Processing Your Payment

Please do not leave this page until complete. This can take a few moments.

June 9, 2022

Judge orders proposed 142-unit Farmington apartment development back for consideration

By Andrew Larson

A Superior Court judge has sent a developer’s proposed 142-unit apartment development off Route 4 back to Farmington's Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission for consideration.

Neighbors Douglas and Kimberly Zeytoonjian appealed the commission’s approval of the project, located across from UConn Health Center. They claimed the commission violated a state statute and the town’s zoning regulations by failing to consider a “feasible and prudent alternative.”

They also said the hearing process lacked “fundamental fairness” because the commission retracted an earlier finding that the project was a “significant activity” under the zoning regulations, and that the commission’s approval was “predetermined.”

The developer, 402 Farmington Ave. LLC, applied for a permit to conduct regulated activities near wetlands on the 16.7-acre property, which is mostly wooded. The project includes a stormwater management system and a garage with 221 parking spaces.

The principal of 402 Farmington Ave. LLC is Farmington resident and developer Geoffrey W. Sager.

The commission unanimously approved a wetlands permit for the project on April 7, 2021.

On May 31, Superior Court Judge Matthew J. Budzik issued a memorandum of decision dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims about “fundamental fairness” and “predetermination.”

However, he found that the commission failed to consider whether a “feasible and prudent alternative” exists.

The town’s zoning regulations require the commission to find that a “feasible and prudent alternative” does not exist in order to issue a wetlands permit.

The court remanded the application to the commission for a determination on the “feasible and prudent alternative” issue. 

Budzik said in his decision that the commission’s review of the application was “quite diligent” and there was no evidence of a fundamentally unfair hearing process or predetermination. Also, he said the commission did not violate state statute.

Consideration and possible action based on the court’s decision is on the agenda for the commission’s meeting at 7 p.m. June 15.
 

Sign up for Enews

Most Recent

Most Recent

0 Comments

Order a PDF