your spouse

and Mr. Tallarita and his spouse for dinner, just the four

21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 of you, did that occur often? A Q A Q I think just the two of them, never. Okay. It was always in a larger group?

It was always more people than that. All right. ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Nothing further, your Honor.

Any re-direct? Yes, your Honor, one moment.

ATTY. BISHOP:

RE-DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF MS. LONGHI BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q Ms. Longhi, you just testified that when you spent

time socially with the Tallaritas it was always in a larger group? A Q For dinner. He asked about dinner.

And is it your testimony that youve never had

dinner, you and your husband and Pat Tallarita and his wife? A dinner. Q But this isnt the first time youve testified in I dont recall ever just the four of us having

this matter, is it maam? A Q No. You had your deposition taken at my office, do you

recall that? A Q Yes. And I took your deposition and I asked you some

questions, didnt I, about your relationship with the Tallaritas? A Yes.

22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 me. ATTY. DENEEN: ATTY. BISHOP: necessary. I want the sealed depositions. I didnt think that was I dont THE COURT: Do you want it unsealed? This is open. Do you have the Q And I asked ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: May I approach, your Honor?

You may. Judge, you should have the sealed

ATTY. DENEEN:

ATTY. DENEEN: sealed deposition? ATTY. BISHOP:

I dont know if I have that with

I have the unsealed transcript.

have the sealed copy. Would your Honor allow me to ask a question off of the unsealed version? My understanding is that

the law doesnt require it to be sealed, but most people unseal it in front of the jury because they find it dramatic. ATTY. DENEEN: ATTY. BISHOP: Well, its I mean I have its the full

transcript with the reporters certification. ATTY. DENEEN: Well, if Counsel wants to ask

questions of what she recalls from the deposition thats certainly fine. THE COURT: What did you say? If Counsel wishes to inquire of

ATTY. DENEEN:

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 were. ATTY. BISHOP: Im going to yes. Im not fine. THE COURT: Okay. I dont know that you want to I the witness what she recalls from that deposition thats fine. But I mean Im not putting it in or

ATTY. BISHOP: anything. ATTY. DENEEN:

I understand that.

But youre Ive never

going to we need the sealed deposition.

just handed in our private copies of the depositions. ATTY. BISHOP: exhibit. Well, Im not offering it as an

Im just asking questions using it. Then you can ask questions of it You can ask her if it

ATTY. DENEEN:

but not to show it to her.

refreshes her recollection, but you dont have a right to enter questions that are on the document thats not going to be in evidence. THE COURT: Is there any question as to the

authenticity of that deposition? ATTY. DENEEN: I can compare. Okay. Thats

introduce it or not, but you can show it to her. assume what youre going to be doing is asking her questions. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Yes, your Honor.

And asking her what her answers

going to offer it as evidence Im just going to ask

24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 her questions. THE COURT: Okay. You can do that.

ATTY. BISHOP: BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q

Thank you, your Honor.

Ms. Longhi, showing you this, do you recall that I

asked you a question at the deposition at the top of page-39 of the transcript and it says, "as read": Have you had

occasions where you and your husband and Pat Tallarita and his wife got together to have drinks? Yes. A Q Did I read that correctly? Yes. Okay. And my next question was, "as read": And your answer was, Yes. Or have Did I And your answer was,

had dinner together? read that correctly? A Q Um-hum. Thats it.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT:

Nothing further.

Any re-cross? Just one, very quick.

ATTY. DENEEN:

RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MS. LONGHI BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Was there anything in those two questions that

indicated that you were having dinner alone, just the four of you? A Q No. Thank you. THE COURT: Anything further? Nothing further.

ATTY. BISHOP:

25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 * * * * * THE COURT: Thank you, maam, you may step down. The Plaintiff calls Mr. Bryon

ATTY. BISHOP: Meade, your Honor. THE COURT:

Did you say, Meade? Yes, Bryon Meade, M e a d e.

ATTY. BISHOP:

(witness sworn in) THE CLERK: Would you state your name for the

record, spelling your last name, please? THE WITNESS: THE CLERK: Bryon Meade, M e a d e. And would you state your address,

for the record, please, sir? THE WITNESS: Massachusetts. THE CLERK: Thank you. You may be seated. 58 Weber Street, Springfield,

26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 B R Y O N M E A D E, having been sworn, was examined, and

testified under oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q record? A Q A Q A Q Yes. Its B r y o n. Mr. Meade, how old are you? Mr. Meade, can you spell your first name, for the

Thank you. Fifty-nine.

And what is your occupation? Project Manager for Hazardville Water Company. And how long have you been at Hazardville Water

Company? A Q A Q A Thirteen and-a-half years. And were you working there in 2009? Yes. And what are your duties as project manager? Ah, basically, to review all new developments that

are proposed for the Town of Enfield and Somers, Connecticut. I go to town meetings and work with the fire departments and fill-out contracts with developers and contractors, and oversee the installation of water mains and water services to homes and make sure they meet the companys specifications. Q And were you an employee of Hazardivlle Water Company

in October of 2009? A Yes.

27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q And do you recall a proposed subdivision off of Simon

Road in Enfield called Villages? A Q Yes. And was the Hazardville Water Company involved in

that proposed subdivision? A Q A Yes, we were. And how so? Our water mains are in that area so they would be an

extension from our existing water main into the development to supply domestic water for the homes. Q Okay. And do you recall that the Villages

subdivision had applied to have their property subdivided before the Planning and Zoning Commission? A Q Yes. Okay. And were you contacted, sir, by any Commission

members outside of the public hearings regarding the Villagess applications for that subdivision? A Q A Yes, I was contacted by Ms. Lori Longhi. And do you recall about when that occurred? Early October of 2009. Probably the first week, I

dont know the exact date. Q Okay. And do you recall what she was contacting you

about in relation to the subdivision? A Well, the meeting I dont have a real clear

recollection of the meeting, but I did put it in writing in an email to Dave Fredrick what it was about. And after

reading the email that I wrote it refreshed my memory that

28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 it had to do with fire flows and water pressures for the development. Q A And what is a fire flow? Its a required flow by the fire department to put

out a fire, you know, if theres not enough flow then maybe homes cant be built there or youd have to put in an extra booster station to bring the pressure up. And what the company normally does, when we get a development like that, is we turn over the information to our consulting engineers and they run a hydraulic model to determine if theres enough water pressure and fire flow for that development. Q And Commissioner Longhi, you testified, that she was

asking you about the fire flows for the proposed development? A Yeah, based on the email I sent to Dave Fredrick

about the meeting, that refreshed my memory thats what we talked about. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q So she visited the Hazardville Water Company offices; Was this in person? Yes.

is that correct? A Q A Q Right. And where were those located? 281 Hazard Avenue in Enfield. And you work in that office during regular business

29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 hours? A Q A Q Yes. And so she visited you at your office? Correct. In early October 2009? ATTY. DENEEN: Im going to object. This is all

leading questions at this point, and its Counsels own witness. I mean if she wants to ask him what he

did shes just basically spoon-feeding him the questions. THE COURT: It sounded like a leading question. Ill rephrase, sir.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q

Sustained.

Mr. Meade, prior to Ms. Longhi contacting you about

the Villagess application had you ever been contacted by a Commission member while an application was pending outside the hearing? A No, not outside the hearing. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: would? ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Sure. Go ahead. Nothing further. One second, Counsel, if you

Okay.

Okay.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. MEADE BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Mr. Meade, you indicated that this supposed meeting

occurred at the Hazardville offices?

30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A Q A Q Yes. Hazardville Water offices? Right. Can you describe what the layout of that or where Was it in your office? Was it in a lobby or

that occurred? where was it? A Q

It would be in a conference room. Do you have a specific recollection of being in a

conference room on that matter? A I have so many meetings with so many people I dont.

The recollection is not real clear because I deal with a lot of developers and things. But what refreshed my memory was looking through my file on that project, and I did write the email that I had the meeting. Q So you know I wouldnt put something in

But sitting here today you sort of indicated that it

was in a conference room; you dont recall if it was in a conference room sitting here today, do you? A Well, yes, it would be in a conference room because

thats where we have all of our meetings. Q Well, would be is different than I remember thats If thats typical where you had thats one

where it was. answer.

Do you recall sitting here today, under oath, that you, in fact, had that meeting with Ms. Longhi in that conference room? A Not exactly in that conference room, no, not today.

31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q And what did you allegedly talk about at this

meeting? A Q A Ah, that it required Do you recall that today sitting here under oath? Yes, it required fire flows to the development. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q And youre under oath testifying today you are And water pressure? Water pressure, yes.

absolutely sure that it had to do with the Villagess application not another application or another potential subdivision that might be developed? A Q Thats correct, based on the email that I wrote. All right. But independent of that email, do you

have a current recollection that you are absolutely certain that thats what it was about. potential subdivision? ATTY. BISHOP: Objection. I believe youve It wasnt about a different

already asked and hes answered that he ATTY. DENEEN: This email is not in evidence.

This alleged email is not in evidence. ATTY. BISHOP: Well, hes entitled to refresh

his recollection with an email, and now hes testifying what he recalls. THE COURT: Youre saying that based upon his

refreshing of his he didnt use those words, but based upon his refreshing his recollection by an

32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 email that he sent to Mr. Fredrick outlining all of this he now remembers it. ATTY. DENEEN: Well, I dont think he testified

that it was outlining all of this, your Honor, thats why Im trying to get to THE COURT: Well, whatever he is saying here

today he remembers because he remembers that it took place partly based upon his sending of an email accounting of it to Mr. Fredrick. ATTY. DENEEN: BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q So there is no chance that you would be confusing All right.

this with regard to these inquiries with regard to a different potential subdivision? A No. THE COURT: Counsel. BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Other than this one alleged meeting directly with Ms. That was asked and answered,

Longhi at the Hazardville Water Company, did you have any other contact outside in early October of 2009 with Ms. Longhi regarding the Villagess application? A No, I did not. ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Nothing further, your Honor.

Any re-direct? No, your Honor.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT:

Thank you, sir, you may step down.

33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 * * * * * Youre excused. ATTY. BISHOP: Mr. Anthony DiPace. (witness sworn in) THE CLERK: Would you state your name for the Your Honor, the Plaintiffs calls

record spelling your last name, please? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: for the record? THE WITNESS: 270 Jackson Road, Enfield, Connecticut 06082. THE CLERK: Thank you, you may be seated. Anthony M. DiPace, D i P a c e. And would you state your address,

34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A N T H O N Y D I P A C E, having been sworn, was

examined, and testified under oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q A Q A Q A Good morning. Good morning. Would you state your age, for the record? Fifty-two. And what is your occupation? Um automotive repair garage owner. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: car sales. BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q A Q And where is that business? 318 Hazard Avenue, Enfield, Connecticut. Okay. And have you ever served on the Enfield Excuse me? Automotive repair garage owner and

Im a service technician.

Planning and Zoning Commission? A Yes, I did. I served approximately from 1988 until

Im going to say December of 2007, with a short two-yearspan where I wasnt on there. Q Okay. And during your service did you hold any

offices? A Ah, yes, I held the I believe every position that

was available, Secretary, Second Vice-Chair, Vice-Chair and I served as Chairman for about four years. Q A And do you know Lori Longhi? Yes, I do.

35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q A events. Q A Q A Do you also know Mr. Pat Tallarita? Yes, I do. And how do you know him? Same thing through politics in town and Ive known And how do you know her? Um through the town, through different political

him growing up. Q And while you were Chairman of the Planning and

Zoning Commission, did you ever hear Lori Longhi complaining about Mr. Tallarita? A I do recall an incident that happened in the back

parking lot of the Town Hall, when I was Chairman of the Planning and Zoning. I dont recall the exact wording of what was said, but I do recall that she was upset with him because she felt that he wasnt helping her out and she wasnt happy with it. Q Okay. At that time, was Mr. Tallarita holding any

political office? A Q I believe he was the Mayor. Okay. And do you remember when this occurred when

you heard Lori Longhi complaining about Pat Tallarita? A I dont recall exactly, but I think it was somewhere

in the summertime you know in May, June of 07. Q Okay. And you testified you were in the parking lot Why were you there; why were you present

of the Town Hall. there?

36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A Um there was a Democratic Town Committee meeting And I was in my truck and as I was

and I was leaving.

driving around the back of the parking lot I noticed Lori Longhi with two other Planning and Zoning Commission members and it looked like they were, you know, talking. And I just

pulled up and stopped to say high and put my window down. Q Who else was present when you heard this

conversation? A Q Charles Ladd and Kathleen Sarno. Okay. And you said did they hold any office at

that time? A They were both on Planning and Zoning. They were

alternate members. Q Okay. So they were serving with you on the Planning

and Zoning Commission? A Q Um-hum. And the three of them were talking. And where were

you, were you standing outside in the parking lot? A No, I was in my truck. I was coming around the

parking lot and I saw the three of them and I just stopped to say, hi. Q A Q And did you roll your window down? I put my drivers window down. Okay. And to the best of your recollection, what was

Lori Longhi complaining about with respect to Mr. Tallarita? A town. Well, she felt she was being screwed over by the I believe there was a problem with the Assistant Town

37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Planner, who oversees the wetlands. Q Okay. And what did she say in relation to Mr.

Tallarita? A Um she just felt that she had made a comment that

she was being screwed over by the town and that, you know, he wasnt helping her and that she hoped someday that he would get screwed over by the town, something to that fashion. Q And were you able to hear the emotion with which she

said this? A Yes. Yeah, and I just thought she was venting is the

way I took it. Q A Q A Q A Q Did she sound angry? Oh, yes. Or frustrated? Very frustrated, yeah. And at Mr. Tallarita? At the town in general, you know. Was she angry at Mr. Tallarita for not helping her

with some issue she was having? A Yes, she was. ATTY. DENEEN: Objection. That calls for

speculation as to what Ms. Longhi did or didnt feel. ATTY. BISHOP: ATTY. DENEEN: BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q Mr. DiPace, were you on the Commission, the Enfield Ill withdraw the question. Thank you.

38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Planning and Zoning Commission at the time the Villagess applications were filed in 2009? A Q A No, I was not. So you havent served since December 2007? Right, since December of 2007. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Nothing further.

Cross? Thank you, your Honor.

ATTY. DENEEN:

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. DIPACE BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Mr. DiPace, do you recall being deposed prior to

todays hearing in this matter? A Q Yes, I do. And do you recall when you were asked those same

questions with regard to when this conversation allegedly occurred it probably was in 06 or 07? A It could have been 06 or 07. I know it was

summertime weather and I wasnt sure what year. THE COURT: So, was it the time that you

finished, the same year that you finished your service on the P & Z? THE WITNESS: Im not sure if it was the summer

of that year or if it was the summer before. THE COURT: BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q And after you heard this conversation, that allegedly Okay.

occurred, did you share that with Pat Tallarita at any time? A I shared it with several different people.

39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q A Q A Q Did it include Pat Tallarita? Yeah. Okay. Mr. Fredrick?

I dont know if I shared it with him or not. And did you share it with, at least, Mr. Tallarita

shortly after the conversation occurred? A Im not sure when I shared it with him. At the time

he was the Mayor and, you know, I believe it had something to do with the greenhouse she was trying to get approval, trying to get the town to do. And I just shared with him

that nobody was helping her out. Q A Q A Q And were you the Democratic Town Chair at that time? No, I was not. At which time?

At the time this conversation occurred? Which? That allegedly occurred with Ms. Longhi and these

other Commissioners? A No, I was the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning

Commission. Q I guess I may not have understood your answer, so When did you share that you heard this

Ill try it, again.

conversation, when did you share that with Mr. Tallarita? A It was probably maybe within a few weeks or month

that I questioned him why he wasnt helping her. Q And so you passed that information on trying to be

helpful? A Right.

40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 * * * * * Q Thank you. ATTY. DENEEN: ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: continue. Nothing further, your Honor. Nothing further. One second before you

Thank you.

Go ahead. The Plaintiff calls Mr. Pat

ATTY. BISHOP: Tallarita.

(witness sworn in) THE CLERK: Would you state your name, for the

record, spelling your last name, please? THE WITNESS: r i t a. THE CLERK: And would you state your address, Patrick Louis Tallarita, T a l l a

for the record, please? THE WITNESS: Connecticut. THE CLERK: Thank you. You may be seated. 1400 Enfield Street, Enfield,

41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 P A T R I C K T A L L A R I T A, having been sworn, was

examined, and testified under oath as follows? DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q A Q A Q A Good morning, Mr. Tallarita. Good morning. Can you give us your age, please? My age; 49-years-old. And what is your occupation? For the last 25 years Ive been employed by the State And for the last 20 years, by the

of Connecticut.

Connecticut Labor Department where Im Director of Facilities Operations for the Labor Department. Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q And what is your educational background, sir? I have a bachelors degree. From what ? Fitchburg State University, it used to be college. And are you married, sir? I am. And how long have you been married? Ive been married for 25 years this year. And what is your wifes name? My wifes name is Jeannette. Okay. And what is your relationship with the

Plaintiff, Villages, LLC? A Q A Im married to one of the partners. Okay. And I have represented my wifes interest throughout

42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 the proceedings. Q Okay. And did you perform any duties for the company

before the Planning and Zoning Commission? A Yes, I went to every meeting representing my wifes

interest before the Commission. Q A Q A Q A Q A Q And your wife is a member of the LLC? Yes, she is. And is there any other member? Yes. And who is that? Diane Fredrick. And those are the only two members of the LLC? Those are. Okay. And did you attend every hearing of the

Planning and Zoning Commission on Villages behalf? A Q I believe I did, yes. And you spoke as their representative along with Mr.

Fredrick? A Q I did. Prior to Villagess applications being filed, did you

have any personal relationship with any member of the Commission? A Well, I knew a number of Commission members through

the political circles, but I had the closest relationship with Mrs. Longhi and her husband, David Longhi. Q A And what was the nature of that relationship? We were friends, social friends. We got together, as

43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 she testified, for drinks. Eves together. We went to we had New Years They came

We went out to dinner together.

to our house for dinner.

We went to their house for dinner.

We saw them on a very social part of the social network that we were part of, they were part of that network as well. Q And as part of that friendship did you ever have

occasions where you spent time, you and your wife spent time with Mrs. Longhi and her husband, the four of you? A Sure. I can recall two occurrences, specifically.

Once we went to Figaros Restaurant, the four of us, for dinner. And one time they took us to their country club, the Springfield Country Club for dinner where we had a very nice dinner outside looking at the sunset. Q A Q And you mentioned you spent New Years Eves together? At least on two occasions, thats what I recall. And did you invite the Longhis to your familys home

for occasions? A Yes, graduations probably or birthdays for the kids

things of that nature; yes, they were invited Friday night dinners, Saturday night dinners. Q And did the Longhis also invite you and your wife to

their home for dinner? A Q A Q Yes. And for social occasions? Yes. And were you still friends, you and your wife still

44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 friends with the Longhis in 2009? A Q No, we were not. Okay. And prior to that had you served in any

political office in the Town of Enfield? A Yes, in 2001 I was elected to the Enfield Town

Council, and was selected by the Council to be the Deputy Mayor for two years. After that I was elected to the Town

Council two more terms, and I was selected by the Council to serve as the Mayor of Enfield. Q And so when the Villagess applications were pending

were you still spending time with the Longhis socially? A Q A Q A summer. No, we were not. And what had the friendship ended at that point? Yes, the friendship had ended. Okay. And when did it end?

My recollection is that it ended around 2007 in the There was an occasion that David and Lori Longhi, I

invited them to my home on a Friday night to have a couple of glasses of wine on the front porch, and at that point Lori accused me of using my influence before Commissions to get favoritism. And I was quite angry by that comment, and

we had a disagreement over it, at which time I asked them to leave my home. Subsequent to that confrontation my wife came out from inside the house and her husband kind of interceded as well and calmed the situation down, and we kind of went on with the evening, but that was if I could pinpoint the

45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 time it was right around there that the relationship deteriorated quickly because I felt she was questioning my integrity as an individual. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: She accused you of what? She accused me of using my

influence in town to influence Boards and Commissions. THE COURT: One second, Counsel. Sure.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q

Go ahead.

And these accusations were made while you were Mayor

of Enfield? A Q A Yes, I was still Mayor at the time. And what was your reaction? I was angry. I was taken by surprise by it at first,

but I was angry being questioned like that and being accused like that. Q else? A At that time, no, it was basically that that she And around that time did she accuse you of anything

accused me of. THE COURT: dissented? THE WITNESS: Yes, she was very accusatory and Excuse me, was she angry when she

angry towards me and I was angry back, so there was a confrontation.

46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q And after that confrontation did you have an

additional conversation with her where she made accusations? A We had one more conversation in our relationship and The

that was a couple it was during the week, I recall.

conversation I just described took place on a Friday night. Subsequent to that it might have been a Monday or Tuesday I was driving home and I saw Lori in her driveway, so I stopped with the intent of apologizing for the way I reacted but to have that conversation with her. Q Okay. And did she accuse you of anything during that

conversation? A During that conversation she told me that she was

told by somebody that I was the individual that had went to the town and got them to look into their Inland Wetland issues that I was the person that filed the complaint, in essence. Q A And what was your reaction to that accusation? I told her that I would go with her at that moment or

we could call the person that made that accusation so that I could defend the fact that I had not done that. Q A Q A Q A So you hadnt, in fact, complained to the town? No I hadnt. About some issue with her property? No, I had never done that. But she accused you of having complained to the town? She claimed that someone had told her that I had done

47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 that. Q A Q A Q A Was she joking? No, she was not joking. How do you know she wasnt joking? By the tone of her voice. How did she sound, the tone? She sounded very stern and very accusatory like I had

betrayed her in some way. Q And subsequent to this last conversation did you have

dinner with her, did you and your wife have dinner with her or her husband? A Q A After that? Yeah, the four of you? That was pretty much the end of the relationship, at

that point. Q And did you continue to socialize together as a

couples, just the four of you? A Q A Q A Q No, we didnt. And did you invite her to your home? No. And were you invited to the Longhis home? No, we were not. So the relationship ended prior to Villages filing

the applications in 2009? A Q Correct. And when you filed those applications on Villages

behalf, were you aware that Lori Longhi was sitting on the

48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Commission? A Q Yes, I was. Okay. And were you concerned that this former friend

of yours was a decision maker on a Board where you had an application? A Q A Yes, I was. Did you do anything about your concerns? After the first meeting, because I had really held

out hope that I would get fair treatment, but after the first meeting, as I watched the way that she reacted to the application, I did. I went to the Town Manager and voiced

my concerns over whether I would get a fair trial not trial, but a fair judgment from the Commission and, specifically, Commissioner Longhi, who I felt probably should recuse herself from the proceedings. Q A Q And who was the Town Manager? Matthew Coppler. Okay. And did you visit him in person to voice your

concerns or did you call him? A Q A I visited him in person. And what was his response to you? He actually had heard about it, and he felt that

because its televised in Enfield, the proceedings are televised on public access, people had commented to him on the proceedings and his sense was he led me to believe his sense was the same. And he said that he would have conversations with

49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 people, would intervene to make sure that we would get fair treatment. Q So what was your understanding after that

conversation? A I believed that he would go to either the Chairman or

that he would go to Ray Warren, who was at that time I think he was overseeing those Boards and Commissions, those parts of town as an Economic Development Specialist. Q And did you believe that the Town Manager would take

appropriate action to make sure you would get a fair hearing? A I did. I trusted Matt. I had worked with him for a

number of years and I felt he was a decent, fair, honest man and I believed that I left it in good hands when I walked away from him. Q And just to clarify, were you still Mayor of the town

while these applications were pending? A No, I was not. I retired at the bequest of my

children. Q A What year was that that you retired? I left in November of 2007s election. Yeah, thats

the date. Q A Q A Q Did Tony are you familiar with Mr. DiPace? I am. And hes here today? Yes, he is. And prior to these public hearings on the Villagess

50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 application, did Mr. DiPace inform you that Lori Longhi had made disparaging remarks about you in the Town Hall parking lot? A Q A Q Not prior to the meeting. Not prior to the first public hearing? Correct. So you hadnt heard, during the first public hearing,

that Lori had made a specific statement about her treatment at the hands of the town? A Not that specific type of statement. Tony may have

approached me.

Other people may have approached me, no

matter how big Enfield is its still a small town, and you hear things and I knew that Lori wasnt pleased with me because she felt that I wasnt trying to go far enough to try to help her in her plight with the town. But, the first time that Tony DiPace came to me was after the proceedings had started. It may have been,

actually, after the decision was rendered. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Nothing further.

Cross-exam?

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. TALLARITA BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q So when Mr. DiPace testified that he told you shortly

after, that he allegedly overheard this conversation, was he telling the truth? A Q I believe Tony. He has never lied to me before.

And you just cant recall whether or not you had that

conversation with him?

51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 A No, I know I had that conversation with Tony. I just

firmly believe, to the best of my judgment, that it happened after the decision was made that he shared that information with me, the specifics of her conversation with him. Q So when he says it was a couple weeks after in

2006/2007 youre saying it wasnt until October of 2009? A Well, what Tony said is he pointed out to me that But I dont believe that he mentioned to me

Lori was upset.

that she was specifically upset with me. THE COURT: Excuse me. How about after the

application was denied? THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: Yes. Then he told you in detail? He did tell me in detail. And I

had that conversation with him on a couple of occasions, because I was concerned that Tony was Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and whether he wanted to come forward with that information or not. BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q But you dont recall having that conversation at all

with him as he indicated several weeks after this allegedly occurred back in 2006/2007? ATTY. BISHOP: answered, I believe. ATTY. DENEEN: I want to explore, your Honor. Objection. Its asked and

Weve got two witnesses telling contradicting

52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 matters. THE COURT: Well, hold on a second. Im going I

to make a note and then you can ask your question. know I can get a transcript, but Im trying to keep up with it here. Okay. question? ATTY. DENEEN: BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Sure. Go ahead. You want to repeat that

You were present in the courtroom well, Ill try to

rephrase it, again, when Mr. DiPace was testifying earlier today? A Q I was. And did you hear him indicate that hes told you

about his conversations with Lori Longhi several weeks after they occurred? A What I heard him say would very well be true, is that

he said that he shared with me that Lori was upset about what was going on in town with regards to her and the Inland Wetlands Commission. And that was common knowledge to me

that wouldnt have been something that would have struck me as being out of the ordinary because a number of people had come to me, including other Councilors at the time, expressing Loris displeasure that the Town of Enfield was not doing what she felt it should be doing for her and that I was not interceding on her behalf. Q So youre aware of all of this at the time that you

53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 made your application for the Villages or the Villagess made its application of Loris alleged antipathy toward you prior to that? A Not the comment that she wanted something similar to I didnt know that was

what happened to her happen to me. made until after the application. THE COURT: THE WITNESS:

When was that made? That was told to me after the

application was denied by Mr. DiPace. BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q And, obviously, the conversations that you testified

earlier to, with regard to Ms. Longhi, all of that occurred prior to Villages making its application with regard to you being on the porch? A All of that occurred prior to me making the

application. Q And you were aware of that at the time you,

obviously, were aware of that at the time the application was made? A Q Yes, I was. And, at any time, did you or any representative

before the town Planning and Zoning Commission in Enfield object to Ms. Longhis participation in this case? A In public forum, no, because I felt it was

inappropriate to do that. Q So, neither you nor your Villagess Counsel or anyone

raised the issue with the Planning and Zoning Commission or

54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 with Ms. Longhi at the time the application was made? A No, I did not. I made it to the Town Manager in

person because it was a televised proceeding and I didnt feel it appropriate to do that. the rest of the Commission. I didnt want to alienate

And I also understood, because

of my involvement with the Town of Enfield, that there was nothing we could do to force her to recuse herself. would the action have benefited? Q issue. A Sir, we used our best judgment with hopes that I Well, it certainly would have setup an appealable So what

would get a fair judgment, and thats all I ever asked for. Q A Q When you say you, you mean Villages I assume? Correct. So you chose not to raise that issue in the public

forum at the Planning and Zoning Commission? A Q Yes, we did. Okay. THE COURT: Who was the Chairman of the Planning

and Zoning Commission at that time? THE WITNESS: Charlie Durhan. His name is

Charles Durhan, a good, fair man. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: When was Mr. DiPace Chairman? Prior to Charlie Durhan. Mr.

DiPace was off a year before that, I think, maybe two. THE COURT: Before your application?

55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 THE WITNESS: Before my application, yes. Mr.

Durhan, got sick though during our application and halfway through the proceedings no longer attended any of our hearings. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q And with regard to your service on the Town Council So who took over? Vice-Chair, Liz Ballard.

as Deputy Mayor and as Mayor of Enfield, were you involved in nominating and casting votes for members of the Planning and Zoning Commission? A While I was on the Commission, yes, I was or while That was one of the

I was on the Council, yes, I was. duties. Q

And were a number of the current the Commission

members existing at the time the Villages made the application, individuals that you had either voted for nominated during your term? A I probably never nominated anyone because it wasnt

tradition for the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor to nominate. But I most definitely voted on some members that were there. Q And you had input into who the selection of those

folks were going to be? A Typically, unanimous votes. So I would say, yes, I

was a vote. Q A

But I was one of them, one of eleven votes.

So one vote wouldnt make a difference? One vote would not make a difference.

56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ladd. ATTY. BISHOP: Your Honor, I have an objection. THE COURT: yours. ATTY. DENEEN: Thank you. Your Honor, I would ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Nothing further.

Any re-direct? Nothing further, your Honor. Do you have another

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: witness? ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT:

Thank you, sir.

I do not, your Honor.

Excuse me? I do not.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT:

Okay. Can we just take a short recess

ATTY. DENEEN:

before we put our Plaintiff is resting at this point. THE COURT: Are you resting? Yes, your Honor. Normally we take a recess at

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT:

Okay.

11:30, but we started ten-minutes late so lets take a 15-minute recess now. ATTY. DENEEN: Thank you, your Honor.

(brief recess) Okay. Attorney Deneen, the floor is

recall Ms. Lori Longhi to the stand, please? Oh, Im sorry, Id like to call Mr. Charles

I wasnt aware that Mr. Ladd was going to testify

57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 today on behalf of the Defense. The Plaintiffs had filed motions to supplement the record in the case with the testimony of all of the witnesses, and it also disclosed to the Court and to the other side the substance of the testimony and the reason why they were being called. Its my understanding in administrative appeals the Court is confined to the record, unless the party asks for specific permission to allow certain testimony. So, I object to it coming in. I had no idea

that Mr. Ladd would be here today to testify, nor what he is going to testify about. THE COURT: Well, they did supplement the record

to get permission to add certain witnesses and you have not, I gather? ATTY. DENEEN: Well, your Honor, they did

actually, in fact, move to have Mr. Ladd added, deposed and for that was one of their motions that was granted in this case. THE COURT: You did? No, Counsel did and they were

ATTY. DENEEN: added in there.

Part of this, when we go beyond the

record, Ive got to put my case on in rebuttal to what was testified to. THE COURT: Well, I understand that. And Im fairly shocked because,

ATTY. DENEEN:

58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 in fact, Counsel took Mr. Ladds deposition in preparation for this case with permission of the Court. ATTY. BISHOP: I filed for permission, your I filed motions for

Honor, to depose Mr. Ladd.

permission to present testimony before the Court solely of Mr. DiPace, Mr. Tallarita and Mr. Bryon Meade. I did not ask the Court for permission to have Mr. Ladd testify after I had taken his deposition, the point being he had nothing to offer. ATTY. DENEEN: And after hearing testimony

before, your Honor, I have a right to put on my rebuttal witnesses not knowing what that testimony is going to be. There is information Mr. Coppler, the

Town Manager, is on his way down here now that weve heard from the witness indicating that he had alleged conversations with Mr. Coppler. those are until we get to hear. If the Court has opened up the record beyond the record to allow evidence in there I have the right, the due process right to put on my rebuttal witness. ATTY. BISHOP: He had the right to take Mr. I dont know what

Tallaritas deposition prior to today and he did not. ATTY. DENEEN: What does that have to do with

ATTY. BISHOP: -- and in this case the scope of the evidence is seriously limited by the Practice

59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Book, and its incumbent upon Counsel to ask for permission for every witness to conduct discovery and to ask for permission concerning each witness and what they are going to testify about and why they should be allowed to testify about it. Im not prepared for Mr. Copplers testimony today. I didnt know that Mr. that Attorney Dennen

was going to call Mr. Ladd. ATTY. DENEEN: ATTY. BISHOP: Your Honor, if I could just I mean Ive disclosed our I

mean in having to do this Ive disclosed I had to, basically, months in advance disclose the basis of our entire case to opposing Counsel in order to get permission from the Court to put it on. ATTY. DENEEN: Which never included

ATTY. BISHOP: -- and now hes doing it last minute. ATTY. DENEEN: to Mr. Coppler. THE COURT: Which what? Which did not include any It never included any reference

ATTY. DENEEN:

reference to Mr. Coppler. ATTY. BISHOP: He had the opportunity to depose If he had taken his

Mr. Tallarita and he did not.

deposition and heard that testimony and then wanted to rebut it with Mr. Copplers testimony, that would have been a timely thing to do. But to do it today

60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 is just not appropriate. ATTY. DENEEN: Its inappropriate your Honor, I have

the Plaintiff has put their case on in chief. the due process right to respond to that. the testimony and Im prepared to put on my witnesses. THE COURT: Okay. Yes. Are you through?

Ive heard

ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT:

This has already turned out to be an

unusual case because Ill to be honest with you, because of the statements by Ms. Longhi and the statements about her and what she said and the business with the Hazardville Water Company, among other things. If I decide, and Im certainly not prepared to say that now, to overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission, do you want another grounds of appeal, number one. Number two, and Im not saying Im going to do that, I havent because I have some serious questions and I will quote some of the law to you, which I think is in the briefs anyway. On Ms. Longhi or Mrs. Longhi if, in fact, I believe that she was biased, and Im not saying I do believe that at this point. And if, in fact, I

believe that I dont want to say the fruit of the poisoness tree, but that you poisoned the well, if

61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 you will. Attorney Deneen has raised some very appropriate questions, which is why wasnt that brought out at the public hearing. And I know the reasons, I

understand the reasons why they didnt want to do it. They didnt want to tick-off the rest of the members of the Commission when they still thought that they had a chance to win this thing. And, after all, she

was only one vote and would she be accepted as to her view points and so forth. I understand all of that.

But the law, as I read it, and this is something you could all brief afterwards, is that the Commission doesnt have a chance to respond until after the decision had been made. They dont have a

chance to respond at the public hearing because it wasnt brought up, and that is a difficult point for the Plaintiff here. overcome it. So, also, there is rebuttal whether Attorney Deneen had the opportunity to depose Mr. Tallarita, I probably should call him Mayor Tallarita, they all seemed to be mayor at one time or another; that he didnt take advantage of that. requirement that he do so. Theres no Im not saying you cant

And so the rebuttal seems

to me to be allowed on the basis that when things come out that maybe havent been said before it seems to me Defense Counsel has a right to rebut that

62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 evidence just as you would in a regular trial you have the Plaintiff going first, you have the Defendant going second and then the Plaintiff rebuts what he has heard from the Defendant. Now, Attorney Bishop, if you are concerned that you are not prepared you can put on these witnesses, go into the argument and you can have a day until tomorrow to come to cross-examine them, if thats what you want to do. they have to say. Before you do that, let me put it this way to you, I will allow you to cross-examine and let you cross-examine more tomorrow in order to take away any prejudice you may have by not having an opportunity to prepare the examination. I know youve got something in the morning and youve got something in the afternoon or vice versa. But, this has to be done tomorrow if you want to do that. And Im going to allow that and you will have Youre on trial and that takes I think you ought to hear what

to fit it in.

precedence, unless, youre going to a funeral or going in for a bypass or whatever, this takes precedence. So, Im going to allow him to put on his witnesses. You can take your notes. You can object, But if you

obviously, you can cross-examine them.

decide at the end of the day that you want to cross-

63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 * examine them further after youve reviewed their testimony and want to prepare for it Im going to allow you to do that so theres no prejudice to you. And if you want to do a deposition of them you can do the deposition right after court today, Ill allow that. But, Attorney Deneen you can put on your rebuttal or your defense as it may be. ATTY. DENEEN: please? (witness sworn in) THE CLERK: Can you state your name, for the Thank you, your Honor. Mr. Ladd,

record, spelling your last name, please? THE WITNESS: THE CLERK: Charles W. Ladd, L a d d. And would you state your address,

for the record, please, sir? THE WITNESS: THE CLERK: THE WITNESS: Connecticut. THE CLERK: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: zoning appeal. Thank you. You may be seated. My address? Yes. 30 School Street, Enfield,

Welcome to Hartford, Mr. Ladd. Thank you. Interesting day.

As I said, this is not the usual Go ahead, Counsel. Thank you, your Honor. * * *

ATTY. DENEEN: *

64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 C H A R L E S W. L A D D, having been sworn, was examined,

and testified under oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Mr. Ladd, do you currently serve on the Enfield

Planning and Zoning Commission? A Q I do. And did you participate in the public hearings and

deliberation and vote on the pending matters before this Court with regard to Villages, LLC? A Q Yes. Okay. Were you here earlier today when Mr. DiPace

testified? A Q I was. And do you recall hearing Mr. DiPace describe a

conversation that allegedly occurred amongst that you were included at with regard to Ms. Longhi? A Q Yes, I heard the testimony. And do you recall he testified that he thought that

occurred in 2006 or 2007? A Q Thats what he testified. Do you recall that he testified that you were present

during that conversation? A Q Yes, I do recall that he testified to that. Do you have any recollection of any such

conversation? A Q Not at all. Is that the type of conversation that would have

65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 stuck out in your mind? ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: question? ATTY. DENEEN: Is that the kind of conversation Objection; speculative.

Excuse me, I didnt hear the

that would stick out in your mind? ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: sustain that. recollection. BY ATTY. DENEEN: A As I put in a deposition to this young lady that I Objection, its speculative. Im going to

That is speculative.

He says he doesnt have any

have absolutely no memory of that ATTY. BISHOP: pending, your Honor. THE COURT: That may be stricken. No, offense Objection. There is no question

but youre not answering a question at that point. THE WITNESS: ATTY. DENEEN: obviously. ATTY. BISHOP: ATTY. DENEEN: says he was not -ATTY. BISHOP: Nothing further. I almost feel I Nothing further? But the questions he was asked he Oh, Im sorry. I have nothing further,

should apologize for the vigorous objections. ATTY. DENEEN: going to go, but. I thought thats where it was

66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 * * * * * oath. THE COURT: what he said? ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Yes. Youre still under oath; is that THE COURT: excused. You may step down, sir, youre

Next witness? The Defendant recalls Mrs. Lori

ATTY. DENEEN: Longhi? THE COURT:

Youve had an opportunity to prepare

for her questioning; right? ATTY. BISHOP: I have, your Honor, and I have no

objection to her as a rebuttal. ATTY. DENEEN: Mrs. Longhi, youre still under

Okay.

67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 L O R I L O N G H I, having been previously sworn, was

examined, and testified under oath as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Ms. Longhi, lets start by discussing Harzardville

Water; you were present when Mr. Meade testified? A Q Yes. Okay. Did you have any conversations with Mr. Meade

regarding the Villagess applications that are the subject of this appeal, outside of the public hearings that were conducted before the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission? A Q No. You were here when he testified that you came to his

office at Hazardville Water Company? A Q A Q Yes. Is that true? No. How many times have you been inside the Hazardville

Water Company building? A Q A Once in my life. When was that? It was in 2007, and it was regarding another

subdivision. Q A subdivision that you were involved with or that was

coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission? A Q A That I was involved in. As a potential buyer? Yes.

68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Q A Q A Q And where was that conversation held? In his conference room. In 2007? Yes. And what was that conversation, you indicated it was

a subdivision; what subdivision was that? A It was subdivision on Post Office Road owned by John

McCricky(fin) and I was the potential buyer of the property. And the property was between Connecticut Water and Hazardville Water and so we had to conduct a meeting to find out whose water was in control, how much water pressure they had and how much you know, how much it would cost us per foot to do it. Q It was a meeting regarding that.

Other than that one time have you ever met face-to-

face with Mr. Meade? A Q No. Have you had other occasions in which to go to

Hazardville Water Company? A Q Yes. And what happened on those occasions or on that

occasion? A Q A Well, in it was October of this past year. 2011? Of 2011. I had purchased a property that was in the

Hazardville Water Company district, and I needed to drop off a check. And I asked my son to go into the building for me

because I knew I had only been in there once in my life and

69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I could safely say thats the only time I ever was inside that building. receipt. Q So, he dropped the check off and gave me the

I was in the car.

Now, do you recall in your deposition testimony, you

indicated that you had never heard of or met Mr. Meade? A Q A Q Yes. And were you mistaken in that? Yes. And how did you come to understand that you had met

him this one time? A Well, because I didnt know who was in the meeting

and I made a phone call to find out who was the water personnel person that attended that meeting. Q A Q A Q And who did you call? I called my father. And was he present at that meeting, also? He was present at that meeting. So its your testimony, under oath, that other than

that one meeting with regard to a different subdivision you had not had any face-to-face conversations with Mr. Meade? A Q That is correct. Did you withdrawn. With regard to your

relationship with Mr. Tallarita, do you have any ill feelings directly personal toward Mr. Tallarita at this time? A Q No. Did you have any ill feelings or bias against Mr.

70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Tallarita at the time that he made this application or the Villages made this application? A Q No. No.

Regardless of your feelings pro, con or indifferent

to the principals or their families of Villages, LLC; were you able to set aside whatever those feelings pro, con or indifferent and hear this application on its merits? A Q Yes. Could you set those aside and make your decision

solely on the basis of the evidence produced at the public hearing? A Yes. ATTY. BISHOP: Objection. He is asking her to

give an opinion about the ultimate issue in the case. THE COURT: Excuse me? Hes asking the witness to give

ATTY. BISHOP:

an opinion about the ultimate issue in the case. THE COURT: Very leading. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: That is leading. Well, first of all, its leading.

The objection is sustained. On the basis of leading, your

ATTY. DENEEN: Honor? THE COURT:

Well, on the basis of leading and I

mean she is obviously testifying that whatever if she had any antipathy towards Mr. Tallarita or the other parties that didnt enter into her decision.

71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Attorney Deneen, I would be shocked if she said it did. ATTY. DENEEN: Well, your Honor, thats one of

the legal standards of whether or not a Commission member I mean its an absolute legitimate question in Planning and Zoning Commission because there is plenty of case law that says thats exactly what this is, if there is an allegation of bias the question is, to any member, can they set that aside and hear the case on its merits. appropriate question. BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q All right. In your service on the Planning and And its certainly an

Zoning Commission, with this case and with all other cases; do you tend to ask a lot of questions? A Yes. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Objection.

On what basis? Vague. Hes asking about every

ATTY. BISHOP: meeting? THE COURT:

If youre objecting on the basis of The question is; is it

relevancy, its relevant. leading?

Yes, it is leading.

So, if youre objecting on the basis of leading Ill sustain it. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: I am, your Honor.

But thats the only basis.

72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ATTY. DENEEN: BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q How do you whats your demeanor as a Commissioner All right.

in terms of interacting with applicants? A I read everything thats in front of me and I usually

ask questions, if I have any questions on the application. Q And how do you approach I want to do this without a

leading question so I dont -THE COURT: BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q Whether or not you allow any prior knowledge of the Whether or not.

relationships with the applicants to influence your decision making? ATTY. BISHOP: Objection. I mean whats the

relevance of that; generally, I mean? THE COURT: question. does. Yeah, its general. Its a proper

Of course, shes not going to say, yes, it

Shes going to say, no, it doesnt influence

my decision. BY ATTY. DENEEN: A Actually, I was going to say I didnt quite

understand the question. THE COURT: again. ATTY. DENEEN: BY ATTY. DENEEN: Q You were here when Mr. Tallarita indicated or Let me withdraw that. Well, go ahead, ask the question

73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 testified under oath that he was concerned following the first hearing that he wasnt getting, quote, a fair shake from you. A Q Yes. All right. Did you behave any differently in that Do you recall that?

application than you would in any other? A Q No. All right. And what is your style, would you say,

would you describe your style in terms of sitting as a Commissioner for Judge Rittenband? A Okay. I review everything. At every single meeting

Ill ask the questions.

If they answer it or come back in

with a result, in my mind, I check it off the list and go to the next meeting and start over again. So, if I ask a question of something and it gets resolved it goes away and then the rest of the hearing goes on. And I dont know how the other applicants the other

Commission members operate, but thats typically how I handle things. Q And if the applicant responds in a way that resolves

those concerns do you have any further concerns about that item? A Q No, its gone. And in this case, if the applications if the

applicant had met those concerns would you have voted ATTY. BISHOP: ATTY. DENEEN: Objection. Ill withdraw and rephrase.

74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 THE COURT: In other words, if the applicant had

met all of the requirements would she have voted in favor? ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Correct. No kidding.

Really.

ATTY. DENEEN:

Well, your Honor, depending on

where we end up with this case its always good to put it on the record. THE COURT: BY ATTY. DENEEN: A Q A Q Is that the question? Yes, sure. Absolutely. And your concerns withdrawn. ATTY. DENEEN: Honor. THE COURT: Cross-exam? Thank you, your Honor. I have nothing further, your Fine.

ATTY. BISHOP:

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MS. LONGHI BY ATTY. BISHOP: Q Ms. Longhi, you just testified that you met in 2007

with Mr. Bryon Meade at the Hazardville Water Company? A Q room? A Yes. I didnt recall exactly the details until I Yes. And you recall details that you were in a conference

made the I had to call my father to find out. Q The question is: Just now you recalled some detail,

75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 you were in a conference room? A Q A Q Um-hum. You recalled what the meeting was about? Oh, I knew what the meeting was about. Okay. And that meeting was about a different

subdivision in town? A Q A Q Road? A Q from? A Q Yes. And you recall what you discussed with Mr. Meade at It was on Post Office Road. On Post Office Road. And who you were buying it Yes. And you were a potential buyer for that subdivision? Yes. And you recall that that property was off Post Office

the hearing meeting? A Q Um-hum. Right. And, yet during your deposition at my office

do you recall me asking you if you knew Mr. Meade? A Q A Q Yes. And you said you didnt? Right. And I asked, "as read": Does it ring a bell if I

say hes associated with the Hazardville Water Company? And you said, No? A Right.

76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 down. ATTY. DENEEN: Your Honor, during the break I He is on his Q And given that today, you recall all of this detail

but at the deposition that was taken you did not; isnt it possible that today you simply dont recall speaking with Mr. Meade about the Villagess application? A Q A No. Not possible? Not possible. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: I have nothing further.

Re-direct? No, sir. You can step

ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT:

Thank you, maam.

had contacted Mr. Coppler to come down. way, but has not arrived yet. THE COURT:

Well, heres where we are; is that

the only other witness? ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Yes. Its twenty after 12:00. I

Okay.

dont think we are going to finish this by 1:00, not if youre going to put him on. So, what I would like to do is get into my questions and see what the answers are going to be. And then when he shows up, lets try to finish the questions, and if he shows up I mean when he shows up, depending upon where I am in the questions, then well put him on.

77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 time. THE COURT: Okay. It says, "as read": In the The first question is for Attorney Bishop. you would take out your brief, page-26. Your If

conclusion and let me read it to you, "as read": When on a zoning appeal it appears that as a matter of law there was but a single conclusion, which the Zoning Authority could reasonably reach. The Court

may direct the administrative agency to do or to refrain from doing what the conclusion legally requires. That part is fine.

But then you go on, you probably should have stopped there, but you go on and as a matter of fact that case is Bishop verses Board of Zoning Appeals. Thats not you is it? ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: No, its not, your Honor. Thats fine.

Okay.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT:

Its a 1947 case.

Pardon me? Its a 1947 case. Its before my

ATTY. BISHOP:

absence of such circumstances, however, the Court upon concluding that the action taken by the administrative agency was illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of its discretion should go no further than to sustain the appeal taken from its action. For the

Court to go further and direct what action should be taken by the Zoning Authority would be an

78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 impermissible judicial dissertation of the administrative functions of the Authority, and citing various cases. So youre now saying there was only one conclusion that could have been drawn as a matter of law in the present case. And because of that you

want me to order the Commission to approve the application based upon; Watson v. Howard, Executive Television Corp verses Zoning Board of Appeals? ATTY. BISHOP: There are really your Honor, I

there are really two ways to look at the case.

think when your Honor considers the evidence of bias that weve put on and predetermination and the activity of a sitting Commission member going outside the public hearing to gather evidence on a topic that was actually quite pertinent to the Commissions decision in the case. They discussed the fire flows

to the project for four-pages of transcript in the record, four-pages of discussion just about that one sub-issue. The fact that she had contacted someone outside the public hearing to gather extra information on that, didnt share it with the applicants and they didnt get a chance to respond to whatever information was exchanged that makes it grossly unfair. So I think that at a minimum, your Honor, if you

79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 reach that issue and find it in our favor at a minimum, at that point, at a minimum, our appeal should be sustained and the matter should be remanded to the Commission with an order stating that Commissioner Longhi should not sit on the Commission. THE COURT: Okay. I understand that. Thats

ATTY. BISHOP:

So thats the minimum.

the minimum and that would be one way for the Court to handle the case, and I acknowledge that. And, you

know, lets face it, frankly circumstances in which theres only one conclusion the Commission could have reached are pretty rare. I will press further, your Honor, I will press further beyond that. That is one way of handling

this case that I can understand intellectually and as a vigorous advocate of Villages. But beyond that, in this case, when your Honor examines the record you will see that this is a very unusual case in that there are multiple concerns of the Commission that are not appropriate that are stated on the record, coupled with the fact that the town staff who was involved in giving opinions and doing analytical work on these matters, the Town Engineer, the Town Planner the Fire Marshal the Police; they all submitted evidence to the Commission that was in favor of the application. That creates a very strange circumstance where

80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 weve got not only and I dont think you can separate these issues out. I mean youve got the

bias, and youve got the bad result and then in the middle youve got all of this pretty good evidence in favor of the application, and its from the towns people, its not just from our people. Its not like

there was a conflicting expert opinion about safety or a conflicting expert opinion about the adequacy of anything. If you read the records youll see that many all of the towns own people, their experts that they rely on regularly for years, the Town Planner has been there for years, that they were all in favor of this, and that any concerns that they may have had during administrative review process had been met by the applicant prior to submitting the application. So, I do think that this may be one of those rare cases where the bias coupled with that evidence equals really only one fair way for this to have come out. lot. And to get there, your Honor, I mean, its a I mean in my brief youll notice I have a long

list of the reasons why the Commission discussed the denial. I tried to present all of the reasons to kind of distill it down into certain basic points and to show the Court how we had addressed those points to show the Court how town staff was satisfied on those

81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 two. points with references to the record not just because I say so. So my position is, number one, at a minimum my clients deserve a fair hearing on these applications, which they did not get. The fact that Commissioner

Longhi was close friends with the Tallaritas, her and her husband were close friends with them, that alone is rather uncomfortable. they were friends, okay. friendship ended. And she does admit that And she does admit that the

You know that alone I think raises

a serious question as to whether or not she should be sitting on the application. THE COURT: I didnt hear that she admitted the

friendship ended, that was Mr. Tallarita. ATTY. BISHOP: Well, she admitted that they no

longer engaged in those type of activities that they did when they were friends. THE COURT: On the stand? Yes.

ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT:

Not in the deposition; are you sure

youre not confusing the two? ATTY. BISHOP: Im sure Im not confusing the

On this day of my recollection, is she did

admit that they no longer go out to dinner, they no longer have drinks together. They certainly didnt You

invite each other over to one anothers houses.

know, even while the application was pending and for

82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 law. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Yes. sometime before that. So I think when your Honor looks at the evidence, if you look at it as a whole, you know you get to a point where it really starts to make sense. You know, why is Commissioner Longhi questioning the accuracy of the maps that were certified by engineers, that were reviewed by the Towns Engineer that none of the experts had a problem with. taking the maps home. She is

She is trying to calculate

distances or area by hand and then questioning the applicant as to the accuracy of the maps, and there is no factual basis for her to have concluded at the end of the hearing that that was a problem here. mean there is just simply no basis. THE COURT: brief? ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Yes, your Honor? All right. In your post trial I

I would like you to give me some

Now, wait a minute, as to assuming

I believe that she met with Mr. Meade about the ATTY. BISHOP: Honor. THE COURT: out what I want. Okay. Okay. Well, I just want to point That was my intention, your

And you can do the same, obviously.

Now, along the same line

83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ATTY. DENEEN: Your Honor, could I have a moment

just to respond to that last THE COURT: want to respond? ATTY. DENEEN: Just briefly. The argument Well, these are questions. If you

Counsel is making turns 80-years of Planning and Zoning jurisprudence on its head. Its not a question of whether or not there are pieces of evidence to support the applicants position. The law is absolutely clear and has been Is

forever that the question before the Court is: there evidence on the record to support the Commissions decision.

You cant cherry-pick out Its the total

little bits and pieces on that. opposite of all that on that, so. THE COURT: Okay.

Along the same lines, what I

would also like you to do is to outline for me anything, and Counsel for the Defense can do the same thing, anything that supports the comments of the Commissioners. In other words, assuming they have

ignored the experts, and Im going to read you some law on this. This is from Feinson verses Conservation Commissioner, 180 Conn. 421(1980). "as read": To be capable of meaningful review on appeal the Commissions determination must be based on actual knowledge and factual evidence, not solely on

84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 personal beliefs or aesthetic preferences. And then going down to United Jewish Center verses Brookfield, 78 Conn. App. 49(2003). "as read": Moreover, if the Commission members intend to disregard expert testimony such as, and Im interjecting here, such as the town staff, because of some special knowledge they had regarding a particular topic, they should have stated the basis of their opinion on the record to allow the Plaintiff and opportunity to rebut that evidence. So, what I want the Plaintiff to do is to show me why its proving a negative, I grant you, but you can make your claim that they did not, at any time, show any special knowledge. And finally, on Loring v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 287 Conn. 746(2008). "as read": For the

agency to disregard evidence from experts, and I consider the Town Planner and the police people experts, and the traffic people experts, There must be some evidence in the record which undermines either the experts credibility or their final conclusions. Now, you may have a problem regarding the traffic study because the claim is, as announced by one of the Commissioners, I dont remember which one, that there was no date on the traffic report. Well,

maybe you can find in the transcript where, verbally,

85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 he gave the date even though it wasnt in the actual report. And the claim was there was no rating, A, B, So maybe he said that. Maybe

C or D in the report.

theres a back and forth between a Commissioner and he said, well, its the year 2009 or he didnt say. Thats their criticism. But, again, "As read": When the agency chooses to rely upon special knowledge or expertise of some of its members it must bring the matter up at an appropriate stage of the proceedings. Generally, at/

or prior to the public hearing so that anyone adversely affected by that information has an opportunity to question and rebut it. Now, having said that I want to go back, again, to Moraski verses Connecticut Board of Examiners, and at the risk of getting some laughter this case is: Moraski verses Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, and that is 291, Conn. 242(2009). "As read": This Court declined to

review the Plaintiffs claim, you dont have to copy this, just look at the Im reading from the head notes now. "as read": This Court declined to review the Plaintiffs claim that their due process rights were impaired by bias on the part of the Boards individual members who, also, were Directors of funeral homes in the state. The Plaintiffs having

failed to raise the claim prior to or during the

86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 hearing before the Board, and having failed to make a record of the facts with respect to their claim of an alleged competitive interest. Well, I think when the Board or funeral home operators in the vicinity of that funeral home operated you can almost infer that its competitive. But thats what the case says. So, its my understanding from the testimony that I have heard that Mr. Fredrick and Mr. Tallarita did not, for a valid reason, I understand why; did not raise the bias or alleged bias of Mrs. Longhi. And how can you do that based upon the Maraski case. I mean youve got to get over that before I find bias and Id also, when youre talking about bias, you might want to dig out of the transcript what she said to influence the other Commissioners, which is only one vote. And even when they go into session to

deliberate on their decision that is public record, so you, I, we are all bound by that. Okay, for the Defendant the Plaintiff claims that the statement, "as read": Escarpments on the north-end created a significant risk. Inland Wetlands decision purview? Well, you dont have to answer it now but this is a question I would like answered. ATTY. DENEEN: Whether the Planning and Zoning Isnt that an

Commission in the context of an open space

87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 subdivision could take into account that there were scarpened soils on the property? THE COURT: In other words, if the Inland

Wetlands has already approved it, did they have the authority to go into it. Which also reminds me of a claim by the well, wait a minute. Oh, for the Plaintiff, and this is

critical from what I can see and Im citing, Shaiker v. Planning and Zoning of East Haddam, for whatever thats worth, 26 Conn. App. 17, page 26, a 1991 case. "as read": To wave the regulations in And

order to grant a waiver you must show hardship. thats like the Zoning Board of Appeals case where

you must show hardship and not economic hardship, but hardship on the basis of the size of the property or whatever, it cant be financial hardship. you know all of that. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: I know what you mean, your Honor. I guess

And thats Shaiker verses P&Z.

The Defense has raised the issue that the street is not a boulevard, but its rather a cul de sac. And they claim that you need two ways in and two ways out. Further, on an open space subdivision the Defendant claims that there must be a 40-foot of frontage for access, and presumably to the open space. And it precludes I cant read my own

88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 writing, the installation of a detention pond. Now, I know that in the Plaintiffs brief you said a detention pond is allowed and the Defendant says its not allowed. So, Id like you to address And Ive already

that, and the 40-foot frontage.

mentioned the traffic study, the year not disclosed and no letter value is given. And what might be helpful, if youre going to point to the record, make a copy of the portion of the transcript or a copy of the record, because as the Defendant files the record Id rather not have to go searching through the record, if you dont mind. ATTY. BISHOP: do an appendix. THE COURT: Im sorry? I can do like an appendix to the Thats fine, your Honor. I can

ATTY. BISHOP: brief. THE COURT:

Id actually like you to put it with And if

the page where youre making your argument.

you make an argument as to something and you say, well, you know, Commissioner Jones said thus and so, then give me a copy of the page where he or she said that. Okay, Loring, "as read": The trial Court did not improperly assert the Commissions function by ordering it to grant the Plaintiffs site plan application. This Court having concluded that there

89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 was only one conclusion that the Commission could have drawn as a matter of law in this case. And then maybe this is a little repetitious, but I am concerned about the business with the water company. And assuming, Im not saying she did, but

assuming she contacted Mr. Meade, I want some law that says you cant do that, you cant go outside with specific examples. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Okay?

Yes, your Honor. And the Defendant in the

All right.

Loring case, "as read":

Although, the Commission is

free to give Ss testimony, the weight and credence it merited, the Commission was not entitled to reject that testimony arbitrarily and there was no basis in the record to support the Commissions conclusion that the evidence presented by S was unworthy of belief, notwithstanding the Commissions claim that it questioned Ss representations based on its own personal knowledge of other businesses in the area, et cetera, et cetera. I think I have covered all of my questions at this point. But I am concerned, at least, mainly

with the failure to raise the bias before the Commission at the hearing. The requirement that to And

waive the regulations you must show hardship. instances where the Commission members rejected

expert testimony and relied on their own observations

90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 without any basis for it. Now, Ive had cases, when I was Town Attorney in South Windsor, where the Court felt that well, if the Commission members looked at the traffic intersection they could tell from their own observations whether there was too much traffic. Im not sure how that

came out on the appeal, but there are certain things that you can as a member of the Commission use your own knowledge without getting any expert opinion. But its got to have a basis. And Id like from the Plaintiff that there is no basis by the Commissioner, you listed the comments by Commissioner so-and-so, and obviously from the Defendant where there is a basis. Because my recollection in your brief, Attorney Deneen, you didnt answer each and every one the way she laid them out. So I would like you to do that.

But, again, the whole thing fails if, in fact, you cant show hardship. The bias issue may fail

based on Moraski verses Connecticut Board of Examiners, for failing to raise the bias before the Board. That seems to me that in addition to

everything else a principal issue, assuming I believe Mr. Meade and I dont believe Ms. Longhi, and I dont know what Im going to Im going to get a transcript and Im going to review the testimony; but assuming I believe that she did have the meeting,

91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 which she denies, what affect does that have on the whole application. You cant go out I mean we say this in automobile accident cases to the jury, dont go out to the intersection because the intersection may have changed, dont do your own investigation. And then

the juror, a good example, is sitting in the jury room and he takes out a Bible and starts quoting from the Bible, I think they overturn that. So, you are limited to the evidence that is produced, and you cant go out and make your own investigation on the simple basis just like if you fail to raise the bias before the Commission; how is the Plaintiff going to rebut what the Commissioner found in meeting with Mr. Meade, if she did it outside the hearing. So there is logic to all of these rules, but the question is what affect does it have. Is there a

case, Im talking about a Supreme or Appellate Court case saying, if a Commissioner goes outside of the record and the hearing and talks to an expert or someone like Mr. Meade does that invalidate the denial. I dont know that it does or not, but youre

going to tell me. Its now quarter to 1:00 and were still waiting for that witness? ATTY. DENEEN: Your Honor, I think I will pass

92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 on him and I will rest as is. THE COURT: Okay. If you want to make final

argument you can; if you want to do it at 2:00 you can? ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: briefs. (brief discussion between Counsel, off record) ATTY. BISHOP: We would agree, your Honor, to Could we have one moment, please? You can put it all in your

Sure.

simply submit the post trial briefs. THE COURT: I know what youre going to say. You are so well versed, I know

ATTY. DENEEN:

your Honor because weve had other cases, but I think we will just argue in the post trial. THE COURT: Okay. In the post trial briefs, Id

like you to cover, I know you asked for post trial briefs on the basis of the bias, but you can expand that. ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Im happy to meet your concern.

You can go into all of these

questions and you can ask Peggy here for if you dont have it all, you can ask her for a transcript at least for now of my remarks. Are you planning to get a transcript? ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: I am, your Honor.

Okay. And how many days would you like

ATTY. BISHOP:

93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 for the brief, your Honor, like maybe cross briefs is that how well do? THE COURT: Yeah, I would like briefs, if you

want more time that is fine, but I would like briefs in two weeks and reply briefs a week after. you want more time? ATTY. DENEEN: briefs and replies? THE COURT: Yeah, everything is simultaneous but How about simultaneous filing of But if

heres the problem, if you are going to base your briefs partly on transcripts then lets make it are you getting a transcript? ATTY. BISHOP: THE COURT: Yes, your Honor. Then lets make it two weeks

Okay.

from the time you get the transcript and a week after for reply all simultaneous. And one thing, to be very cautious about this, send the briefs to me directly, bench copies, because this also should go to the Clerks Office; but if it goes to the Clerks Office I may not get it for two weeks. No offense to the Clerks Office they are

inundated et cetera, et cetera. Well, if you are not going to bring in what is it the Town Manager? ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: Yes, sir.

Fine, were concluded then. Thank you.

ATTY. BISHOP:

94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ATTY. DENEEN: THE COURT: THE CLERK: Thank you.

Thank you. Court stands adjourned.

(matter concluded)