Appeal of Glastonbury warehouse condos ready for decision

Alex Wood, Journal Inquirer, Manchester, Conn.
·3 min read

Apr. 20—CONDO CASE

AT ISSUE: Developer's plan to convert former tobacco warehouse at 38 Hubbard St. in Glastonbury to 30 condominium units.

CLAIMS: Neighbor Leonard Factor maintains that the Town Council improperly delegated decision-making authority to the town manager and didn't adequately consider the town's own regulations.

STATUS: Judge Edward V. O'Hanlan is ready to get to work on a decision, a task that could take weeks or months.

Almost 15 months after Glastonbury's Town Council approved conversion of a vacant tobacco warehouse on Hubbard Street to 30 condominiums — and almost 14 months after a neighbor appealed that decision to court — it is finally time for a judge to get to work on deciding whether the council acted legally.

The trial in the appeal by Leonard Factor, who owns the property at 52-54 Hubbard St., just east of the old warehouse, took part of Wednesday morning in Hartford Superior Court.

There was no testimony — only arguments by the lawyers on opposing sides of the case. The factual basis for Judge Edward V. O'Hanlan's decision will consist primarily of transcripts of the Town Council's public hearings and meetings on the condominium plan as well as documents that were submitted to the council for consideration.

The judge said he will take the case under advisement, meaning that he will consider it and probably issue a written decision after weeks or months of work.

One of the major arguments presented by lawyer Timothy M. Herbst on Factor's behalf was that the council improperly delegated authority to Richard J. Johnson, then the town manager, to approve a revised landscaping plan for the east side of the warehouse property, along Factor's property line.

Herbst cited Connecticut court decisions indicating that local land-use agencies can't delegate their "discretionary functions."

But lawyer Meghan A. Hope, representing the developer of the condominium project, JS Advisors LLC, argued that Glastonbury's building zoning regulations specifically authorize the council to delegate to the manager authority to approve minor changes in a site development plan.

Herbst urged the judge to overturn the council's approval of the condominium plan. But if the judge doesn't consider a reversal appropriate, Herbst argued, he should at least send the case back to the Town Council to decide for itself whether to approve the plan with the revised landscaping requirements.

The council's written findings say it considered all applicable standards and requirements of the town's building zoning regulations.

But Herbst argued that the council's discussion included no reference to a provision of the regulations relating to the appropriateness of the location and use, including such issues as the capacity of adjacent and feeder streets to handle peak traffic loads and the preservation of the neighborhood's character.

But Hope said she had gone through the provisions of that regulation in her legal brief and demonstrated how the record supported the council's finding that each one had been complied with.

As to the traffic-related issues he raised, Herbst acknowledged under questioning by the judge that Factor hadn't submitted a traffic study to the council to counter the study submitted by the developer.

The developer's traffic expert, William Kresic, concluded that traffic generated by the condominiums wouldn't adversely affect operation of a nearby intersection and that the project's driveway "would operate at an excellent level of service, even during peak traffic periods," according to Hope's legal brief.

For updates on Glastonbury, and recent crime and courts coverage in North-Central Connecticut, follow Alex Wood on Twitter: @AlexWoodJI1, Facebook: Alex Wood, and Instagram: @AlexWoodJI.