HomeMy WebLinkAboutVariance (925) •: "OWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR Application #
APPLICATION FOR Date
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Receipt#
IMPORTANT: This application must be submitted to the Planning Department by the second Friday of the
preceding month to insure being heard at the next meeting.
ALL ITEMS MUST BE ANSWERED AND ALL SUPPLEMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED. THE APPLICATION
WILL BE RETURNED IF INCOMPLETE.
1�T3�t::.:.;:.;:.;::...:.:;:.:;:.;:.;:.;.:::.:.;:.;:.;; ;:.; ::: .:: ......... :::.;;:..: .. .::.:.;:.;.: ..:;:.;
1. The application and supplements must be filed in duplicate, typed or printed in ink.
2. A Class D or better survey of the property in question must be submitted with the application showing streets, lot
lines,building lines, zone boundary lines, dimension, and buildings present or proposed and buildings on
adjacent properties and distance from subject property.
3. If a variance is being requested, a legal description and deed of the property must be submitted with the
application. This description can be obtained from mortgage records.
4. The sign from the Planning Department must be displayed on the property at least 10 days prior to the public
hearing in a location visible from all abutting streets.
• The applicant, or a representative must be present for the public hearing. The time, date and
place of the hearing will be advised by mail.
• Inquiries on this application may be directed to the Planning Department at the South Windsor
Town Hall.
t° , O tI A. `X . . :....:.::.::::::....... ;...... ............ :.::: .... ....::.;.;.::.:.:.:.:;.:.;.;::..:::.:.:. :::.;:.;:.;:.;::.:::.;:.;:.;:.:;:...: ...:.::.::.::.
............. .............. :::::::.::.:. .........
::::::::::::._.::::::::::::::::::.::€l"fix::::::::::::::::.::::.:::::::::::::::::;:.:.:::::::::::: .........:::::::::.::::::::. :.............
1. Applicant: Barry and Sharon Slater et al.
2. Mailing Address: c/o Attorney Kathryn Hale
54 Orchard Hill Drive, South Windsor, CT 06074
3. Telephone#: ( 860) 644-8080
4. Owner of record of property in question: Temple Beth Hillel
5. Location of property in question: 20 Baker Lane
Assessor's Map # 61 Parcel # 2 7 Zone A-2 0
6. Is applicant a corporation or co-partnership? (If Corporation, submit a list of officers. If co-partnership,
submit a list of owners). N/A
7. Please indicate if the applicant is owner, lessee, or prospective tenant: Abutter
y
....'.^.Tr,.,^lf.,:y,7.'.:ki}...•....0 S•{f•:+pww•e,. :+•rvw.r.�.�/�.w„et;.w�.}•t+,.;.;.+..• .wM .y..;.^; ..q...�..�.,.,.�..www-
.. IJ.h..J....J:..h.h..f! .:r.:.:J.•.1:••....J•t lhhl:J.••JNr r :�.�v t•�:hay. ::: ... :.•'{{v.v{:•;Cr....:iJ{.;...;:.:..}:.::r.::;.::.;::}.:::.•.;'nu;�•:::.}::.::.:.::.J•;!:•...::vv.�n.:....�:::::J.:.::::.:::.::..::.:.�..::.:.
.......... ... :. ....:. ...... .. .. .. '~I:'�.• I,J h.:f.. ..� S�}fevh{:.;:::v...:v.:.W.:::i'?�.f}.;:::.r...x..r,.:�.:tv;erv:.:h}vJ.::.vve{v.v..e.;:..:..
S. Check one of the following:
Revocation of
( Request/Variance to Section IQ,4�1oZ the Zoning Regulations to allow
Revocation of Variance cfranted May 3. 1990 for failure of conditio s.
( ) State hearing under Section of the General Statutes for
( ) An appeal from the Zoning Officer's decision involving
9. Are sign(s)involved? YES or NO If yes, submit complete sign information as outlined in sign
information requirements.
10. If application is for a variance to Section 3.12, are there any liquor outlets within the restricted area, (500
feet)? YES or NO If yes, submit a list of the liquor outlets, their locations and distances from the
property in question.
11. Is this property within 500 feet of another town line? No
12. If requesting a variance state clearly the unusual hardship or exceptional difficulty on.the prop that
prompts this application and indicate why other options are unacceptable. Use a separate sheet of paper
if necessary.
aloe- � e3^vr1xc� --- -- - - - - -- ---- -
•::h::is.�.::rr:� •t...ii
N: {. .•may'' {{;<•:::.i}:{:tJ'5::::t•i:::•}S}}••S}:•iS:{{:tiv:•S:{iti:.SS:h:v:.::.v.::.;}:':i:::{:ryivi'j':by+•.;w•{.::•::::;:•}:
.. ..... � h JF.��. � [,,.:+•R:, .....:..,.� ,r........................�.... ..........hh...•t .:J..... t:::1:::.5•:.5.;;•.}.::h..:�:5•J::t.::::v:::�.J v....... .:.1:::::5
Dated this 1 st day of //February Year 1999
.APPLICANT: �Y�-�Barry Slater et a by Ka Hale, Attorney
(Signature)
OWNER:
(Signature)
ACTION OF THE BOARD
Granted: Denied:
Application for Revocation of Variance granted on May 3,1990 to Temple Beth Hillel (Copy
attached as Exhibit A)
The applicants herein are:
1. Barry and Sharon Slater of 105 Cody Circle, South Windsor,(also known as Lot 29,Beldon Road
Subdivision as shown on Map 2283B on file in the South Windsor Town Clerks Office:Exhibit B)whose
property abuts land now owned by Temple Beth Hillel (Lot 30 Beldon Road Subdivision) and
2.Owners of other lots on Cody Circle, South Windsor.whose property interests and property values are
affected by the variance sought to be revoked(listed on Exhibit Q
The applicants also have status as Intervenors under Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-19 to protect
the natural resources on the property,specifically the treelines,wetlands and wildlife corridor located on
the Temple Beth Hillel property.
The applicants request that the Zoning Board of Appeals:
1.Revoke the variance(to Section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2)granted to Temple Beth Hillel on May 3, 1990 because
of the failure of the Temple and its legal agents to meet the expressed conditions of the variance,
specifically a"25 foot buffer on proposed Lot 29", and/or
2.Revoke the variance for violation of the express condition that the variance was subject to the approval
of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the site plan presented to ZBA on May 3, 1990 and/or
3. Revoke the 1990 variance for failure of the Temple and its legal agents and representatives to perform
the representations and promises expressly made by them to the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 3,
1990,specifically that:
a.The building would be 10,000 square feet
b. With 80 parking spaces
c.Parking would be"so that it could not be seen from the streets"
d. In a"park-like setting"
e.The existing treelines would be maintained and reinforced to the greatest possible extent
f. There would be a 25 foot buffer on Lot 29 with double row of pines
g.There would effectively be a 35 foot buffer with 10 feet on Temple's side
h.Notice would be placed on the land records which would provide notice of the buffer requirement to
future purchasers of Lot 29.
and
4.Direct the Zoning Enforcement Officer to record appropriate notice(s)on the land records as to the
revocation of the 1990 variance.
Background and Hardship.
1. On May 3, 1990,the Temple presented its application for a variance to the buffer requirements to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. The Temple was represented by Peter DeMallie of Design Professionals Inc.
and Attorney Edwin Lassman. These individuals were the legal agents of the Temple,and the Temple was
and is bound by their acts and statements.
The Temple's agents told the Zoning Board of Appeals that there would be a 25 foot buffer with a double
row of pines on Lot 29,adjacent to the Temple's lot(Lot 30).However,when the subdivision map was
prepared by Design Professionals Inc.,and filed on the land records(Map No. 2283 B in the South
Windsor Town Clerk's Office-Copy attached)no buffer was placed on Lot 29. Thus,as a matter of land
title law,the purported 25 foot buffer on Lot 29 does not exist and never did exist.
The Zoning Board of Appeals was also told,in response to a question from Board Member Gallichio,that
a stipulation would be put on the land records so that the homeowner to purchase Lot 29 would be aware of
the buffer. No such notice of the purported buffer was ever recorded in the chain of title of Lot 29.
On June 30, 1995, Mr.and Mrs. Slater purchased Lot 29 as it was shown on Map 2283 B,i.e.without any
buffer on their lot along the boundary with Lot 30.The Slaters are thus the innocent victims of the exact
problem that the ZBA foresaw and tried to avoid by asking for a stipulation on the land records. The corner
of the Slater's house is less than 23 feet from the boundary of their property according to the"as built"
plans on file at Town Hall which were prepared by Design Professionals Inc.
Under Connecticut law,a variance may be made expressly conditional,as was this 1990 variance. If the
conditions of the variance are not met,the variance can be revoked. (Burlington v.Jencik, 168 Conn. 506,
509(1975). The 1990 variance was made expressly conditional,and thus may be revoked. This is the only
fair and appropriate thing to do,because the acts and omissions of the temple's agents in drafting and filing
a subdivision map without Lot 29 buffers,resulted in a situation which cannot be corrected except by
revoking the 1990 variance.
2. The 1990 variance was conditional on the approval of the site plan for the temple as presented at the
May 3, 1990 meeting. The chairman stated that"we want the approval to be null and void if Planning and
Zoning doesn't approve the site plan"and another member referred specifically to"the site plan that we
were presented tonight". Clearly,this condition too has failed.The 1990"site plan"for a temple facility
was never approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thus the explicit requirement of the ZBA
was not legally met.
Furthermore,the plans presented by the Temple in 1998/9 clearly are not the same plans that were
presented to the ZBA in May 1990. The variance granted in 1990 was for a 10,000 square foot facility with
80 parking spaces;the current plans are for a 26,000 square foot facility with over 150 parking spaces.
Both common sense and the law indicate that these are two different plans. Thus,even if the 1998/9
proposals were approved by Planning and Zoning,this would not meet the ZBA's explicit condition that
the 1990 plans be approved by the P&Z. Again,a condition of the variance has not been met and the
variance should be revoked.
3. Under Connecticut law,variances granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals are required to conform to
the overall spirit and intent of the comprehensive zoning plan. (See C.G.S. Section 8-6(3)).The buffer
regulations are designed to adequately buffer residences from non-residential uses(allowed by special
exception)in a residential zone. Even if the 1990 plans arguably conformed with the comprehensive
zoning plan,the 1998/9 plans do not.
Temple Beth Hillel has so radically altered the plans since 1990 that the entire underlying rationale for the
1990 variance has been undercut. By more than doubling of the size of the facility, by adding 70 parking
spaces, by making other fundamental changes in the site plan and by the failure to follow through on the
representations made to this Board,the Temple and its agents have created a situation where application of
1990 variance to the 1998/9 plans will impose a gross injustice on the innocent purchasers of property in
the Cody Circle neighborhood,especially to the Slaters.
The facts,as they exist in 1999 do not conform to the original intent of the variance nor to the
comprehensive zoning plan.Thus,upholding the 1990 variance and applying it to the 1998 plans would
violate the spirit and intent of the comprehensive zoning plan to adequately buffer residences from non-
residential uses(allowed by special exception)in a residential zone.
For all of the foregoing reasons,the 1990 variance must be revoked.
Ng 0�2
• � vowpar
, _ . _ •.
Airs" that On
layosC g6jIt"+ Ct ems, hltsb7 lltCsly
Lr d of 11pp+� Salted of Appoals
pf tbo 8a»ib Wiadsot Zonix►i tb! zostus m l ?
,,,u 7 r 1990• � A
av 8illll ! vt►sei d! to BloCioo �s�s •►
��tad to r.
+ 1sNsY w°fe'°rl'1 sL s at Islas
st�,ons of •1gvlra s gig 35 toot biittss
of the goon t �smthltly side �,toaoas& lot 29. Nitlt
tgontgae C�► tlt� lO�i
»so•sa+� �kss LSMt 10 teat balilr t+loss9 �,� loaatsd
»saoossb lat 29 ' sthltlY aid* of 9
rty �t
oa +
an Ate sss loesssd •t
' j4aaribsd as talloas=
j aa,d wars, ps �,oalsalY
youndld and
� p.Mie,MrYSM tM bes' el"a
�/�
i%wrow t� lto"1� uw it f.t wis"if iNN
�itw�a « .two us a s . t�t �"�t
SMI" ot�li "M rf1 �!1 l+',� If--;fir�I1+NAM
�f 1��"/{e.�� i{MNAa�MtR�M�i j�ttsillM 0�t N
N a"&"Ijswoo
`t ti.a1 N"s�NN i►M!t prat Y"S-p+tlii IusoMir"Ste ;
li+Y 1iNN•o
+ •� `M.N
�•X.%rOwn Ml�N�1MI�N M�of i�N Nyt�•
0! news Nil Qagss� M1►Y 19.VON-
satod �t sootb Ni�dso'=•'Cow
atilut thin .r++• day of .�.......----ter""
11lpI.SC ACT # 75-317 dil Of
„•,,,..,. 19
l*asived jot Alooted tlwis *••
1
2x .n1 b/
aw�r roc.?+5S�.1ti16E 214
Ti an regb is wiry dom lt0 WN d"0004&WAW !
V40W�r'[IiAT.+CWK q�•tY. �•. a Coaa.atfawa Ces�t•etar Aanriar a tlae» K
best"" at iSr Itul"too ked. fwd►Miroac. commutiemt 4074 �
a same�t rMnl be+Mioar 1 wM�►mvb alb Me
MQ '.
fplRr vmm, W.+-4IR Qwaa n"t em"" " w►Hft a to"" a t.+ulMai �.
testar car et Otto"&". 2"O Ytrtssx. Cwavatlawt 0ii11 •
• f��larAll�,+�
d, eari..e.e.Mace.,rdtassr+�r*iteldr�O.sae... yraw.
adzes.jay oM obtdwdy�.cgiacsa.atl tae+rae � `;
MM 'Wei Un sti a Ot Sol 11 M M. M. !tr Y
M"WOMAIMUOr
.cY,aa4ty3t�l�daaCWR iWl.�'l. riC.d�� Baer �
Mot er WOO le ba"IM er M \ f
A aettaiw 04" of fmvl of lordr to"t►aa• vita► tbo baud""
mad �psdvwwta tMtew. At."tod " tM Taw of �a •s Lot fir }
Crwty of sastfosd awd state of Cowaatiaat, brrimg
30 ow a carp ewtitled: •lrepased dean Mora 3"M O saldeee stead t
feoth Niadeec. caarreotioat (203( 2$2-O l Clot flaw Desi+pt et+u► s
ftaws D" Cheowt Jab so. 07-M Onto: 2-1�90 Drwviwg ►.:
Ca Job SONGS iN 3�it dasigm pregomeLreala• Lro. civil eag cionectAmt a
0S07 =03)22 1-$M3 rwe MOVIOSAMW 11 1f-!e Mrr im_a wn staff
com aats Ske 12-17-99 siltaw f►t. A11 us
10-23-93 1�ovl.so DsaLrags taeewwta tvh eh No ie am file L► the wz
0oath wiadearc law Clert'e WILL" amd to vhiah refesoerme way be bad. .`
said piano aa' pie
3 at lewd is taata rwticauxly WWA"d and
gooasibed as tolloaor .
Begi� at a rob& as the seatMrlr atm at lime of Govetaora
N���1wnag��' pabt waste the soatbo wteril aeemar of load wore at
feseaar3y of a" Coop. as sreatee of twrya 9tco�ae 1�lty 'fit smd
the north"tor oee mer•of the rum deems uw of
s i7 2S• 40' s meerp Aemeam
"diAl �o+emme sighmir
10.s7 fact w a peLrt� thawee "ew+ed3e�! $ .
axon the an o[ a Car" hav3rg a radles aEa�f.iOS2ee101 aLrmg
of 334.0e feet to a tf rOa � � _
3 feet to . paimtf thawoe
oema� w%be arm of a crow 1wvLy a rodtas o� fly 07 SO- a
dicta;;; of 39.27 goat to a pfmti thcwoo
N alow9 fahRs Lars. • &etwse of Iis.7t teat to a "; them m
al to arm oI a amm.bavisg a tadiwa of 32S-" fora. a
Pcovoodw ALSUAWO a# 9t.3 thewaa psowedl s 230 47 IY
7 feet to w poLrty
• sdcer faun, a dietawoe of 1?7.59 feet to a poimti thecws
alar9 the aso of a awtre havLq a tadiws of !S 00 Poet* w
of 39.27 Poet to a piati tbaeee:o t� M iif" 32 N
ataweecaft Cej a +liatawoe e9 N.7f teat to a petr�tt thama+
alawy the arm of a oee+o bavLg a radiw eta 22". 1!# ' a f
frames of iif.i3 feet to a point= th�ttem Poet tow q�
N alai Lot 129 as ebmem an ! ! loot
poiwtl thaaae rmooed4v s i u" `x- s �°� f29 se siraw oe ,
oa arcp• w diataetae of 17i.30 foot to a pints thetrrss �a9 s
p3" ;fr s1• t oloM low am et 94 atl7 et C!t Casgr as lswslee of
ope�e >Iucolty ftwt a dietamm of M.N feet to a picot. a,
loom mwirwwke the psiot et yt!sr of bolindmg• ">
w
swo oawreypard toyat viti cad SO."" is Not" and c,
st; r %.bse .=sW rpm:;smarmed ag amd oRhet
fit
t now 10111f�Epii�
e��6es��rt��st� gee
• ,,fill
I fill I
[[Ittt
a�,�aeaaas �
TOWN UE SOUTH WTUDI E
?QN3Na SQAR.OF APE_,,, EALS .
Minutes Pate 8 May 3, 1980
rr--r--------r./.M.w-------- --------------------------------------r--
ITEM: -
Laaeman . City elwag, HjLrt?6rd
Ration o: -
g&gulationX „tjo allow reduced byy fer wi_dth_ _: 0 fact
.rlIQLl red).,. on nrh2arty 1 eaated ann-th of Qavernat's
Highlay &nd si st„ e A
was made by: Anthony
end seconded by: Murray
The notion was: n n im,aus�
The vote was as follows.. t�.�
The board noted the variance is granted for the use of a temple
only.
ITEM*- fintil
the following amendment be made to the
Mr. Warren asked that #t 1.543-90, add condition to
Paste 5 under Worksession, App
notion th
at The oars are to be parked no
approval. close�c than 12
minutes:
feet from the carnet,
portion" not
each hearing that "public
Mr , warren al
sv asked that in future minutes
pt the conclusion o
it read "public participation
portion" .
hi n t j a t Q_:_
was made byi
�atrl'xsurt�. ' .
and seconded .by:-
The notion was! ttrtar�intDJls.
The vote was as follows, -----�--
19
IPPI[ALA
Minutes Page 6 May 3, IW9C
_--------------------------__-__-----_-------_--_---_---------------
Ann�Bation 11554-29 Tangle._B,eth, Killel caontinued:
With no further questions, the public part ioipation portion of the
hearing Was closed.
NORKAZIUMN
ITEM:
tiara:.thatang Drive
liation to:
sib... 13e Zoning R g3 ?gts?n11. ..to allow aanXt=n-j.an a"
Znn).
ass made by: AnthanZ
and seconded by: larlax
The motion was: Carried
The vote was as follows: uaftniza=
Hardship: The pie shape configuration of the lot.
ITEM: A291jantlan # 1551-89 Natianal Sexxieek Cleaning 0-am- of
-
cnnn 2AO Winston RONA
S,.a.*.-'.'GJQ...+5.,2 gf tho fining R-gulgt..ion&, .ta..sl nx s
grAvgl_. .aurf gaa ChAnE,ing the .,Inii3O-I.v..I,au.: CQYNXJLgA
PCOR.thA RAS Al Qged tQ AIX. AurQDikrtX 19Wtd
At�11 ingtan, Road- (LZonis)
was made by: CWAA
and seoonded by: Anthnnx
The notion was: C.ax.Liad
The vote was as follows: tinanlan" !
The varianoe is only effective provided PZC, IVA/CC, do the Town
Engineer approve the drainage system proposed. If rejeoted by those
oommissions, this varianoe is null and void.
Minutes Page 5 May 3, 1990
-------------------------------------------------------------------
to along with a new tree line added along the new interior road.
They are proposing 64 parking spaces in the parking lot which would
be sufficient for the Friday and Saturday services . The driveway
would be off of the new interior road. If the subdivision is not
approved Mr. Lassman said they would have to redraw their plans.
Jody Cohen, Rabbi of Temple Beth Hillel, spoke in favor. She said
their present Temple is very small and they have a great need for
larger quarters. All of the Temple activities are held at the
present location but has to be spaced out because of the lack of
room. She said they had concerns for the environment of the land
and the aesthetic nature of the building inside and out.
Bob Greenberg, a South Windsor resident and member of the Temple,
spoke in favor of this appeal . He felt it was important to go ahead
with the proposed plan and agreed that the aesthetics of the
building would be affected if a variance wasn 't granted.
Abe Glassman, a South Windsor resident and member of the Temple,
spoke in favor of this appeal. He said the temple is bursting at
the seams and urged the board to vote in favor of this appeal.
Joel Gordon, a South Windsor resident and member of the Temple,
thought the proposed plan for the parking lot to be in a park like
setting wax very pleasing and felt the new regulations would not do
Justice to the temple. He was in favor of this appeal.
No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this appeal.
The Board asked if anyone Would live at the Temple? Rabbi Cohen
said there would be no parsonage.
Mrs. Neary asked if they had a sketch of the building proposed?
Atty. Lassman said they didn't have one drawn yet. It would be
drawn up only if their variance was approved.
Mrs. Anthony asked if there was room for growth on the
Atty. Lassman explained that t e property.
ng
expansion . includes
What 's being shown would proposed
orieiin" :
Xs the Temple needs grow, �they would expand' with the planer.-
Mr. Gallicohio asked if the 25 foot buffer on . Lot #29 had a
sti n" -placed on it so th
r--tA_29!2hA1* tbAL lot wan Id
I aware of i con ons? Atty. Lassman said they would have
documentation with the stipulations spelled out
Do rf , OARD of APPEALS
Minutes Page 4 May B, 1990
Attorney Lassman was present. He explained that they are looking
for the buffer requirement to be waived. In February the Planning &
Zoning Commission enacted a regulation requiring the buffer
requirement which only applied to commercial and industrial zones to
also apply to residential zones if the use is non--residential. -The
plans for the temple were started one year ago when this now
regulation was not in effect . They would have to make major ohanges
in the plans to abide by the new regulation. The engineer felt the
site plan proposed would be the best use for the land. without a
variance the temple would have to be moved closer to the wetland and
parking would be along the street instead of hidden from the street
as proposed.
Peter DeMallie, from Design Professionals, was present. He
explained the present buffer regulations and showed what they are
proposing. He said his firm is also handling the plans for the
whole subdivision, which has not boon approved yet . The only thing
approved was a zone change to A-20. He explained the extensive work
put into these plans over the past year . They are proposing to have
the building located in the center of the site with the parking area
designed like a park sett and hidden from the street. The new
regu ations requires a 50 foot buTfor aroun t o on re lot. The
variance they are seeking would waive the whole buffer along the
front on the southerly side of Governor's Highway and westerly side
of the proposed Baker Lane with a 10 foot buffer along the proposed
lot 29. The owner of the subdivision has agreed to provide a 25
foot buffer on lot 29 with a double row of pines, therefore making a
35 Foot- Buffer a on o s o ecause Fr Me
wet an s in-the northwest or ion of We—T8t, it forced them to
locate the building to the easterly half of the property. They
didn 't feel it was necessary to screen a house of worship froze .any
Public street .
Jim. Simones, from I Simones Arehi.tects- - in Sssex, 'was present. He '
explained the planning and architectural concept of the plans. It
was his opinion that the aesthetics of the building' would be
affected if they were to adhere to the new regulations. He noted
the tree line along Governor's Highway would be maintained and added
46
�`�♦ . 1�♦ - . ♦.� cif,. ♦ ♦..,. . � � '�