Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

maxanderson350 t1_j19de1g wrote

Absurd. One of the best things the state government could do to improve economic development in CT is to curtail the ability of people to bring these types of lawsuits. There is such an intense anti-progress, anti-development mindset in CT that is weaponized through lawsuits like this.

Whether it is in Glastonbury, Canton, West Hartford, Farmington or elsewhere, CTers' reflexive "no" to development is really holding the state back.

31

keepitupxxx t1_j19eijj wrote

Terrible decision Glastonbury should support housing not prevent After all this is a very old building an worthless

48

Kodiak01 t1_j19olce wrote

Replying to xyzjdkaligdn (#1,010,386)

If on desktop browser, hit Ctrl-P to bring up the print view before the paywall pops up. You can then read the entire text in that window.

A Glastonbury homeowner is suing the town council, claiming it never should have authorized a developer to build 30 condominiums in a former warehouse along a busy local road.

Council members abused their discretion when they agreed to change the zoning of the old Consolidated Cigar warehouse on Hubbard Street, according to Leonard Factor’s lawsuit.

Changing the zoning last winter cleared the way for JS Advisors LLC, a Wallingford-based developer, to begin converting the building into condos. Nearby homeowners complained at the time that the project would worsen traffic, and Factor’s suit cites that as one of the reasons for the court to rescind municipal permits allowing the conversion. The council approved the project by an 8-1 vote last January, a decision he wants reversed.

Factor’s suit in Hartford Superior Court contends that adding 30 condos on a parcel of just 1.2 acres will diminish the value of his home next door. “The value of the property owned by plaintiff, and the use and enjoyment of his property, are adversely impacted by the council’s decision allowing for construction of the proposed development,” according to the suit filed by Factor’s attorneys, Timothy Herbst and Barbara Schellenberg of the Marino, Zabel & Schellenberg, PLLC.

The suit names the town council and JS Advisors as defendants; both have filed responses in court denying Factor’s allegations. This week, Judge Edward O’Hanlan directed attorneys for Factor, the council and JS Advisors to submit briefs in January.

The former Consolidated Cigar Corp. warehouse in Glastonbury in 2018. (Peter Marteka) Listen to this article

The property at the heart of the suit has been involved in controversy before. Consolidated Cigar built the roughly 50,000-square-foot warehouse in the early 1900s to store and pack tobacco, and the company went on to become Glastonbury’s biggest taxpayer for many years. It owned as much as 1,900 acres of tobacco fields in town in 1976, but left Glastonbury as the shade tobacco industry in Connecticut dwindled in the 1980s.

The three-story building at 38 Hubbard St. was considered for apartments nearly a decade ago, but neighbors argued that the proposal was simply too big for the neighborhood. Opponents rounded up 200 signatures on petitions for town planners to reject the proposal.

L.A.C. Group LLC had sought permission for 40 units, a mix of one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments, but the council approved only 31.

L.A.C.’s attorney said at the time that while 40 units were economically viable, it was unclear whether the company could construct just 31 profitably. Ultimately the project wasn’t built.

Last year, JS Advisors put forward a new plan, this one for building condos instead of apartments. Neighbors told the plan and zoning commission as well as the council that the scale was too large for the residential zone where the old warehouse stands.

The council set several conditions for development but approved changing the property to an Adaptive Redevelopment Zone. Factor’s suit contends that town planners wanted density and parking caps to be considered when evaluating proposals in the ARZ, but the council didn’t follow through.

“Had the regulations been properly amended in accordance with the commission’s unanimous recommendation, the council would have been obligated to consider an entirely different standard for density in connection with the applicant’s proposed development,” according to the suit.

14

yudkib t1_j1a1b5z wrote

Replying to CaptServo (#1,011,974)

Right? Watch them sell it to Amazon and be running heavy trucks 24 hours a day. If they don’t change the building use there’s probably not much stopping them.

6

blu_crab t1_j1a3ghk wrote

Replying to Kodiak01 (#1,011,014)

Just looked up the plaintiff in the Glastonbury GIS. If he's so concerned about his property value, he may want to start by doing some basic maintenance, such as painting, of his own property, before telling other folks what to do with theirs.

7

babwawawa t1_j1b0z0z wrote

Replying to Spooky2000 (#1,011,744)

The residents are saying that the presence of an additional 30 units will degrade nearby property values. "Difficult to prove" is an understatement. In town you have 3 bedroom houses built in the 1940s on a quarter acre going for $225-250/sq ft. Identical construction further out of town where I live is more like $150-175/sq ft. The reality is that denser neighborhoods are more desirable nowadays.

I've lived here since 2007, and I can understand that the town's transformation has been drastic and not to everyone's liking. But a homebuyer in town can have no legitimate complaint on the basis of property values. I hope this lawsuit gets tossed out fast.

11

1Enthusiast t1_j1b28bb wrote

Wow 30 condos on 1.2 acres does seem like alot doesnt it? 🤷🏼‍♂️

3

buried_lede t1_j1banel wrote

Replying to babwawawa (#1,015,109)

Years ago the CT Supreme Court, to the shock of many, ruled that protecting housing values was a legitimate basis for a town’s high, and otherwise arbitrary minimum square footage requirement for new homes.

This is a little different, the town’s rules allow this to be built, but it just shows how deep it goes in CT. There is a good chunk of people who think it’s OK to treat towns like gated communities

6

buried_lede t1_j1bbqtj wrote

Here is the google street view of the place.

It’s on a double yellow line road with no development across the street for a good long distance because that’s an enormous cemetery.

I doubt they have much of a case.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/38+Hubbard+St,+Glastonbury,+CT+06033/@41.6892282,-72.5965018,12z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x89e651f23507d5b3:0xd5dbb7d33341d685!8m2!3d41.7000709!4d-72.6061194!16s%2Fg%2F11b8v7853v

Seems like a missed opportunity for the neighborhood- they could have welcomed it and negotiated space in the front for neighborhood meeting space or bike repair for the kids.

4

Hey-buuuddy t1_j1bm8rr wrote

Oh I know where this area is- this is the OG old historic house area, mostly antique, lining Main St right around the corner. Totally a NIMBY situation. This area is watching the other side of Hebron Ave being commercially developed and does not want the traffic and noise. Agree with them or not, it’s just wealthy people with big old houses who are going to keep showing up at P&Z meetings. If no one noticed, virtually ALL the new commercial development (including condos) is north of Hebron Ave to East Hartford- and that’s by design.

1

bunkerbash t1_j1bwxrr wrote

Are they planning to re-use the existing warehouse structure or is this a tear down and rebuild situation?

1

bjt1021 t1_j1ddhwp wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,011,925)

Most of our “townies” think it’s been “too developed” for years. Glastonbury is not what it used to be, and the land is getting used up quick. Apartment complexes have been popping up year after year. The traffic in town is heavy now. Good for businesses, but the people definitely miss the way it used to be.

2

igetmoneyyuhuurd t1_j1e3f8u wrote

So NIMBYs would rather have a nasty dirty abondoned warehouse in town over a brand new condominium development? Makes a lot of sense

1