Final Stretch - Fundrasing

After nearly four years, we’re in the final stretch of our effort to protect Middlebury’s small-town character.

On September 10, our case was heard by the Connecticut Supreme Court. We’re now awaiting a decision, which could take several months. In the meantime, we’re working to raise the remaining funds needed to cover our legal expenses.

We’re so grateful to everyone whose support has gotten us this far!

If you’d like to help us see this effort through, we’ll put the GoFundMe link below.

Thank you for continuing to stand with us!

DONATE HERE

Checks can also be sent payable to:

Middlebury Small Town Alliance, LLC

PO Box 1073

Middlebury, CT 06762

Follow This Blog

Sept 10th Oral Arguments - Connecticut Supreme Court

Last Thursday, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Southford Park case, Middlebury Small Town Alliance, LLC et al. v. Middlebury Planning and Zoning Commission et al., another important step in a process that our community has been following closely for years.

Now, we wait. There is no set timeline for the Court to issue its decision, and it may be some time before we hear anything further. We will continue to follow the case closely and share updates as they become available.

We’ll add a link to the audio recording of the oral arguments in the comments for anyone who would like to listen

In the meantime, we want to say thank you to the people of Middlebury who have supported MSTA and continued to stand up for our small town throughout this long process.

The level of involvement and commitment we have seen from this community has been extraordinary. Thank you, Middlebury

A few photos from last Thursday at the Connecticut Supreme Court. 

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE

Legal Update on Southford Park

 

The appellate appeal process is ongoing in court, and the parties met with a mediation judge today. We were unable to come to a resolution that we could present to the public.

So the process continues: briefings should be done by 2026. An Appellate Court decision would likely be made in 2027.

Our next round of fundraising is for a brief due this fall. Thank you to everyone who has faithfully supported this fight. We see you and couldn’t do it without you!

    Donate: https://www.gofundme.com/f/middlebury-small-town-alliance

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE

Southford Park Update!! (Jan 31st - Feb 28th)

Well, it has been quite some time since we have had an update on the website / blog, but a lot of things have been in motion.

If you are not aware, on January 31st the MSTA won its Superior Court Appeal of the Planning & Zoning / Conservation Commission rulings for Southford Park. Thank you for all of your support to get to this point!

Following that ruling, both commissions voted to ask the Board of Selectman for an appeal of that decision. Instead, the Board of Selectman voted 2 (St John / Vance) to 1 (Mahr) to fund, up to $8,000, a request for the Superior court decision to be reconsidered by Judge Cordani. Southford Park did the same thing.

Both Motions for Reargue / Reconsider were denied by Judge Cordani!

We do expect that this will not be the end of road with the developer. Any and all support in the form of donations would be greatly appreciated, to continue to work we have done to date around Southford Park, and also to support next steps in the Straits Turnpike Development.

Links to relevant information, below:

• Superior Court Case Lookup
  
• Memorandum of Decision
  
• Motion to Reargue / Reconsider - Southford Park
  
• Motion to Reargue / Reconsider - Town of Middlebury
  
• Motions Denied - ORDER & ORDER

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE

Jan 2nd P&Z Meeting Update

At Thursday’s P&Z meeting, a packed Shepardson Auditorium clearly demonstrated that Middlebury residents care very much about the quality of life in our town and the kind of development we approve. Three different public hearings took up most of the evening, here’s a quick summary:

#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.

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE

December 9th P&Z Appeal - Court Documents

With the pending court decision regarding the MSTA's (et al) appeal of the Middlebury Planning and Zoning decision, we thought you would enjoy reading the documents yourselves. Oral Arguments will be presented in Superior Court on December 9th.

Original Brief by MSTA, ET AL: ZONING AppealBRIEF 09-27-24.pdf

Keith R. Ainsworth

Law Offices of Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq., LLC #403269

THE DEFENDANT: Commission_Brief_Final2.pdf

Middlebury Planning & Zoning Commission

Gail E. McTaggart, Esq.

Secor, Cassidy & McPartland, P.C.

THE DEFENDANT: MCC_Modification_Brief_11-14-24__002_.pdf

Middlebury Conservation Commission

James R. Strub, Esq.

Secor, Cassidy & McPartland, P.C.

THE DEFENDANT: Southford_Park_BRIEF_11-15-24.pdf

SOUTHFORD PARK LLC

Edward G. Fitzpatrick, Esq

Fitzpatrick Santos Sousa Perugini, P.C.

A final response by Keith representing the MSTA, ET AL is still pending. Again, oral Arguments will be presented in Superior Court on December 9th.

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE

SAVE HISTORIC MIDDLEBURY, INC. FILES LAWSUIT TO STOP UNNECESSARY DEMOLITION OF TIMEX HEADQUARTERS

The Middlebury Small Town Alliance is thrilled to see other organizations getting involved to support the effort of keeping Middlebury's small-town vibe.

We've added a link to articles and their website for residents to learn more about Save Historic Middlebury, and their efforts to preserve the Timex Headquarters. Donations to that group are also welcomed and extremely appreciated.

Article - Timex Campus Threatened with Demolition

RA Article - CT group looks to save this ‘architectural marvel’ in Middlebury

Save Historic Middlebury Website

GoFundMe for Donations to support the effort

Press Release:

Middlebury Historical Society supports Save Historical Middlebury’s quest to save the historic Timex Headquarters!

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE