Town of Willington
Zoning Board of Appeals
40 Old Farms Road Lower Level
Willington, CT. 06279
August 9, 2012 at 7:30
Minutes
Present:
Mark Masinda
Richard Maloney
Brian Semprebon
Jack Rup
Excused:
John Prusak
Annemarie Poole
William Bland
Jerry Lopes
Public Hearing opened at 7:47
ZBA2012-6 Application variance of Willington Zoning Regulation section 11.20.04.06 (location of septic system to wetlands) 3 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Frank & Joseph Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc (Received July 12, 2012 Public Hearing by September 13, 2012 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
Attorney Len Jacobs of Manchester Ct representing Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores,
Tom Galeoto from Fuss and O’Neill and Rick Shuffield are present to speak about the application.
Attorney Jacobs explained that the application had been approved by the IWWC. They are looking for a variance of Willington Zoning Regulation 11.20.04.06 which states in part that no portion of any subsurface septic system shall be located within one hundred and fifty feet (150’) of any wetland or water course or within two hundred (200’) feet of any wetland or watercourse when the system is located in a sand and gravel soil. The soil at this location is sand and gravel so the 200 feet would apply to this application. We are within 200 feet of wetland so we are asking to vary that requirement.
This site is 39.93 acres and 9.08 acres are wetlands and a large portion of the site has very steep slopes. The total amount of disturbance for the project is 9.5 acres.
Attorney Jacobs explained that the location of the system meets the requirement of the DEEP. The system cannot be put in under impervious conditions; locations with slopes of more than 25% and areas of cut and fills. The location we have chosen should not have any impact on the wetlands.
The hardship is the wetlands on the site and the steep slopes.
Tom Galeoto from Fuss & O’Neil was present to speak about the application. Any system that handle greater than 5000 gallon per day has to meet the regulations of the DEEP. They are responsible for the technical review of the system. The DEEP and Fuss & O’Neal agree that this is the best location for the system.
Rick Maloney asked if anyone present wanted to speak.
Ralph Tulis state that he is an abutting property owner. R. Tulis discussed the letter he submitted to the commission. The letter will be attached to the minutes.
Kathy Demurs spoke about Roaring Brook which runs along the western border of the property. She stated that all of the wetlands work to recharge Roaring Brook. Roaring Brook is a class A waterway and a class 3 trout management area; it is also a tributary to the Willimantic River.
Kathy Demers asked why this property does not need to have a back up location in case the septic system fails.
David Kuchinsky 58 Lohse Road stated that he did not think this would be the best use of the property.
Scott Wing of 68 Lohse Road question whether an application had been submitted to the DEEP. He also had concerns about the grease going into the wetlands.
Carl Pearson 55 Fermier Road stated that his concern is that the septic system is going process up to five thousand gallons (5000) of water a day. Where is the water coming from?
Nancy Gauthier of Fermier Road asked about section 21.01.03 of the Willington Zoning Regulation.
Mark Wojcik 40 Lohse Road stated that the traffic and use of local roads needs to be looked into.
Bruce Ceramicole 70 Polster Road stated that he owns a house built in 1730 that is close to the location of the new project He is questioning what this project will do to his property value.
Frank Malack 22 Polster Road stated that many truck pass through this area.
Tom Galeoto said that he would try to answer the questions that were being asked about the system. If he implied that they made application to the DEEP that was incorrect.
We go to the DEEP as early in the process as we can on preliminary bases to get an opinion from them as to what is being proposed on a site. The DEEP will not review until the town has made a decision. There is a pre treatment system for the grease before it enters the septic system. When a residential system is designed it does not go through the scrutiny that a commercial system does, so the process is different. This type of system would be renovated, not replaced. The DEEP will require that this system be monitored quarterly.
Attorney Jacobs stated the process is you go to ZBA to get a variance before you go to PZC. We feel the hardship created by the property, justified us going to ZBA. We have a project that we feel is a reasonable use of the property. In our opinion the ability to use less than 25% of the property is a hardship. We do not feel that this development will have a negative impact on this location.
R. Maloney made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to September 13, 2012 and set a site walk for August 29, 2012 at 5:30. B. Semprebon seconded the motion all voted in favor.
ZBA2012-7 Application variance of Willington Zoning Regulations section 4.05 (Building in Front or Rear Yard) for AG pool 76 Lustig Road (Map 36 Lot 14-1 Zone R80) Owner: Keven Farnham & Wendy Race (Received July 19, 2012 Public Hearing August 9, 2012 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H
Keven Farnham & Wendy Race are present to speak about the application. They would like to locate a pool in the side yard. They are requesting a front yard variance to put the pool on the side of the house. The driveway is located in the front of the house and the septic is located in the back of the house. The way the house is located on the property the side of the house face the road which is considered the front yard.
Site walk was done on August 7, 2012 M. Masinda, A. Poole, W. Bland and B Semprebon were present. Public Hearing closed at 9:18
Regular Meeting was called to order.
New Business:
Old Business:
ZBA2012-6 Application variance of Willington Zoning Regulation section 11.20.04.06 (location of septic system to wetlands) 3 Polster Road (Map 46 Lots 16 & 17) Owner: Frank & Joseph Malack Applicant: Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc (Received July 12, 2012 Public Hearing by September 13, 2012 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
R. Maloney motion to continue Public Hearing to September 13, 2012. B. Semprebon seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Site walk set for August 29, 2012 at 5:30, members will meet at 3 Polster Road.
ZBA2012-7 Application variance of Willington Zoning Regulations section 4.05 (Building in Front or Rear Yard) for AG pool 76 Lustig Road (Map 36 Lot 14-1 Zone R80) Owner: Keven Farnham & Wendy Race (Received July 19, 2012 Public Hearing August 9, 2012 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H
J. Rup motion to approve a front yard. R. Maloney seconded the motion. All voted in favor
M. Masinda motion to approve the minutes of July 12, 2012 with corrections. In the first paragraph a common was added after sales and the spelling of basis was corrected.
B. Semproben seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
M. Masinda motion to adjourn. J. Rup seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
Respectfully Submitted
M. DuPilka Recording Clerk
Ralph H Tulis PE
47 Village Hill Road
PO Box 280
Willington CT 062790280
Home 860 6846404 Email rcnthuaerltiestr
9 August 2012
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Willington
40 Old Farms Road
Willington CT 06279
RE ZBA Application ZBA20126
Love Travel Stops Country Store
Polster Road Willington CT
Dear Board Members
First let me state for the record that I am an abutting property owner at 12 Lohse Road Willington I
did receive a certified letter advising me of this Public Hearing
Let me say that as well intentioned as this application may be I submit that the applicant does not have
standing to apply for this variance Can the ZBA approve a variance for a parcel of land located in a
Zone which currently prohibits the very use under which the applicant is claiming a hardship I would
remind the Board that CGS 86bstates Any variance granted by a zoning board of appeals shall run
with the land and shall not be personal in nature to the person who applied for and received the
variance If the use for which the variance is being sought is currently not allowed on the land then
how can a variance be granted for that piece of land See also0213and02123of the
Willington Zoning Regulations Remember which section of the Zoning Regulations is triggering the the
applicant’s desire for a variance is under High Intensity Uses which are NOT allowed in a R80
Zone Consider carefully the ramifications if you were to grant the variance and then the proposed
project and its associated Zone change and Special Permit are not granted and do not go forward
I find it rather disturbing that this Board has not scheduled a site walk on this application as has been
typically done for other requested variances The public hearing that follows this one is for a simple
above ground pool I find an agenda for a site walk that was to be conducted on August 7 for that
1 0213states To determine and vary the application of these Regulations in harmony with their general
purpose and intent and with due consideration for conserving the public health safety convenience welfare and property values solely with respect to a parcel of land where owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel but not generally affecting the district in which it is situated a literal enforcement of such Regulations would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship so that substantial justice will be done and public safety and welfare secured In accordance with Public Act 77509 Connecticut General Statutes Section 86 the Board is hereby prohibited from approving a variance which has the
effect of permitting a use in any zone which is not permitted by these Regulations In addition in accordance with Connecticut case law the Board is prohibited from varying any conditions requirement set forth in these Regulations for a Special Permit or Special Exception use such uses being permitted in the subject zone only when all conditions or requirements contained here are satisfied
Variances shall only be granted where such an action would be in harmony with the purposes of these Regulations as set forth in Section 1 of these Regulations and where the literal enforcement of these Regulations would result in unusual hardship as the same has been defined by the courts of the State of Connecticut which may be summarized as follows
202123states The hardship must be unique to the property in the sense that it is a characteristic which is
not exhibited by other properties in the area or in the zone and which makes it appropriate for special treatment Merely being too small or too narrow is not a legal hardship unless it restricts the property from being put to a reasonable use permitted in the subject zone
Page I of 3
9 August 2012 ZBA Application ZBA20126
Zoning Board of Appeals Love Travel Stops Country Store
application Installing a waste water treatment system closer to a wetland than is currently allowed
certainly requires far more thought and consideration than does an above ground pool Why was no site
walk conducted Given the text in Chapter 4 Section 19 how can this Board in good conscience
consider granting a variance for such an important constraint without ever seeing the nature of the site
and getting a feel for the lay of the land
Willington Zoning Regulations in Chapter 4 really sets the tone of how our Zoning regulations have
evolved to put this requirement in place Section 19 Waste Disposal System Locations states
To help preserve the natural environment of Willington and to help promote the health and welfare of
Willington citizens through the protection of lakes ponds watercourses and environmentally sensitive
soils from potential waste disposal system pollution all waste disposal systems for new buildings and
structures shall be installed no less than one hundred 100feetfrom the edge of a lake pond or
watercourse and sfeivvenety 75feetfrom wetlands The terms watercourse and wetlands shall be
defined in accordance with the definitions and procedures set forth in the Willington Inland Wetlands
Regulations All setbacks shall be measured on a horizontal plane
This requirement in under General Regulations not under Special Regulations concerning High Intensity
Uses under which this application clearly belongs
Regarding Love ZBA Application for a variance of Zoning Regulation section0120146 To be sure
we are in the proper context I remind the Board that Chapter 11 is titled Special Regulations Section 20
covers High Intensity Uses and Subsection 04 covers additional requirements above and beyond those
in the Sanitary Code of the State of Connecticut
0120146states No portion of any subsurface septic system shall be located within one hundred
fifty 150 feet of any inland wetland or watercourse as described in Public Act 72155 as amended or
within two hundred 200feet of any wetland or watercourse when the system is located in a sand and
gravel soil
That said let me remind the Board that the waters of Roaring Brook are of Class A the ground water
along Roaring Brook is of Class GA and we have an aquifer at the confluence of Roaring Brook and the
Willimantic River that is of Class A Careful consideration of the impacts from potential pollutants
entering our local waters from any waste water treatment system is paramount The separation distances
in our Zoning Regulations are based on many factors some are technical some are esthetic and more
importantly some are simply intended as safety factors This is what Willington PZC chose to impose
A reduction in separation distance no matter how sophisticated the treatment system for a high intensity
use is simply unacceptable
I would question how can Love be aggrieved by a requirement in the Zoning Regulations when they
have yet to submit an application for a Zone Change and the subsequent application for a Special Permit
They have not yet been denied of anything by the Zoning Agent or the PZC Are they not putting the
cart before the horse
Since the Applicant is asking for a variance relating to subsurface waste water treatment should not the
Applicant be required to prove to this Board that their entire proposal will satisfy the requirements of
Zoning Regulations013
Also worthy of note Section 11 of the Zoning Regulations does not explicitly state that any of the
requirements of the chapter are subject to Special Exceptions and Variances as has been stated in other
chapters of the Zoning Regulations
Page 2 of 3
9 August 2012 ZBA Application ZBA20126
Zoning Board of Appeals Love Travel Stops Country Store
While this particular waste water treatment system may ultimately fall under the direct jurisdiction of the
CT DEEP that alone is not a valid reason to permit a reduction in the separation distance Our Zoning
Regulations have been developed and have evolved over a period of some 4 decades or more and have
been revised and massaged many times These Regulations represent what the PZC and the residents of
this Town as a whole feel is best for Willing Simply because another agency is willing to live with a
shorter separation distance is not reason enough to grant this variance
I urge this Board to deny the variance request on behalf of all Willington residents who enjoy the pristine
nature of Roaring Brook on behalf of those in the neighborhood who may ultimately be faced with living
next to the327645 operation that Love is proposing and because this is simply a bad precedence to
establish The setback distance is appropriate as isleave it be
This parcel of land is indeed attractive for commercial development because of its proximity to 184
There are other commercial uses that are less intense and will be of lesser impact I submit that Love
proposal simply is not one of them
Respectfully submitted
I
Ralph H Tulis PE
Received for record r
At b
14J
Page 3 of 3
| 
