Important! - Thursday Night's P&Z Meeting Recap

At Thursday’s P&Z meeting, the Middlebury Small Town Alliance withdrew its application for a one-year moratorium on distribution facilities of any size and warehouses greater than 100,000 SF. There were two main factors driving this decision: first, the site plan application submitted for 764 Southford Road on August 29th would not be subject to a moratorium, so the rush to get a site plan in to beat the moratorium deprives us of the benefits of a moratorium. Second, the reports presented by the Town’s Attorney and consultant Town Planner raised serious concerns about the how the moratorium, if approved, would be implemented:

• The Town Attorney confirmed that “the Commission is in the process of updating the current regulations and public input would be timely.” If this process has already started, when was the public going to know about it? Who is doing the updating and where is this discussion taking place? There have been no P&Z workshops with the discussion happening in the public eye, so how could regulations be updated without the P&Z Commission first asking how the regulations should be updated?

• The Town’s consulting Town Planner, Hiram Peck, concluded his report on the moratorium with the following: “The planning study should be a transparent process. However, the cost of the process needs to be established and funded very early for the process to be successful. The party/parties who expect to participate in the process need to fund the effort.” So the MSTA asks for a moratorium (a “planning pause” to use Mr. Peck’s words) so the commission has time to thoughtfully consider and tighten the regulations to make it clear that distribution centers are not welcome in Middlebury, the town is required to have public participation in the process, but the MSTA has to pay for the Commission to do its job? That’s a legitimate function of government that cannot be passed off to private parties.

P&Z Chairman Terry Smith’s comments after the withdrawal fully cemented the decision. He stated he was in favor of the moratorium because even though it wouldn’t have applied to the new application on Southford Road, there are other properties in town where the public’s input would be necessary moving forward, and he wanted to work with the MSTA as part of that process. Here’s the problem with that statement: Chairman Smith didn’t say he wanted to have a honest and transparent discussion about whether or not distribution facilities belong in Middlebury, he said he wants to work on what those sites look like, which means he has already decided the use that currently isn’t authorized in our regulations is going to be allowed. First Selectman Ed St. John has mirrored this thinking from the beginning. He has repeatedly asked the MSTA for our list of concerns so the developer can address them, which deliberately misses the point. The conversation this town wants to have is about whether or not this kind of development even belongs in Middlebury, not what kind of trees should be planted to block the view once this project is built. We don’t want to talk about site plan parameters because there shouldn’t be a site plan option for this kind of development.

• What can we do? We’ll be petitioning under Conn.Gen.Stat. §8-3(b) to force the Planning and Zoning Commission to a super-majority vote on the zone change application to raise the height from 35’ to 44’ in the LI-200 zone. Any abutting property owner within 500’ of the LI-200 zone can sign the petition, and we need 20% of the lots within five hundred feet in all directions of the LI-220 zone. Once we gather these signatures, instead of a simply majority to approve the proposed height change, the P&Z Commission will need a 2/3 vote to approve.

• Second, we can oppose the town accepting the proposed conservation easement for the 35 acre Lot B. The former Timex property was recently split into two lots to help the developer avoid the provisions in the state budget implementor bill. Specifically, the new property lines were drawn to exclude wetlands from the parcel the distribution center would be built on so that there are now less than 5 acres of wetlands and the state provision no longer applies. The fancy PR site for Southford Park calls this “reimagining 77 acres in Middlebury,” and claims this is "groundbreaking industrial flex space dedicated to merging economic growth and environmental stewardship in Middlebury, Connecticut.” So, if the town accepts this easement, it will be condoning the developer’s side-stepping of the protective intent of state law and forfeiting real estate taxes on 35 acres to ease the developer’s tax burden at the expense of Middlebury residents. While one can argue that this “reimagining” was legal, one can’t argue with the fact that “industrial flex space” is not a defined or authorized use in Middlebury’s Zoning Regulations.

The next tune you will hear from town officials will be familiar: "if an application meets all the requirements in our regulations, we can’t deny it or we’ll get sued." Funny thing is, Middlebury’s regulations seem to be flexible enough to allow whatever interpretation is necessary to approve just about anything these days (except, of course, drive-thru coffee shops).

Link to Hiram Peck's Planning Consultant Report on the Moratorium

Link to Dana D'Angelo's Legal Opinion

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE

Potential Security Risks Associated with Distribution Facilities

If you Google the phrase 'Security for Warehouse and Distribution Centers,’ you’ll get a quick education on topics you probably didn’t want to know about. A new subset of the security industry has evolved specifically to address warehouse and cargo theft. The danger isn’t just internal theft from employees, but also sophisticated criminal groups that can use cyber-crime based tactics to target specific cargos, pretend to be a legitimate trucking company, and make off with a cargo without anyone being the wiser. The FBI estimates cargo theft to cost trucking companies and retailers at least $15-$30 billion a year in losses.

According to OPS Security Group:

• Internal warehouse theft costs US companies nearly $16 billion per year in losses
• Warehouses and distribution centers have a labor turnover rate of nearly 14%

A March 25, 2023 CNBC article reported that food and beverage products are the top target for freight theft in 2023. While household goods and electronics had previously held the top spot in 2020 and 2021 thanks to the pandemic, the impact of inflation on food costs has altered cargo thieves’ focus back to the most basic of human needs.

To combat these threats, security companies recommend layered perimeter security (strong perimeter fencing, video surveillance, lot lighting, and alarm systems) in addition to strong internal employee controls such as keyless access, name badges for employees, a trash removal process, separating critical job functions and an inventory management system with random inventory checks. Interestingly, these exterior security recommendations are the opposite of a site use that blends quietly into the surrounding environment and doesn’t disturb surrounding residential areas.

If Middlebury wants to consider changing its zoning regulations to allow distribution facilities, there should be a fully transparent discussion on the security risks associated with this new use BEFORE any change is made. And given the potential danger to surrounding residential areas, how could this discussion be effective or even legitimate if the kinds of goods being distributed aren’t known? The top three most attractive items to thieves - foods/beverages, electronics, and household goods - are also the three most likely uses, so why wouldn’t we want to know the kind of target we are painting on our town if we allow this kind of development?

This entire discussion points back to the need for careful planning ahead of time: what exactly is the projected impact to our police department and town budget for security if we allow distribution facilities in Middlebury? As one security company put it, “If your warehouse, distribution center or truck lot hasn’t been hit yet, it’s only a matter of time. Are you ready?”

Interstate Cargo Theft

Cargo theft, led by food and beverage, is surging across the U.S.

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE

Food Distribution Warehouse?

Since the State budget was signed in June, an interesting phrase has been mentioned in several news articles: “food distribution warehouse.” Somehow, the media has critical information that was not given to Middlebury residents, who have been told repeatedly there is no known end user for the proposed distribution facility on Christian Road.

In all practical terms, focusing on whether a distribution facility distributes “food” and not Amazon boxes conveniently ignores the larger conversation residents are entitled to have. When considering if a distribution facility of any kind is appropriate for Middlebury, WHAT is being distributed is one of MANY factors that should be discussed. But, since the media is convinced it knows something the rest of us don't, let's look at a nearby food distribution warehouse in Cheshire to see what a "food distribution warehouse" could mean for Middlebury.

1. Compare these two Google Maps images of the area surrounding Bozzuto's in Cheshire (completely surrounded by a heavy industrial use), and the Timex property (a light industrial use surrounded by residential homes and an elementary school). According to Cheshire’s zoning regulations, wholesale business warehousing is by special permit use, and the proposed building height, design and building materials are required to be appropriate in relation to the neighboring area in which it is located. A Bozzuto’s in the Cheshire I-1 zone makes complete sense. A Bozzuto’s in the Middlebury LI-200 zone (where wholesale warehousing is not allowed), makes no sense, and it makes even less sense when considering the Timex property is an island of LI-200 immediately surrounded by a sea of residentially zoned properties.

2. According to a Google Maps review (image below), drivers headed for the Bozzuto's facility in Cheshire are told they cannot arrive on property more than two hours before their scheduled time. They are told to wait at the Southington truck stop outside this two-hour window. Imagining a similar scenario, where would trucks “wait” to access a Middlebury facility?

3. Trucks are trucks. Whether trucks are bringing in and picking up food or not doesn’t make them less of a truck. From an article published in 1794 Magazine in the fall of 2020, Bozzuto's revealed that over 500 trucks a day unload product and another 400 trucks ship out to stores. If a new Middlebury distribution facility is much larger than Bozzutos’ Cheshire location, this number could reasonably be expected to increase. So finally some truth: a food distribution warehouse is a heavy truck traffic generator.

4. Route 188 is a state road. Anyone can drive on it, including trucks. Guess what? Route 64 is a state road too! A town has no control over whether or not a truck can drive on a state road, and Waze doesn’t care what vehicle you drive. So the idea that no trucks ever would use exit 17 to drive on 64 through town to 188 to get to a distribution facility off Southford Road is blatantly false.

In summary, if anyone tells you that the trucks coming to and from any type of distribution facility in Middlebury could possibly be “unseen” and “unheard,” and you believe them, we have a bridge to sell you.

Follow This Blog

DONATE HERE