Earlier this year, developers spent much time and untold sums in legal fees attempting to develop a mega warehouse in the town of Ashford, part of a much larger trend of warehouse/distribution development efforts, an unintended consequence of COVID-19 making instant delivery ubiquitous. In response, many citizens are fighting back.
As a former employee of the town of Ashford, where I worked for over 28 years, most recently as the town’s head of finance, I regularly attended and helped facilitate many meetings. Yet, I have never been moved to write about an issue raised at a municipal meeting as I am now.
Developers have centered in on small Connecticut towns, like Ashford, as potential locales for their distribution centers due to the proximity to highways that lead to economic and population centers. But as residents often point out, these locales are also already home to families and/or natural resources that would be negatively impacted by the centers’ encroachment.
Between January 2021 and April 2023, proposals for these large facilities, or changes to regulations that would allow them, were rejected in South Windsor (twice), Wallingford, Newtown, East Granby, Willington, Cromwell, and now Ashford. Applications were withdrawn in Windsor Locks, Cromwell and Norwalk. All received substantial resistance from their communities.
Citizens have noted light, noise, air, and roadside pollution, increased traffic on state and local roads, loss of property values, possible issues with local wells, excessive water run-off from acres of pavement, no public water/sewer, loss of ambiance of small-town living, and worsening habitat encroachment. They have also expressed concern with habitat fragmentation that forces wildlife into human occupied areas, an ever-growing concern to local animal farmers, beekeepers and pet owners.
A unique concern regarding large facilities in Northeast Connecticut is the presence of pyrite or pyrrhotite in bedrock. The I-84 corridor from Tolland to Union and into Massachusetts presents with geologic formations containing pyrrhotite, making it an unstable base to build upon. According to the American Geosciences Institute, pyrite or pyrrhotite in the rock underneath buildings can create swelling, causing cracks and other structural damage.
The most egregious consequence in Ashford and Union, however, is the potential to negatively impact the headwaters of the Mt. Hope and the Fenton River watersheds which supply clean water to Ashford, Mansfield, Windham and beyond.
Though citizens have made their concerns known, developers and their legal counsel have been relentless. An attorney representing his warehouse developer client in Ashford in pushing through pro-development zoning amendments, expressed their intent to build regardless of the outcome of their application. “What will happen is that my clients will pursue opportunities that either do not require your approval or curtail your oversights, and we will pursue those instead as our next step” he said in his closing statements, while insisting that the land in question would no longer be improved upon and that another of his client’s properties, that sits at a crucial headwater, would be developed instead.
One state legislator has fought alongside his residents opposing such anti-democratic corporate threats. Rep. Bill Pizzuto of Connecticut’s 71st District was instrumental in bringing section 182 of the recently passed House Bill 6941, which prohibits municipalities with between 6,000 and 8,000 residents, or any of its land use boards or commissions, from approving the siting, construction, permitting, operation or use of a warehouse or distribution facility on certain parcels. The prohibition applies to warehouses or facilities over 100,000 square feet that are located on land totaling less than 150 acres, contain more than five acres of wetlands, and are located within two miles of a public school. This bill would overrule any local ordinances permitting such development.
This bill was passed as Middlebury citizens filed an appeal with the state Superior Court over a Middlebury Conservation Commission decision that permits a massive facility in the town impacting 16,000 square feet of wetlands near a local school.
Well done, but what about the rest of us? Where does that leave even smaller towns, like Union and its 781 citizens, Ashford’s 4,186 occupants, Willington’s 5,528 inhabitants, and other towns with less than 6,000 people? Is an elementary school three miles away at less risk than students two miles away if the facility is built on 151 acres and negatively impacts the local water supply? Working with representatives from other “small” communities, including those with less than 6,000 occupants, who are also under siege from wealthy developers, would provide a more inclusive bill. Simply replacing “and” with “or” when listing requirements would offer a more inclusive bill. Instead, citizens in towns with even fewer local resources are left feeling that we have been thrown to the wolves.
Thank you, Rep. Pizzuto, for listening and acting to protect the interests of your constituents. You have shown up boldly for the citizens of Middlebury and District 71, putting people ahead of for-profit ventures and creating a better model for them to work with. Now citizens from the Quiet Corner in The Last Green Valley National Heritage Corridor and other small municipalities facing an onslaught by warehouse developers, implore our representatives to not only follow suit, but to act even more boldly in our defense.
Cheryl Baker is a resident of Ashford.
Follow This Blog
