Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance East Main topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Torrington ZBA grants narrow impervious‑coverage variance for proposed East Main gas station
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved a variance (0.75→0.8 impervious surface) for a proposed gas station and car wash at 472–486 East Main St. and 19 Hillside Ave., allowing interconnecting driveways the city planner said will improve traffic safety; Planning & Zoning must still review full site‑plan and stormwater.
The Torrington Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously on March 9 to grant a narrow variance increasing the allowable impervious surface from 0.75 to 0.8 for properties at 472, 478 and 486 East Main Street and 19 Hillside Avenue to accommodate a proposed gas station, retail building with a drive‑through and a car wash.
Applicant representative and professional engineer James DeMeo said site constraints at the intersection of East Main Street and Hillside Avenue force a single consolidated entrance and wider drive aisles to accommodate refueling tankers and safe turning movements. "The hardship... is I'm stuck with the one in and out due to the existing intersection along East Main," DeMeo said, explaining that the layout requires slightly more pavement to ensure clear turning radii and safe refueling‑truck circulation.
Assistant City Planner and ZEO Nate Nardi Cyrus read a memo recommending approval of the variance. "I recommend the granting of the variance as requested to allow an expansion of the minimum impervious surface ratio from 0.75 to 0.8 to allow for the construction of interconnecting driveways between neighboring properties," Nardi Cyrus told the board, noting the interconnects would let traffic move between the new development, an adjacent restaurant and a hotel without entering East Main Street.
An adjacent property owner, Raj Shah of the Days Inn at 492 East Main Street, asked how the interconnect would affect his property and whether the interconnection in the site plan meant improvements would cross property lines. Staff and the applicant replied that the variance narrowly concerns impervious coverage and that a separate Planning & Zoning site‑plan and special‑exception review will address detailed impacts, stormwater, landscaping and any required easements. The assistant planner added that interconnects sometimes are built to the edge of properties and would only be physically connected to a neighbor with that owner’s agreement or a recorded easement.
After a short discussion about where modest additional green space could be added and whether required landscaped islands would affect parking, the board closed the hearing, moved and seconded to approve the variance and recorded a unanimous affirmative vote. The board noted that Planning & Zoning’s forthcoming site‑plan review will be the venue for final engineering, stormwater and landscaping requirements.
What happens next: the applicant must return to Planning & Zoning for site‑plan and special‑exception review, where stormwater management, landscaping, curb cuts, and the final configuration of any interconnections will be resolved.
Sources and evidence: applicant presentation, assistant planner memo entered into the record, public comment from the adjacent hotel owner and the board’s roll‑call approval during the March 9 meeting.
