#24-111Z: Application for Text Amendment, Sec. 31.4 to add new Sec. 31.4.7 to allow residential apartments above the first floor of commercial buildings. This application originated from the property owner’s (750 Straits Turnpike) continuing inability to get commercial tenants on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the building. Several residents spoke in favor of more affordable housing in Middlebury as the key to younger Middleburians being able to afford to stay in Middlebury as adults. However, the proposed text amendment is currently written so broadly that all commercial buildings in the CA Zone (which is most of the buildings along Straits Turnpike and also on Middlebury Rd in the vicinity of Four Corners) would be eligible to have multiple floors of residential space above the first floor commercial space. This possibility was not welcomed as being the “Middlebury” we know or want, and Chairman Terry Smith voiced several concerns about changing the nature of Middlebury’s commercial spaces so drastically. The applicant’s attorney, Michael McVerry, asked that the public hearing be extended to the February 6th P&Z meeting so he has time to consult the similar regulations just passed in another CT town. The public hearing is continued and there is still time to send your opinion to P&Z on this issue.
#24-123Z: Site Plan Application for a 171,600+-Warehouse and associated access, parking and loading, Sec. 41.1.2; and #24-124Z: Special Exception for Excavation and Grading, Sec 64.2. These two applications were heard together, and residents lined up to voice their concerns, with traffic on Straits Turnpike being at the top of that list. Consistently, residents pointed out that Middlebury’s definition of a warehouse requires onsite manufacturing, something Attorney Fitzpatrick tried to sidestep by saying that Warehousing is a permitted use in the LI-80 zone and chastising those who would call the project a distribution facility. All of the applicant’s design team - the Engineer, Architect, and Traffic Engineer - referred to the project as a warehouse. The MSTA’s attorney, Keith Ainsworth, put the Commission on notice that its prior interpretation of this exact issue in the Southford Park application is currently being appealed in court. He also noted that CGS § 8-3m applied to this property before the Lot Line Revision, and that dividing the property into an industrial project and residential project is likely impermissible segmentation to avoid § 8-3m. This public hearing is also continued to the February 6th P&Z meeting, and there is still time to send your opinion to P&Z on this issue.
#24-126Z: Application for a Subdivision creating 14 single family residential lots (4 bedroom houses, not affordable housing restricted) in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. This new housing development is proposed for the area across Kelly Rd. from Memorial Middle School. It is a right-of-use application, meaning if it mets all the requirements of the Zoning regulations, it has to be approved. The development will have city water, individual septic systems, sidewalks on one side of the road, and the street will be a town street (which requires a Town Meeting to approve). This public hearing is also continued until February 6th as Chairman Smith wanted to have Middlebury Fire, Police, and Public Works comment on the development.
The MSTA’s deadline to file a supplemental brief for the three Southford Park appeals is January 13th, and then we expect a ruling shortly thereafter. As a reminder, there are three questions being raised by the appeals: 1) Does § 8-3m apply and thus prohibit any of Middlebury’s commissions from approving a warehouse/distribution facility over 100,000 SF? 2) Can the Commission ignore its own regulations and definition of a warehouse to approve a warehouse without on-site manufacturing? 3) Is Middlebury’s P&Z Commission illegally constituted because its P&Z alternates are treated as a separate board for minority representation calculations, giving Republicans an extra seat (6 of 8 ) when a board of 8 can only have 5 members from one party?
Whatever the judge decides on any of these questions will greatly impact the new application for a warehouse on Straits Turnpike, and possibly even the makeup of the P&Z Commission itself. Once again, the lone Democrat on the P&Z Commission was absent last night, and Chairman Smith seated a Republican alternate in the vacancy, even though the Democratic alternate was present. Since Middlebury does not have a policy regarding how P&Z alternates equally cycle through vacancies so the seating is random and equally spread out to all the alternates, the repeated exclusion of a minority alternate to replace the lone minority regular member seems like a willful avoidance of minority representation on a board/commission as required by state law.
As we head into the 3rd year of fighting for a version of Middlebury that does not include being bookended by massive warehouses, increased traffic, and damaging air pollution, we are extremely grateful for your continued support. We have consistently been able to pay all our bills on time. In keeping with our promise to ask only for what we need to spend on this fight, our bank account balance was $0 on 12/31/24. We anticipate needing about $5K to get through the Court’s ruling on the Southford Park appeals at the end of January, and then the initial stage of the new fight against the Straits Turnpike warehouse application.
Finally, to those spreading the notion that the MSTA cares only about “our side of town” and the fight against Southford Park, we remind you of the profound change that has spread through Middlebury in the last two years. We directly represent hundreds of residents who oppose large stand-alone warehouse projects in Middlebury: as we turn two years old on January 11th, we renew our commitment to protecting and promoting Middlebury’s semi-rural, small town existence for ALL of Middlebury.
