The developer who proposed a rejected 360,000-square-foot warehouse along Governor’s Highway and Talbot Lane has filed another lawsuit, this time challenging the denial of its second application.
The Planning and Zoning Commission rejected the first warehouse proposal on Dec. 7, 2021, citing issues with the application including incompatibility with the definition for the industrial zone, truck queuing, and use of the facility.
The property owner, UW Vintage Lane II LLC, filed a lawsuit on Dec. 21, stating in a complaint that the PZC acted “illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of the discretion vested in it” by rejecting the application.
The developer then filed a second application in January for a highly similar warehouse on the same property, with changes focused on truck queuing. The PZC ultimately rejected that application on March 15, citing issues including an unacceptable snow storage plan.
In its decision, the PZC decided to accept the intervenor petitions, which had to prove that the proposal would cause unreasonable pollution to the public trust, or the natural environment of the state. The snow storage plan was cited in the PZC’s accepting of the petitions.
On April 1, UW Vintage Lane II LLC filed a lawsuit challenging the decision on the second application. The complaint states that the PZC acted “illegally, arbitrarily, and in abuse of the discretion vested in it” by its acceptance of the intervener petition on the grounds of the snow storage plan.
“The commission failed to recognize that no such environmental impact was alleged in the verified petition, the intervenors put forth no evidence in support of that assertion, and, in any event, the South Windsor Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency found no adverse wetlands impacts would result from implementation of the proposed site plan,” the complaint reads.
Court dates have not yet been scheduled for either of the two lawsuits concerning the warehouse applications.
Planning Department staff confirmed that the town had received the lawsuit, but were unable to comment on any pending litigation.
An intervener named in the lawsuit also declined to comment.
