The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVariance (932) TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR Application # APPLICATION FOR Date I °� ` 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. 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. 1. Applicant: Temple Beth Hillel 2. Mailing Address: 1001 Foster Street Ext. , P.O. Box 403, South Windsor,Cr. 06074 3. Telephone#: 644-8466 4. Owner of record of property in question: same 5. Location of property in question: 20 Baker Lane Assessor's Map# 61 Parcel# 27 Zone A-20 6. Is applicant a corporation or co-partnership? (If Corporation, submit a list of officers. If co-partnership, submit a list of owners). Non-profit corporation(David Finnicun,Pres.;Jef frey Weirunman,V.P. Gary Gersten, Secretary;Charles Lemkin,Treasurer 7. Please indicate if the applicant is owner, lessee, or prospective tenant: Owner . . ...:.::.::::..........:.:::. .:........ :::::.:::::::::::._:.:............:.... 8.• Check one of the following: 4.2.8(6)c. ( Request Variance to Section 4.3.1 of the Zoning Regulations to allow a house of worship with impervious coverage not exceeding 500. ( ) 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 ONO If yes, submit complete sign information as outlined in sign information requirements. 10. If application is for ariance to Section 3.12, are there any liquor outlets within the restricted area, (500 feet)? YES or O f yes, submit a list of the liquor outlets, their locations and distances from the property in quests n. 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. See attached sheet. .:::...........:::..:..:...... .. .......:<::::::::::::. :::::: ....::.;:.;:.:_ :.::..:.:::::::..:::.:::::::::::::..: ...... Dated this .8th day of December Year 1998 APPLICANT: -- (Signature) OWNER (Signature) ACTION OF THE BOARD Granted: Denied: f Variance Application of Temple Beth Hillel December 8,1998 Item 12 Narrative: Temple Beth Hillel has a site plan/special exception application pending before the Planning & Zoning Commission for a house of worship on Lot No. 30, or 20 Baker Lane in the Beldon Estates Subdivision. From the earliest stages of planning for the subdivision, Lot No. 30 has been reserved for Temple Beth Hillel. That fact has been made clear at every step in the approval process, including the zoning buffer variance granted by the ZBA in 1990. Detailed site plans for the building, access drive and parking areas have only been prepared in this calendar year, when the synagogue's members decided to proceed with the development. The site plan calls for a two-phase development. Phase I contains the initial building with 15,674 sq. ft, 104 parking spaces and 34.6% impervious coverage. Phase I does not require a variance for impervious coverage. The Phase II plan, which adds another 50 parking spaces and 11,500 square feet of additions to classrooms, the social hall, and the kitchen, among other facilities, would require a variance for impervious coverage approaching 50%. While we cannot precisely determine the exact year in which Phase II will be constructed, we do know that prior to proceeding with the initial phase it is important to know that the ultimate development can be undertaken. Factors and unusual hardships which underscore the grounds for a variance are as follows: 1)Impervious coverage has increased in both phases as we have worked with the neighborhood and Town staff to address neighborhood concerns. Most significantly, this includes the consolidation of the bulk of the on-site parking to an area adjacent to the I zone, and away from neighbors in the Beldon Estates neighborhood (Cody Circle and Baker Lane) and along Governors Highway. Other significant changes have been to eliminate driveway entrances on Cody Circle and Governors Highway, change the geometry of the Baker Lane entrance to ensure worshippers travel to and from the synagogue via Governors Highway and a short stretch of Baker Lane, rather than through the Beldon Estates neighborhood, and add a conservation easement along Cody Circle to preserve the existing woodland. 2)The Inland Wetlands Agency has indicated a willingness to entertain the subject plan, with greater wetlands impacts; 3) Phase I does not need a variance; 4)The congregation does need to know that both phases can be built, and is asking all boards and commissions to approve both phases;5)We are restricted by our site size, under 5 acres, which causes this hardship; 6) The requested coverage, 50%, is normally allowed in the RR zones; 7) Moving the parking lot to the rear requires more pavement for access and circulation; 8) The impervious coverage figure could only be determined once an engineer was retained to prepare a detailed site plan; 9) The amount of impervious coverage is directly related to the desire on the part of the congregation and the neighborhood to provide sufficient on-site parking and to thus significantly reduce the possibility of on-street parking; 10) Design allows for safe ingress/egress; 11) Given the parcel location in the middle of a new subdivision, and its size and shape and proximity to homes, this is a unique condition; 12) The original 10 feet variance along the boundary of lot No. 29 will become moot with the institution of a conservation easement, save for the back line (171.30 feet long) where the abutter intends to preserve the existing woods. Thank you for your consideration of this variance request. G 1 7 VOL. !6 PAGE 214 cr nnn1n =-# To all People to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting: k fa. KNOW YF,THAT-CLARK REALTY, INC., a Connecticut Corporation having a place of F F business at 658 Ellington Road, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 , x 7A •F for divers good causes and considerations thereunto moving,especially for NO CONSIDERATION received to its full satisfaction of TEMPLE BETH HILLEL OF SOUTH WINDSOR, INC., a Connecticut Corporation having a place of businese0*"61E Foster Street Extension, South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 �• STATE t 0 LOtgl a� f F " ha s remised,released,and forever quit-claimed,and does -by these preanstOF 50UtN wvow x.. itself and heirs,justly and absolutely remise,release,and forever QUIT-CLAIM unto the said TEMPLE BETH HILLEL OF SOUTH WINDSOR, INC., its heirs and assigns forever,all such right and title as CLARK REALTY, INC.the said Grantor ha s or ought to have in or to A certain piece or parcel of land, together with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in the Town of South Windsor, r County of Hartford and State of Connecticut, being shown as Lot No. 30 on a map entitled: "Prepared For Jean Marc Jacques Beldon Road South Windsor, Connecticut (203) 282-0628 Plot Plan Design: DAA Drawn: DAA Checked: Job No. 87-188 Date: 2-1-90 Drawing No.: C: Job Beldon 188 TP-R design professionals, inc. civil engineers planners surveyors 441c governors highway, south Windsor, Connecticut 06074 (203)291-8755 Revisions 11-19-90 Revisions Per Town Staff 1 Comments SRC 12-17-90 Hilton Dr. Alignment, Add Sidewalks SRB !! 10-25-93 Revise Drainage Easements JJP" which map is on file in the South Windsor Town Clerk's Office and to which reference may be had. F. Said piece or parcel of land is more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly street line of Governors Highway which point marks the southeasterly corner of land now or formerly of GTT Corp. as Trustee of Onyx Properties Realty Trust and the northwesterly corner-of the parcel described herein; thence proceeding S 67° 25, 40" E along Govenors Highway, a distance of ` 110.57 feet to a point; thence proceeding along Govenors Highway . along the arc or a curve having a radiva of 3016.10 foot, a distance of 338.84 feet to a point; thence proceeding S 480 52' 10" E along Govenors Highway a distance. of 81.21 feet to a point; thence proceeding along the arc of a curve having a radius of 25.00 feet, a distance of 39.27 feet to a point; thence proceeding S 41° 07' 50" W along Baker Lane, a distance of 168.74 feet to a point; thence proceeding along the arc of a curve. having a radius of 325.00 feet, a distance of 98.37 feet to a point; thence proceeding S 230 47 17" W along Baker Lane, a distance of 127.55 feet to a point; thence ' proceeding along the arc of a curve having a radius of 25.00 feet, a distance of 39.27 feet to a point; thence proceeding N 66° 12' 43" W along Cody Circle, a distance of 68.76 feet to a point; thence z^ proceeding along the arc of a curve having a radius of _230.00 feet, a distance of 116.43 feet to a point; thence proceeding N 050 12. 57" W along Lot #29 as shown on said map, a distance of 200.07 feet to a point; thence proceeding N 660 12' 43" W along Lot #29 as shown on said map, a distance of 17i.30 feet to a point; thence proceeding N 230 48, 51" E along land now or formerly of GTT Corp. as Trustee of Onyx Properties Realty Trust a distance of 364.86 feet to a point, which point marks the point or place of beginning. Said premises are conveyed together with and subject to notes and easements as set forth on the above referenced map and such other i easements and variances as of record may appear. F, l e Colo "fit OF SOUTH WTNDn ng y 3 7nNINC= BOARD OF A PEAL 2 Minutes ------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 May 3, 1990 MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Warren , J. Carino, R. Earley, B . Murray M . Anthony ALTERNATES PRESENT: C . Gallicchio, L . Neary Mr . Gallicchio sat for Mrs . Anthony until she arrived at 7: 35 p .m. Chairman Warren called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p .m. The secretary read the legal notice as published in the newspaper . ADD _ #1 54R-90 - Mr . & Mrs Richard aE -Q.U1 l q Hearthstone D r . to allow Onstrnrt O nnind R gnla�,ti-per lon Of a d ck 7 5 f cat rnm proDerty line ( 1 ppt Hearthstonepen S12ane Mr . LaFleur was present . He recently put an addition on his home along with a 12 ' by 16 ' deck. After the deck was built, it was discovered by the Building Inspector that a corner of the deck was in violation to the rear setback by 2 1/2 feet because of the pie shaped lot . Mr . LaFleur noted that the deck was not included in the original plans but was an after thought . Mr . LaFleur said he spoke with his neighbors and there was no opposition . No one in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to this appeal . Chairman Warren explained that this was a rehearing from last months meeting because it was advertised incorrectly. There was a question on the setback required on this property. Mr . Warren stated the correct setback is 10 feet . Mr . Warren asked what part of his neighbors house faces the deck and approximately what the distance was to his neighbor.. Mr . LaFleur said his neighbors garage faces the deck and is approximately 60 feet away. With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal was closed . TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR t ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Minutes Page- 2 • May 3, 1990 --------------------------------------- App . #1551-90 - Na .i ona 1 Slervi cp Cleanina Corp . of Conn rt i rut 260 anro to artinn --Of thennind Regulations to allow 81 % imDe v'nus overage (65% allowed ) on property located at 260 Ellin ton Road - (I zone ) Kenneth Pudeler, from Pudeler Engineering Firm of Manchester, represented the applicant . They are looking to replace a retention area located on the southwest side of the property into a gravel surface area to park six diesel vehicles (40 ft . trailer trucks) for winter storage until spring when the trucks return to construction sites . Having the trucks parked in this location will make it easier for the company to plug the vehicles in to warm the engines along with maintenance on the trucks . They are not looking to pave the area with anything other than gravel . The present retention area would be replaced by concrete units underground to catch the water . The present regulation includes gravel surface as impervious coverage . With this parking area in place it would increase the impervious coverage from 65% to 81%. The landscaping will be extended along the front to provide additional screening. They will need to get site plan approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission if a variance is granted by this Board . No one in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to this appeal . The Board asked if they could park there without a gravel surface? Mr . Pudeler said they had been but were advised by the Zoning Enforcement Officer that they were in violation by doing so . He said also it disturbs the landscaping along with being muddy at times . They would prefer to have a gravel surface . With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal was closed . App . # 1552-90 - Douit1as Genrlc & Michael Prevost 681 John Pitch reaueot a State Hearino, ender Section 14 5 of h General Statutes as reau, reH in 14 o h nning R�gulafi� ons for e used car license r whnleSaliag of carsonly o�operty locatert at 681_John Fitch Blvd . . Unit 1 . (GCGC Zon€) This is a hearing. in behalf of the State for wholesaling of cars. Mr . George was present . He explained that he and his partner, Mr. Prevost, own a Cellular Phone business at this location and would like to add to their business purchasing and selling wholesale cars . Mr . George said he has had 8 years in the wholesaling business and has many wholesaling contacts to sell vehicles to . ' TOWN �F iiTN WTNDSQR ZONING B .ARn OF APPEALS . Minutes Page 3 May - 1990 -- ----------------------------- --- Application #1552- 0 - George & Prevostcontinued : They are proposing to sell 4 to 5 cars a week. The cars would be parked inside the 2400 s . f . building which would be able to hold a maximum of 10 cars . It is their intention to clean the vehicles along with making general repairs then sell them to licensed buyers . This use is a permitted use in this zone however, requires a State Hearing. He reiterated that they would be selling the vehicles to licensed buyers -- not to the public . Mr . Joel Cyr , owner of the building, spoke in favor of this appeal . No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this appeal . Mr . Warren asked if they would be opposed to a "no outside parking" restriction? Mr . George said they wouldn 't . With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal was closed . MA. , r .guest a va ianra to Section 4 7 A 3 of the Znninar Regulations to allow a second sign , dou le skied 7A c f in i e On p Op rtv located at 595 Nutmeg Road North ( T 7.O_ ne Mr . Paul Colgan, manager of the Waldo Brothers office in Conn . , was present . They are proposing a 24 s . f. double sided sign to be located 15 feet from the road . The building is set back 400 feet from the road and is hard to see because of existing trees blocking the view from the road . It will be a brick sign with polished aluminum letters of the company name, logo, and building number . The sign will not be illuminated . No one in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to this appeal . With no further questions, the public participation portion of this appeal was- closed . TOWN nF SOUTH WTNn,nR ZONING BOARD OF A PRALS Minutes Page 4 May 3, 1990 -------------------------------------------------- Aop . # 1554-90 - Temtile BPth Hillel Q10 A v dwin T ��man City Place . Hartford , reauest_ a variance to Section 5 1 and 5 4 2 0 the Zoning R _dnlat, nns to allow reduced buffer width. : 0 feet along frontage on the southerly side of Governor 's Highway and westerly- side of the propnsed Raker Lane : 10 feet buffer along proposed o 29 - southerly side of Dror) rty (50 feet r a ,ired ) on property located south of Governor 's Highway and west of B ldon Road . CA 0 Zone ) 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 new regulation was not in effect . They would have to make major changes 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 been 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 setting and hidden from the street . The new regulations requires a 50 foot buffer around the entire 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 along lot 29 & the Temple 's lot . Because of the wetlands in the northwest portion of the lot, it has 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 from any Public street . Jim.. Simones, from Simones Architects• ' in Essex, '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 TOWN OF SO1TH UNn OR 70NTNC' BOARD OF APPFer c Minutes Page 5 May 3, 1990 ------------------------------- APPI_i_cation #1554-90 - Temple Beth Hi l lel on inuarl 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 parkin lot to be in a settingwas very g park like y 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 the Property. proposed building includes expansion . What 's being shown would not be built all at . one time . As the Temple needs grow,. -they would expand- with -the plans . Mr . Gallicchio asked if the 25 foot buffer on . Lot #29 had a stipulation placed on it so the homeowner to purchase the lot would be aware of it 's conditions? Atty. Lassman said they would have documentation with the stipulations spelled out . TOWN OF SOUTH WiNDSOR 70NING BOARD OF A PFATS Minutes Page 6 May 3, 1990 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Application #1554- 0 - mpla Beth HiII -I - con int,ad With no further questions, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed . WORKSESSiON ITEM : Application # 1546- 0 - Mr . Mrs . Richard aFleur . 19 Hearthstone Drive Motion to : Approve App #1545-90 Mr , & Mrs . Richard I, Fle"r 1 Hearthstone Dr for a 2 foot variance tn geetion '.5 . 3 of the Zoning Regulations to allow construction of a deck 7 . 5 feet rom pr-Merty line ( In feet reguired ) on property located at 1 He thstone Dr (AA30 On n Space Zone) was made by: Anthony and seconded by: Earley The motion was : Carried The vote was as follows : Un nim U Hardship : The pie shape configuration of the lot . ITEM : Application # 15 1 -90 - National Service Cleanina Corr) - f Conn . , 260 E l ,naton Road Motion to : Approve Application #1551 90 , for a variance tn Section 5 . 2 of the on i ng Regulations to allow a gravel _ surface changinz the impervions coy rag& from the 65% allQHed to 81% on pronartv located at 260 E linatnn Road - (T Zone ) was made by: Carino and seconded by: Anthony The motion was : Carried The vote was as follows : Unanimous The variance is only effective provided PZC, IWA/CC, & the Town Engineer approve the drainage system proposed . If rejected by those commissions, this variance is null and void . TOWN OF SOUTH WiNDSOR ZONING BoARD_QF APPEALS Minutes Page 7 May 5, 1990 Application-A! 1552-90 - Doid'la G nrae & Minhae1 Prevo.9t , 681 John Fitch B vrq ni t 12 Motion to Approve wi .h nnditinn to Applicain #1552-90, a retest ,,,,est for a State Hearina de yS inn 14 55 of the General Statutes as reguired in 3. 13 of the 7onina Reaulations for a used car license for wholeaalin of oar-etonly on property located at 681 John Fitch BlvriUnit 12 ( TC` Zone) The conditions are : 1 . No outside parking of wholesale vehicles . 2 . Maximum of 10 cars . 3. No retail sales . 4 . Limited to minor general repairs . was made by: Murray and seconded : Anthony The motion was : Carried The vote was as follows : Unanimous ITEM : ADD 1 i ca.t;on it 1 5i5'1-gQ - Waldo $ nt here omn any �p Snut hamr)tOn St Boston .. MA Motion to • Approve with and i t i nn PP A _ U.Qa i on #1 55. -90- �_� Waldo Brothers Comr)any. 202 Southampton S Roston . MA. , fnr variance n Section 4 7 4 0 the Zoninz R a»lations to allow a second Gigue double sid _ri _ 24 s f in 3ize , aQ specifies ,n plans presented , on property incated -a-t 595 Nutmea Road North. (T one) Conditions placed on variance are as follows : 1 . Sign not to be illuminated . 2 . Sign to be placed 15 feet from road on the northerly side of the driveway. was made by: Carino and seconded by Murray The motion was : The vote was as follows : Unanimous TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR ZONTNC= RnARD nF A PFAT S Minutes Page 8 May 5, 1990 ----------------------------------------- ITEM : Application # 1554-90 - Temple Bjeth Hillel CIO Atty. Edwin i.assman . City Place , Hartford Motion to : Approve Application #$ 1554 90 Temple Beth Hille CIO- Atty. Edwin Lassman . City Plane Hartford for a variance to Section 5 .4 . 1 and 5 .4 . 2 of the Zoning Regulations to allow reduced buffer widths Q feet along frontaae on the snutherlyside of Gov no 'G Highway and westerly side of the�Droposed Baker Lane : M 10 feet buffer along prpos ri lot 29 with 25 fee on proposed lot 2. - o utherly side of property = ( 5Q feet reauired_) ; on p operty located . south of Gov rnor ' Highway and w .st o B ldon Road y(A-20 Zone) was made by: Anthony and seconded by: Murray The motion was : Carried The vote was as follows : Unanimous The board noted the variance is granted for the use of a temple only. APPROVAL OF MINUTES : ITEM : April 5 . 1990 Minutes Mr . Warren asked that the following amendment be made to the minutes : Page 5 under Worksession, App #1543-90, add condition to approval motion that "The cars are to be parked no closer than 12 feet from the corner . " Mr . Warren also asked that in future minutes at the conclusion of each hearing that it read "public participation portion" not "public portion" . Motion to : A17Droye minutes with above m ntioned co regtionn . was made by: Warren and seconded .by:. .Anthony The motion was : Carried The vote was as follows : Unanimou TOWN OF SOUTH W N m ZONING BOARD OF A PFAT -,. Minutes Page 9 May - --- iqqO --------------------------------- ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous vote at 10 : 00 p .m. Respectfully submitted, Date Approved Deborah L . Bellizzi Recording Secretary E _ C �r�7 J �r �L I� Robert Marren, Chairman of -the South Windsor Zoning Board of Appeals, hereby certify that on May 3 , 1990 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted to Temnle Beth Hillel 5. 4 .1 & a variance to Section 5. 4 .2 of the Zoning Regulations to allow reduced buffer widths: 0 feet along frontage on the southerly side of governor' s Highway and westerly side of the nronosed Baker Lane; 10 feet buffer along proposed lot 29 with 25 foot buffer on broposed lot 29 - southerly side of property on property located on premises located at southerly side of Governor' s Highway and TanctPrlg of RP1 Ann Road. and more particularly bounded and described as follows : Commencing at a point marking the intersection of the westerly line of Belden Road with the northerly line of Hilton Drive; thence N 04' 09' 10' W, a distance of 235.84 feet to a point; thence along an arc to the right having a radius of 1,536.70 and a distance of 303.97 feet to a point; thence N 07' 10' 50' E, a distance of 361.60 feet. to a point, the last three courses being along the westerly line of Belden Road; thence along an arc to the left connecting the westerly line of Belden Road with the southerly line of Governors Highway having a radius of 162.87 and a distance of 159.33 feet to a point; thence N 48' 52' 100 .W, a distance of 445.55 feet to a point; thence along an arc to the left having a radius of 1,046.10 and a distance of 338.84 feet to a point; thence N 670 25' 40' W, a distance of 110.57 feet to a point, the last three courses being along the southerly line of Governors Highway; thence S 23' 48' 51' W, along land now or formerly of Savin Brothers, Inc., a distance of 1#121.79 feet to a point; thence S 66' 11' 09' E, along land now or formerly of Pleasant Valley Estates and along Hilton Drive, partly by each, in all, a distance of 1,306.78 feet to the point of beginning. OWNER OF RECORD: Elio Capuano Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this llth day of May 1990 ULs1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC ACT # 75-317 Received for Record this day of 19 at ATTEST: k TOWN CLERK Fee APPLICATION FOR Receipt No. TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOit• S - h ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 ITEKS MUST BE ANSWERED AND ALL SUPPLEMMS MIDST BE SUMMTTED. THE APPLICATION PILL BE RETURNED IF INCOMPLETE. nA The application and supplements must be filed in duplicate. 'Q Q`�) }:1, :W � The application must be typewritten or printed in ink. �' ' `=L 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, dimensions and buildings present or proposed, and buildings on adjacent properties and distance from subject property. If a variance is being requested, a legal description of the property must be submitted with the application. This description can be obtained from mortgage records. The sign from the Planning Department must be displayed on the property at least 10 day: 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. APPLICANT: Temple Beth Iiillel HAILING ADDRESS c/o Lassman, Es RoQin Nassau, Capan Lasy�mnan & Hirtle q• Ci yPiace, Hartfor CT l 03 OWNER OF RECORD OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION Capuano Developers LOCATION OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION South of Governor's Highway & west of Beldon Road ZONE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION A-20 CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 5.4.2 Request Variance to Section 5.4.1 andof the Zoning Regulations to allow reduced XC- T-nt buffer widths. ` fit. ?, �onA�5wl�,eID l r_r ,� ;r��,Y,•.n :emu; a�� !°s .t., ��idc of or state hearing under Section of the General Statutes for ❑ or temporary and conditional permit for 0 or an appeal from the Zoning Officer's decision involving J 1 } I Is' applicant a corporation or co-partnership? No (If Corporation, submit a list of officers. If Co-partnership, submit a list of owners) . Is the applicant owner, lessee, or prospective tenant? 'Prospective owner Are there any liquor outlets within the restricted area? No (If yes, submit a list of the liquor outlets, their locations and distances from the proper- in question) . Is this property within 500 feet of another town line? No State clearly the unusual hardship or exceptional difficulty that prompts this application and indicate why other options are unacceptable. (Use a separate sheet of paper if necessary) . New zoning regulations became effective 2/20/90 which require buffers between a house of worship (i.e., non-residential use in a residential zone) , and abutting residentially zoned land, rather than between a house of worshi and abutting industrial zoned land Tenple Beth Hillel ccnYnissioned consultants to work on a site lan uildin for a new house of worship since prior to this change, and were just notified of it by the Planning Department. We believe a house of worship absolutely need not be buffered from the public streets, and given our proposed park-like setting would contribute positivel to the streetscape. We would still plan on landscaping the street frontage with ornamental trees and shrubs, but not with a full screening effect. Moreover, our infrequentiV used parking lot is best located adjacent to lot #29 (we are lot #30) , one of the largest lots in the subdivision. We propose to screen it from lot #29, especially with plantings on our land, and those to be provided by the subdivider on lot #29. Variance requests: 0' buffer along the street frontage; and 10' buffer along lot #29, with 25' buffer-like plantings on lot #?9. hardships include unique lot configuration, trees/wetlands location, and zoning regulation change nud-way through design. Dated this 16 y of April Year 1990 Telephone # See below 2gg1 gg 5555 APPLICANT: r' RF&neyr�ffssgnnals Z78-7�80 Pe R. lie ,Ngent for (Signature) Tenple Beth Hillel OWNER: . r! Lfj Peter R. DeMallie/A ent for (Signature)g g Ca nano Developers to Pers ACTION OF THE BOARD G ED MAY 0 3 1990 DENIED . . .�. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '� �• ,}�•jI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . • . • . • . • • • . . • • . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . • • . . . . . • . . . . . 1... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AREA, YARD AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS (Cont'd. ) 5.4.1 Buffer (cont'd. ) SCH�E ZONE BUFFER WIDTH GC 50 feet RC 50 feet RO 25 feet DA-15 25 feet MF 25 feet I 50 feet IP 50 feet DC 100 feet RR 50 feet A-40 50 feet A-30 50 feet AA-30 50 feet A-20 50 feet - t OP 50 feet* * 75 feet where residential development already exists 5.4.2 Wherever a permitted, non-residential use is hed in a residential zone, the appropriate buffer (from s5.4.1sabove) shall be established along all property boundaries which abut the residentially zoned land rather than along property boundaries which abut non-residentially zoned land. (For example, if a permitted non-residential use is established in a RR zone which has boundary, the buffer shall I-zoned land along one boundary and A-40 zoned land along another be established along the boundary adjacent to the A-40 zone rather than adjacent to the I zone. ) �{ U -146- . c 4r May 10, 1990 C E R T T F T E D M A I L Attorney Edwin Lassman City Place Hartford, Ct Re: ZBA Application #1544-90 - Temple Beth Hillel Dear Attorney Lassman : At the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on May 3, 1990, a variance was granted to Section 5 .4. 1 and 5.4 . 2 of the Zoning Regulations to allow reduced buffer widths: 0 feet along frontage on the southerly side of Governor 's Highway and westerly side of the proposed Baker Lane; 10 foot buffer along proposed lot 29 with 25 foot buffer on proposed lot 2 - southerly side of property, on property located on the southerly side of Governor 's Highway and westerly of Beldon Road . (A-20 Zone) The board noted the variance is granted to the use of a temple only. This action is effective upon your filing of the enclosed form in the Town Clerk's office at your own expense. Very truly yours, Robert Warren Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals RW:dlb Received Dec-08-98 04:15pm from 203 643 5773 4 SOUTH WINDSOR page 2 12/08/98 16:18 0203 643 5TT3 PHELON FITZGERAL 2 002 MEMORANDUM TO: Marcia Banach, Director of Planning FROM: Barry D. Gullano, Town Attorney RE: PZC Application of Temple Beth Hillel Synagogue Date: December 8, 1998 You have requested a legal opinion regarding an Application tiled by Temple Beth Hillei Synagogue pertaining to the construction of a new synagogue on Gouemor's High- way, FACTS On May 3, 1990, the Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance to Temple Beth Hills( regarding Zoning Regulations Section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2. The variance allowed for a reduction of buffer widths to zero feet along the frontage of the property and 10 feet along proposed Lot 29. As to the 10 foot buffer, there was testimony at the public hearing that the owner of the adjoining subdivision had agreed to provide a 25 foot buffer on Lot 29 with a double row of pines, therefore making a 35 foot buffer along the boundary of Lot 29 and the Temple's lot. A specific question was raised at the public hearing by ZBA member Gallicchio as to whether the 25 foot buffer on Lot 29 had a stipulation placed on It so the homeowners purchasing the lot would be aware of its restrictions. The attorney Received Dec-08-98 04:15pm from 203 643 5773 -* SOUTH WINDSOR page 3 12/08/98 16:16 $'203 643 5773 PHELON FITZGERAL Q 003 for the applicant responded that the applicant "would have documentation with the stipulations spelled out." In light of these representations, the ZBA unanimously approved the application, with the motion stating that the variance included "ten feet buffer along proposed Lot 29 with 25 feet on proposed Lot 29...." On May 10, 1990, the Chairman of the ZBA wrote to the applicant's attorney, notifying him of the Board's approval of the Application in the following: At the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on May 3, 1990, a variance was granted to Section 5.4.1 and 5*2 of the Zoning Regulations to allow reduced buffer widths: zero feet along frontage on the southerly side of Governor's Highway and westerly side of the proposed Baker Lane; 10 foot buffer along proposed Lot 29 with 25 foot buffer on proposed Lot 29 — southerly side of property on property located on the southerly side of Governor's Highway and westerly of Beldon Road. (A-20 Zone) The Board noted the variance is granted to the use of a temple only. (Emphasis in original). The issue of parking was also addressed at the public hearing. A representation was made by an architect for the applicant that "they are proposing 64 parking spaces In the parking lot which would be sufficient for the Friday and Saturday services." Temple Beth Hillel has now tiled an application with the Planning & Zoning Commission for a special exception and site plan approval to construct a new synagogue on Governor's Highway. You have asked for my opinion with respect to two questions which have apparently been raised by neighbors of the synagogue: 2 Received Dec-08-98 04: 15pm from 203 643 5773 4 SOUTH WINDSOR page 4 12/08/98 16:18 '0203 643 5773 PHELON FITZGERAL Z 004 1. What Is the effect of the representation that there would be a 25-foot buffer installed on the adjoining residential lot, including buffer like plant- ings, and that said buffer would be documented so that homeowners to purchase the lot would be bound by this condition. Although there have been some buffer plantings, there is no documented 28-foot buffer area, so that there is no obligation for the current homeowner to maintain the buffer. 2. What is the effect of the representation that the Synagogue would have 64 parking spaces in a park-like setting, when the new proposal is that there be 150 parking spaces In a questionably lass than park-like setting. DISCUS§ION As to the issues of the buffer, it is my opinion that the requirement that there b;a 25 foot buffer on proposed Lot 29 with a double row of pines was a condition imposed by the ZBA to the granting of the variance, The specific language of the buffer was included in the motion approving the Application and also in the letter of notification to the applicant, While there was no specific mention In the motion or the notice of the double row of pines, this representation was specifically made by representatives of the applicant at the public hearing and Is in keeping with the clear intent of the ZBA in creating a buffer between the residential property and the Temple's property. Further, the requirement that there bbome writing pertaining to this buffer which is recorded so that it Imposes obligations upon future homeowners'was also a condition of the granting of the variance. No specific mention is made of this requirement in elther the motion or the notice, but it is implicit In the questions of Board members and 3 Received Dec-08-98 04:15pm from 203 643 5773 i SOUTH WINDSOR page 5 12/08/98 16:18 0203 643 5773 PHELON FITZGERAL 0d005 representations by the applicant during the public hearing. it is also implicit in the clear Intent of the ZBA in creating a lasting buffer zone, which cannot be accomplished unless there is some restriction In writing placed on the land records which would require the owner of Lot 29 to preserve the 25 foot buffer,, In order for a Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance pursuant to Section 8- 6(3) of the Connecticut General Statutes, two conditions must be met: (1) The variance must be shown not to substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan, and (2) adherence to the strict letter of the zoning ordinance must be shown to cause unusual hardship unnecessary to the carrying out of the general purpose of the zoning plan. -QdQ v. Zoning Board of A1212eals of City of West HartfoLd, 206 Conn. 362, 368 (1988). It is clearly within the power of the ZBA to grant a variance with conditions. Burlington v. Jencik, 168 Conn. 505, 509 (1975). In the present case, the requirement for a 25 foot buffer on the adjoining parcel was a condition to the granting of the variance. This is made clear from the records In this case, not only by representations made by the applicant during the public hearing, but also in the expressed language of the motion by which the ZBA approved the Application and the notice of decision. In fact, in the notice of decision, this specific provision Is actually underlined to emphasize its importance. If a condition to the granting of a variance has not been met, the applicant can be required to comply with sold conditions through a Cease and Desist Order or the variance 4 Received Dec-08-98 04:15pm from 203 643 5773 4 SOUTH WINDSOR page 6 12/08/98 16:19 V203 643 5773 PHELON FITZGERAL Q 006 can be revoked. As noted by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Burlington v. Jenclk, "the variance and the attached conditions are inextricably linked, the viability of the variance being contingent upon the satisfaction of the conditions." ld., at 510. Another option available to the Temple would be to file an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals to remove the condition regarding the buffer on the adjoining lot. In order to successfully pursue such an application, the applicant would have to establish that there has been a material change in circumstances since the granting of the original variance which makes the condition imposed unreasonable. Caseria vv Zoning Board of Appesis of City of Bridgeport, 1995 WL 360794 (Conn. Super, 1995). It is not as clear from the record of the ZBA that the issue of parking spaces was made a condition to the granting of the variance. In the future, if the ZBA feels strongly about a particular fact which Is represented to them as being critical to the granting of a variance, they should clearly include such fact as a condition of the variance. This was not specifically done in the present case, so the discussion above pertaining to the buffer zone would not be applicable to the issue of parking. If, however, the ZBA were to determine that the Increased number of parking spaces substantially affects the character of the use of the property to the point that the proposed use substantially affects the comprehensive zoning plan, the ZBA could attempt to enforce the lower number of parking spaces on that theory. It is unclear whether such enforcement would be successful, because the argument would no doubt 5 Received Dec-08-98 04:15pm from 203 643 5773 4 SOUTH WINDSOR page 7 12/08/98 16:19 $203 643 5773 PHELON FITZGERAL 2007 be made that the Z8A did not make this factor a specific condition to approval. The ZBA could then argue that an implicit condition of all approvals is that underlying material representations made by applicants are accurate and, to the extent that they are not accurate or that they are changed, this could be the failure of an Implicit condition to the approval. it is not at all clear that this enforcement would be successful if the ZBA chose to proceed in this fashion. The better route, clearly, is for the ZBA to specifically and clearly state as conditions any and all factors which they believe are an integral part of their decision in granting a variance. CONCLUSION In sum, It is my opinion that the requirement for a 25 foot buffer on the adjoining residential lot was a condition to the granting of the variance and requires the applicant not only to provide such a buffer, but to provide a writing memorializing this requirement to be filed on the Land Records so that all subsequent owners of Lot 29 are bound thereby. If this condition has not been met, the applicant should either attempt to comply with the condition at this time or apply to the ZBA to remove the condition, if it can establish a material change In circumstances which makes the condition unreasonable. Lastly, It Is my opinion that the issue of parking was not specifically made a condition to the granting of the variance. The ZBA may attempt to enforce the lower number of parking spaces based upon the representations made by the applicant at the time of the 6 Received Dec-08-98 04:15pm from 203 643 5773 4 SOUTH WINDSOR page 8 12/08/98 16:19 12203 643 5773 PHELON FITZGERAL Qh 008 a — — — -- — variance approval, but this would have to be done on some theory of "implicit condition" pertaining to a material representation by the applicant and it is not as clear that such enforcement would be successful. 7