The Amount of Money Wasted By the Town of Simsbury To Keep My Property on Lark Road From Being Developed

My name is Tim Martin. I lived in Simsbury for 11 years and raised 4 children there. I am married to same woman for 31 years and I am a veteran of 2 services both of which I enlisted in after college. As you might have heard I have two lawsuits pending against the Town of Simsbury. One in Federal court and one in State court . The Town has spent an estimated $300K in attorney’s fees to keep my property at the end of Lark Rd from being developed .They will tell you most of the cost is being paid by insurance, but in reality the Town is self-insured in a sort of insurance coop of CT towns which I am sure the small towns that are footing the bill for Simsbury's stupidity are really happy about!

The lot is 3 acre lot in a 1 acre zone. It has a current septic approval. According to the official/approved wetlands map for the Town it has no wetlands on or near it. I planed on building a modest 2800 sqft 3 bedroom colonial there before the town attacked me. Let me tell you how all this started: My company purchased a property at 9 Dogwood Ln which I knew, and confirmed with the town, qualified for another lot under the FREE CUT law for land division. We completely demolished the house on dogwood and rebuilt it.We then separated the extra lot in a plan that was designed and approved by former town planner Howard Beach. His initials are affixed to the lower right hand corner of the map that created the lot, map #3976.It can be seen in the Town clerks office. The Simsbury Town Clerk will not let you file a map that has not been approved by zoning. A lot created under the FREE CUT law, even though you do not need to go the planning board, must meet all the current zoning requirements for the zone it is located in or it cannot legally be created. After the Map was filed the Town of Simsbury assessor had appraised the lot at over $118,000 making it a legal lot of record and naming it on the assessors card “HOUSE LOT” The assessor has taxed it as such since its creation at just under $3200 per year in property taxes.

We started to move forward with the development of the new lot. We had surveys and topography done. We then hired a professional engineer to design a septic system for the property and this is where the trouble started. I have built over 100 homes and I am extremely knowledgeable about the septic approval process. I knew there was something wrong when the FVHD made me redesign the system over a dozen times until finally I said " ENOUGH." The design Engineer who has been doing this for over 50 years agreed "they just don't want to approve anything on this lot." After they had finally ran out of changes they could ask for, I demanded they approve the system. They replied by saying they felt the soil testing ,done by my State licensed professional Engineer, was erroneous insinuating it was falsified ! In an effort to get the project going I agreed to retest the soil in front of them and anyone else who wanted to be there but they had to agree that if the soil tested as good or better that my engineer had said it would they would issue the permit. After several days they replied and said " No we are not agreeing to approve the system even if the soil tests are the same as my engineer had recorded. "I was then forced to file an Appeal with the State of CT Health Dept. where in a trial de novo(which cost the Town thousands) it was agreed in settlement that I would retest the soils, at great expense and delay to me, in the presence of a indifferent sanitarian, the Town of Simsbury attorney, the Professional Engineer who did the original testes and myself. The test results were exactly the same as the original tests and as part of the settlement a Septic permit was issued. In the history of the FVHD no other applicant was ever forced to go to such lengths or expense in order to verify the accuracy of the soil tests of their State licensed Professional Engineer. These were all violations of my constitutional rights.

The Town of Simsbury was now mad I beat them. Howard Beach in a letter dated Jan 30,2015 informed me that although there were no Inland Wetlands located on the subject property according to the official/Approved Inland wetlands map for the Town of Simsbury, I would have to conduct a full wetlands investigation of my property, at further great personal expense and delay, prior to the issuance of a building permit because they now claimed THEIR INLAND WETLANDS MAP WAS ERONEOUS. The Town is required under state law to update their Official wetlands map anytime they think there is a known wetlands. To date they still have not updated their Official wetlands map!

The Town of Simsbury and Howard Beach in the letter to me dated Jan 30, 2015 did refer to the my property as” YOUR NEWLY CREATED LOT. ”The Town of Simsbury and Mr. Beach stated they were relying on an unapproved/unofficial map that has hundreds if not thousands of differences between it and the official/approved Town of Simsbury Inland Wetlands Map. The Town of Simsbury and Mr.Beach were aware of the existence of this unofficial/unapproved map for years yet never imposed it on anyone else. Despite the fact that Beach informed me that no wetlands testing would be required to develop the property prior to my company purchasing the property at 9 Dogwood. The FVHD employee admitted to me she had no soil science training or experience yet claimed “SHE FELT THERE WERE WETLANDS SOIL ON THE PROPERTY “and therefor I should be forced to investigate for wetlands. I spent several months pleading with Mr. Beach as to the unfairness and lack of Constitutionality in making me test for wetlands when no one else in the same geographic area was required to do so. Mr. Beach retired without the wetlands testing issue being resolved and was replaced as by Michael Glidden who continued to require me to conduct a full wetlands investigation of my property prior to the issuance of a building permit The Town of Simsbury has no authority over the regulation of inland wetlands beyond what is given to them under State statute. There are Dozens, if not hundreds, of building lots in the Town of Simsbury that have been developed with both the approval of Beach as CEO or Glidden as CEO prior to and after Beach’s letter of Jan. 30 2015. These properties had potential wetlands according to the unapproved/unofficial map but those owners were not required to do a wetlands investigation because there were no wetlands located on them according to the Approved/Official wetlands map for the Town of Simsbury. To bring the issue to a head I applied for a building permit. Mr. Glidden, acting as both CEO and ZEO, responded to the building permit application with a letter dated March 4, 2015 where he stated not only would I be required to do wetlands testing prior to the issuance of a building permit but he now took the new position “AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW” that the subject property was not a building lot at all. In his March 4, 2015 letter Glidden states that the subject property was never approved as a building lot stating the subject property lacks the required 200’ of street frontage. Town of Simsbury map #3976 which was approved and signed by the Zoning Compliance Officer at the time, Beach, clearly shows a road with 200’ of frontage as required. Glidden then threatened criminal action against me for advertising the sale on an unapproved lot. It is unlawful under state and local zoning regulations to create a substandard or nonconforming lot which Glidden states in his letter to me dated March 4, 2015. The subject property is in a single family residential zone. The only prescribed use of the property is a single family residence. The only reason to create a lot in this zone is to construct a single family residence.

I then filed an appeal of the ZEO Glidden’s decision that “the lot is not a legal building lot” with the Town of Simsbury Zoning Board of Appeals. The ZBA relied upon false and erroneous testimony given to them by Hiram Peck, Michael Glidden and the Town of Simsbury attorney, Robert Decrescenzo, which the ZBA relied upon in making their decision. I asked at the open meeting of the ZBA if anyone had spoken to Mr. Beach as to why he approved the creation of a nonconforming substandard lot. No one answered in the affirmative including Mr. Glidden who shook his head in the negative. The meeting was video recorded by the Town of Simsbury and can be seen on SCTV. In a related State case I filed interrogatories on Mr. Beach who in his response admits he spoke to Mr. Glidden in reference to the subject party contradicting the statements of Mr. Glidden at the 1st ZBA hearing. Additionally Beach states that Glidden claimed I refused to deed a portion of the subject property to the Town of Simsbury as required and that has caused the property to be deemed unbuildable. Yet at no time did Glidden or the Town of Simsbury mention in any communiqué to me anything pertaining to the deeding of anything to the Town of Simsbury. Glidden and Peck have perjured themselves under oath in their interrogatory responses in the same case in an effort to cover their prior acts. In another part of the false testimony given to the ZBA at the open hearing Glidden testified that a lot could be legally created for non-building purposes such as agriculture, changing his previous opinion, in his March 4 letter that the lot was not legally created. This erroneous and unlawful opinion was supported by the Town of Simsbury Attorney Robert Decrescenzo. Relying on the false and erroneous testimony of Glidden, Peck and the Town Attorney, Robert Decrescenzo, the ZBA wrongfully affirmed the position of the ZEO Glidden.The only suggested remedy given by Glidden, Peck and the Town of Simsbury attorney Robert Decrescenzo was for me to SOMEHOW merge this property with a neighboring property, owned by others, and apply for a rear lot subdivision. Even if the suggested merger were possible the property clearly would not qualify for a rear lot subdivision under the Town of Simsbury Zoning regulations, therefore there was no possible way to bring the property into compliance according to Glidden, Peck and the Town attorney without a variance.

Never in any testimony or correspondence by Glidden, Peck or the Town Attorney Robert Decresenzo, was the deeding of the Plaintiffs paper road or refusal to deed the road to the Town of Simsbury ever mentioned as in Beach’s sworn interrogatory responses. In an effort to resolve the issues and move forward; I am a builder and has no other source of income, I applied to the ZBA for a variance of the required road frontage for the subject property which would make the subject property immediately buildable and limit the damages I suffered.( probably would have ended all this before it began) The ZBA relying on false and erroneous testimony from Glidden that was supported by the Town of Simsbury attorney Robert Decresenzo, denied me a variance. At that point it was time to go to court which is where we are now and will be for a while. The Town attorney Decrescenzo is being grieved to the state bar by me for knowingly misleading the ZBA and the court as to the viability of a rear lot division of the property which he admitted to me in a meeting prior to the building permit denial it did not qualify for. I don't doubt the Town is paying for defense of that also. Lastly let me say NOT once has the Town offered to even talk to me about a settlement and Lisa Heavner has been involved in this every step of the way! If you want to know more contact me at Collegedegreeexpress@yahoo.com Thanks Tim