Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals reaffirms use variance for 1003 Hartsville Road with conditions
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals reaffirmed the 2023 use variance for 1003 Hartsville Road (case 23 BZA 6), approving two conditions: the variance will be void if the property remains vacant for 12 months or the use changes, and the owner must work with New Haven Engineering if traffic increases.
The Board of Zoning Appeals reaffirmed a 2023 use variance for 1003 Hartsville Road (case 23 BZA 6), voting to continue the allowance for metal‑fastener manufacturing under two conditions: the variance will be void if the property is vacant for 12 months or the use changes, and the property owner must coordinate with New Haven Engineering on any traffic‑related right‑of‑way improvements.
President Joe Talarico opened the hearing and staff summarized the request, telling the board the prior variance was granted in December 2023 and the board had asked for a re‑review by June 2026. “Staff has not received any complaints from the neighbors in the past several years,” the staff member said, and engineering had not reported traffic issues on Hartsville Road.
Staff recommended two specific conditions if the board continued the variance. The staff member described the first condition as a limit tied to the current business or clarified to run with the property only for the specific metal‑fastener use, and the second condition as a requirement for the owner to work with New Haven Engineering should traffic increase. The staff member summarized the timing restriction: if the property “remain[s] vacant for a period of 12 months, the use variance shall be void.”
Committee members questioned whether the variance should run with the property or with the business owner. One committee member said the variance should run with the real estate but be limited to production of metal fasteners; another moved that the variance run with the owner. “I think the condition should be… it runs with the owner,” the committee member said during the motion.
A committee member made a motion to reaffirm case 23 BZA 6 with the recommended conditions and that the variance run with the owner; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote with ayes recorded and no nays noted. The board did not record individual vote tallies in the transcript.
Staff and members also discussed longer‑term options if the site continued toward light industrial use, including the possibility of seeking rezoning to an industrial district (I‑1), and noted site constraints such as proximity to residences, a cemetery to the south, and nearby floodplain and bridge infrastructure. Staff said that a substantial increase in truck traffic could prompt engineering requirements such as a turn lane.
The board listed July 15 at 5:30 p.m. as the next meeting; staff noted one expected item (off‑premise directional signage on Maple Crest). The meeting then adjourned.
