Court Sets Back Wal-Mart Plan For Watershed Development
GROTON — A Superior Court judge has dismissed an appeal of the Groton Planning Commission’s denial of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Route 184 last year, The Day reported.
In an article by Katie Warchut, the newspaper said June 3:
Judge Joseph J. Purtill did not deal with the merits of the land-use commission’s decision, as he came to the conclusion that Konover Development had failed to establish that it has an interest in the property, in a decision rendered Friday [May 30, 2008].
In the April 8 hearing, Town Attorney Michael Carey had questioned the four agreements that gave Konover the option to purchase the property on Gold Star Highway, to the east of Antonino Road.
Carey said at the hearing that an applicant has to have the title to or an interest in the property at the time it applies, or “they don’t have standing to file the application.”
The Planning Commission’s decision was rendered in February 2007.
Since then, two option agreements have expired, meaning Konover has failed to show it has a continuing interest in the property.
Two purchase agreements were signed March 28, 2007 and July 17, 2007 – after the Planning Commission decision. Although they remain in effect, they also fail to show that Konover had an interest in those parcels when the appeal began.
Carey had no comment Monday.
Konover attorney Diane Whitney said the ruling was disappointing and that her clients are considering whether to pursue other legal options.
Whitney had argued that the commission’s denial of the application was not based on concrete evidence, and said commissioners simply didn’t like it.
The Groton Open Space Association and attorney Marjorie Shansky, representing five interveners, have opposed the application.
Konover is still moving ahead with a new application for the 200,000-square-foot store on the same 37 acres. The Inland Wetlands Agency is now considering proposed changes to its wetland permits on the site.
Though the area is zoned for commercial development, commissioners who rejected the site plan were most concerned about its effect on the town’s water resource protection district.
Post a Comment
Printer Friendly Version