Town of Willington
Zoning Board of Appeals
40 Old Farms Road Lower Level
Willington, CT. 06279
March 14, 2012 at 7:30
Corrected Minutes
Present:
Mark Masinda
John Rup
Richard Maloney
Brian Semprebon
William Bland seated for Anne Marie Poole
Excused:
John Prusak
Jerry Lopes
Annemarie Poole
Public Hearing was open by Mark Masinda at 7:34
ZBA2013-1 Request for modification of variance ZBA2012-8 at 333 River Road (Map 30 Lot 17 Zone DC) Owner/Applicant: B&M Realty Trust, LLC (Received February 14, 2013 Public Hearing March 14, 2013 Decision within 65 days after close of P.H.)
Attorney JoAnn Paul representing B & M Realty Trust and David Held engineer and Land Surveyor representing Dunkin Donuts were present to speak about the request for modification. Attorney Paul said that David Held came before the Board at the September 13, 2012 meeting requesting many different variances. But the variance at issue now is the 40,000 square foot buildable area. The variance was approved, conditioned on the Conceptual Site Plan that was submitted with the application. Attorney Paul stated that the property is two separate lots
Plans were presented to the Board Members showing parcel A and parcel B.
She handed out to the Board Members an affidavit showing the title search done on property known as 333-335 River Road. Attorney Paul stated that if a chain of title shows that historically it was two lots then it could be two lots again.
In 1997 the new use by Mr. Repko was contingent on merging the two parcels.
Susan Yorgensen had asked that an affidavit be done for the two parcels, and that the owners have a map and planned use for the property before recording the affidavit.
Attorney Paul said at this time we are requesting a modification of the variance granted on September 13, 2012. The variance was granted for the whole parcel. We would like it to be granted just for the parcel A (Dunkin Donut).
R. Maloney state that he felt the application was misrepresented to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Attorney Paul showed on a map where the property is being divided.
William Brand asked if this was the original property line.
Attorney Paul stated no.
The line that is drawn now is drawn so that the project works, from an engineering outlook.
A barn structure remains on the other parcel.
M. Masinda stated we are only looking at parcel A, the Dunkin Donut site.
B. Semprebon stated that he is concerned that parcel B will not meet the buildable area.
D. Held said that they filed a property survey map that shows a free split line, after the variance was granted in September.
Rick Maloney said you filed a plan that had the lots split after you received the variance.
D. Held stated that was correct. Attorney Paul said it was always the intent to have two lots.
R. Maloney stated that when the map showing two lots was filed the variance became null and void. The variance was issued for the entire parcel.
B. Semprebon said if you split the lot you will have two non-compliant lots.
Attorney Paul stated that none of the lots are compliant or meet the 40,000ft buildable area.
The Board Members discussed the location of the driveway, and Attorney Paul said Dunkin Donuts agree to share the driveway with the parcel B.
D. Held said the map has been on file in the Town Clerk’s Office, and it shows two lots.
Attorney Paul and the Board Members discussed the affidavit and the different parcel descriptions in the affidavit.
Ralph Tulis questioned the validity of the notice.
M. Masinda said the variance is on the whole parcel and they are asking to have it apply parcel A (Dunkin Donuts).
R. Maloney asked why it was a modification of a variance and not a new application.
Attorney Paul said that she had consulted with Attorney Branse and S. Yorgensen and was directed to handle it this way.
Attorney Paul said the original variance was conditioned on the map titled “Conceptual Site Plan Proposed Dunkin Donuts Restaurant,” Prepared for B&M Realty Trust Prepared by Provost & Rovero, Inc. Dated 7/31/12, consisting of 1 sheet. The modification of the variance would consist of changing the tile of the map and correcting the date.
B. Semprebon said you are making two non conforming lots and we have regulations against make a lot more non -conforming.
R. Maloney said you are requesting a variance and increasing the non conformance. Attorney Paul said all we are doing is going back to the historical lots.
Attorney Paul asked the Board Members to look at the lot on its own merits. The plans you have in front of you shows you all of the unbuildable area in red.
D. Held said in the plans you have the red is showing the unbuildable area. It would be the steep slopes, the wetlands, and the easements on the property.
The plans titled Buildable Area Exhibit No. 1 Prepared for B & M Realty Trust, LLC River Road (Route 32 & Tolland Turnpike (Route 74) Willington, Connecticut Dated: 3/12/2013 scale: 1” = 30’ Provost & Rovero, Inc. and Buildable Area Exhibit No. 2.
Also presented at the meeting was a plan titled Proposed Dunkin Donuts Restaurant
Tolland Turnpike (Route 74) & River Road (Route 32) Property Owner B & M Realty Trust, LLC Applicant: DEKK Group, LLC Provost & Rovero, Inc Revisions Date 12/3/2012 Town Engineer comments 1/14/2013 CT DPH & EHHD comments 2/14/2013 Septic system location, 3/5/2013 Misc for Bank site. Sheet 1 of 10
D. Held explained that parcel A (Dunkin Donuts) buildable area was 62,623 S.F. the unbuildable area is about 27,000.
He stated that there is not a 40,000sq ft rectangle on parcel A. The regulations require that the buildable area be a 40,000 sq ft and rectangular as possible.
R. Maloney asked what they wanted to vary in the regulations.
D. Held stated the intentions were to keep the same variance from the previous approval.
M. Masinda said on the previous approval you asked to be exempt from the buildable area regulation.
D. Held stated that he is looking for relief from the geometric requirement of the buildable area.
Ralph Tulis had comments about the slope of the land and the easement going through the property and future ability to use parcel B.
D. Held said he would like to speak about the easement that will appear on parcel B. He explained that the cross hatch area on the map represent a temporary construction easement and a driveway that will be used by both parcels.
Attorney Paul said the driveway is not an easement. It will be access to both parcels.
Attorney Paul said there is enough room on the lots to build what is being proposed; it just does not fit into the buildable area regulations.
Ralph Tulis spoke about the regulation 4.04.02 Minimum Buildable Land Criteria.
The Board Members discussed the wording of the regulation, contiguous area and as nearly rectangular as possible of at least 40,000 sq ft.
R. Maloney said they are creating more of a hardship for themselves by creating two lots.
J. Rup stated that at the original meeting they talked about this as being one lot and a second business going in at that location.
Attorney Paul said they were not asking for any additional variance.
D. Held state that the design is not the same, they have switched the septic location and the detention basin. The additional soil testing found unsuitable soils for septic area.
The building is the same size.
R. Maloney asked what variance they were looking for.
Attorney Paul asked that the original variance be amended to reference the appropriate map and parcel A.
The Board Members discussed different way to modify the variance.
D. Held said he would like to keep the 40, 000 sq ft requirement and get relief on the requirement that it be contiguous and in the rectangular shape with a no sides less than 150ft.
We have the 40,000 sq ft but, it is not rectangular and it is not contiguous.
The hardship is the easement that goes through the middle of the property the slope of the land, and the wetlands.
Ralph Tulisa asked a question about a location on the map that look like 40,000 sq ft.
M. Masinda stated that, because of the terrain and the easement, you have a hardship on the buildable area.
R. Maloney said he would like to keep the Public Hearing open.
J. Rup said he feels nothing has changed from the original application except the line being drawn to make it two lots. All the discussions from the original meeting still apply but it is only to parcel A.
R. Maloney feels that the division of the property into two parcels makes the property more non-compliant and lessens the buildable area.
Attorney Paul stated the modification is to change the variance from the original plan to the plan showing the divided lot.
R. Maloney stated the application is for a modification of the original variance granted on September 13, 2012.
R. Maloney read the application letter.
J. Rup said that the original variance that was granted can be applied to parcel A.
Attorney Paul stated that the intention of the application is to correct an error in the tile of original plan, and to get the correct information to the Board Members.
The Board Members would like to get an opinion from Attorney Branse and S. Yorgensen, what’s their interpretation of modification.
The Board Members asked to see what the buildable square will look like on the plans and what relief you are going to need for the buildable area to make it conforming.
The Board Members would like a copy of the original variance and the application.
M. Masinda motion to continue the Public Hearing. R. Maloney seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
M. Masinda called the regular meeting to order.
B. Semprebon motion to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2012 meeting.
W. Bland seconded the motion. All voted in favor.
Meeting adjournment at 9:26
Respectfully Submitted
M. DuPilka Recording Clerk
| 
