Developer successfully appeals South Windsor’s rejection of Talbot Lane warehouse

1 month ago
11 Views

In 2021, UW Vintage Lane II LLC filed an application for a roughly 360,000-square-foot distribution facility on 30 acres of mostly forested land on Talbot Lane in South Windsor, a dead-end industrial road off Governors Highway. The land sits across a cul-de-sac from the former Carla’s Pasta facility under renovation by Home Market Foods, and not too far from potential development on Route 5.

South Windsor’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to reject the warehouse plan in December 2021, after months of lengthy meetings devoted to the application. At the time, many neighbors spoke during a public hearing to voice concerns with noise, pollution, and other potential quality-of-life impacts.

The developer filed a lawsuit over the decision later that month, as well as a new application with adjustments focused on the proposed driveway and parking lot. The PZC rejected the second application in March 2022, and adopted a one-year moratorium on warehouse applications in April 2022. UW Vintage Lane II responded to the rejection with a second lawsuit, which was stayed in August 2022 while the first suit played out.

The court’s memorandum of decision, signed by Superior Court Judge Edward V. O’Hanlan and dated Jan. 6, concludes that the PZC’s denial “was not supported by substantial evidence,” and declares that the commission shall approve the developer’s site plan.

O’Hanlan said in the decision that the PZC shall approve the plan with conditions “consistent with the commission’s determination, this court’s decision, and the applicable conditions from its draft resolution.” The document notes that the commission is left to decide whether twelve light poles proposed for the westerly side of the building will be 35 feet, as allowed under existing regulations, or limited to 25 feet, as discussed during a public hearing on the application.

“The commission may only incorporate conditions from its draft approval that it has authority to impose under its site plan regulations, as distinct from special exception factors or regulations,” O’Hanlan said.

The developer’s complaint, dated December 2021, alleged that the PZC “acted illegally arbitrarily, and in abuse of the discretion vested in it,” and had “no reasonable basis in the record” to deny the application.

A group of neighbors who actively opposed the warehouse applications successfully petitioned to intervene in the lawsuits in August 2022, and argued in a brief filed in June 2023 that the developer “failed to sustain its burden” to show that the PZC’s decision was arbitrary, illegal, or in abuse of its discretion.

In a brief filed in June 2023, the PZC said it would not take a position on the merits of the appeal, therefore leaving “the remaining parties to their respective proof with respect to the issues raised in this appeal.”

Bradford Wainman of H-M Realty, representing the applicant, said the court decision “speaks for the property owner” and declined to comment on questions regarding the future of the warehouse project.…Read more by Staff Writer, Joseph Villanova

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

IJNN

FREE
VIEW