Applicant seeks four variances to allow gas station at 779 Carrington Road; ZBA continues deliberation to May 11

A Town of Bethany zoning applicant asked the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 13 to grant four variances so a former automotive repair site at 779 Carrington Road could be redeveloped as a gas station with a convenience store.

James DeMao, a professional engineer acting as agent for the application, told the board he proposes a 30-by-120-foot convenience building, roughly 700 square feet of interior storage, an approximately 70-by-40-foot refueling canopy with six refueling stations and underground tanks. DeMao said the parcel is an unusually shaped, shallow lot with frontage on both Cheshire Road and Carrington Road and that the site’s buildable area and locations suitable for a septic system are tightly constrained.

DeMao said the application requests four variances: a reduced front-yard setback for the canopy (to about 10.2 feet), a reduced front setback for the building (the proposal shows about 50 feet in one measurement), a waiver or modification of a 5-foot landscaped buffer between parking and building, and a reduction in required parking (projected 19 spaces shown on the plan versus 29 spaces required for retail). He also said the project would reduce overall impervious area and push the new building back compared with the existing structure.

Board members and members of the public questioned the applicant about historic fuel tanks on the site, distances to residences, septic records and traffic. DeMao said he and staff found no documentation proving past on-site fuel tanks, that soil testing had been performed to assess septic viability and stormwater, and that some occupied houses exist inside the BNI zoning band even where the zoning map lists BNI rather than residential zoning. He estimated the refueling canopy would be roughly 610 feet from one mapped residential-zone edge and about 700 feet to the closest residential-zone edge to the south, but acknowledged that occupied houses can sit inside BNI-zoned parcels.

A board member read the town zoning language aloud to clarify the town’s 500-foot rule: new or expanded filling stations must have vehicle access not less than 500 feet from any pedestrian or motor-vehicle access to a school, playground, church or other place of public assembly, and no such facility shall be permitted on premises located less than 500 feet from a residential zone; the board confirmed the regulation measures to the closest property line (the premises boundary).

A technical public commenter urged the board to scrutinize the applicant’s hardship argument, citing research from the state Office of Legislative Research. That commenter said many BNI properties in the corridor fall within the 500-foot range and argued that a hardship that affects a broad class of properties may not meet the legal standard for an individual variance. A separate public commenter raised traffic and DOT review concerns; another asked about wetlands proximity. The applicant and the board said traffic, wetlands and DOT requirements will be handled later in the review sequence (inland wetlands and planning and zoning, then DOT as required).

Town counsel/advisor told the board that a preexisting nonconforming lot and a prior nonconforming use (automotive repair) can enjoy certain grandfathered rights but that the applicant had not proven past pumps were present. Counsel explained that intensification or expansion of a prior use is treated differently by courts and reiterated that Connecticut variance law requires a property-specific physical hardship and that granting a variance generally requires a supermajority vote of the ZBA.

During deliberation members debated whether the applicant’s constraints — the lot’s shape and septic limitations — constitute the unique, property-specific hardship required under Connecticut law or whether the condition is common across the BNI district. Several members expressed concern that granting the variances could establish a precedent affecting many parcels in the zone and that some items (landscaping and parking) might be more appropriately handled through site-plan review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Several members asked for additional legal and drafting assistance so motions could be prepared carefully.

With those concerns and requests for further review, the board voted unanimously to continue deliberation and decision-making on the variances to its next regularly scheduled meeting on May 11, 2026. The public hearing was closed during the meeting and the board later adjourned.

What comes next: the board will request further information and staff input and expects to prepare formal motions (affirmative and denial language) for each variance. Subsequent reviews cited by the applicant — inland wetlands, Planning and Zoning site-plan review and any DOT requirements for the state-road frontages — will occur later in the approval sequence.