A Public Hearing regarding the proposed town budget is scheduled for Tuesday, April 9th at 6:30 PM. Please note this hearing will be held at the Middlebury Public Library.
Showing posts with label Meeting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Meeting. Show all posts
Thursday, April 4, 2024
Tuesday, April 2, 2024
Wednesday, March 27, 2024
Southford Park Update aka Here We Go Again!
On March 26th at the Middlebury Conservation Commission meeting, Attorney Fitzpatrick introduced a new engineering firm who submitted a wetlands permit modification for the Southford Park Distribution Facility. We will keep this short, but here are the key details we learned:
1. There is a new “client” involved in the project, Kansas based Flint Development. Attorney Fitzpatrick explained this was “one” of the interested parties in the project. We will link their portfolio of projects in the comments, but many of them are massive distribution facilities. We suggest looking closely at the link and trying to picture their developments in the heart of our tiny town.
2. SLR seems to be no longer involved in the engineering side of the project, replaced by engineering firm VHB.
3. The MSTA so far has been unsuccessful at looking at or getting copies of the modified plans for the site, but it appears there have been changes to the parking layout and the building sizes. The explanation from VHB last evening was these changes fit the client’s “needs”, but there was no further clarification of why. This is all public information, and should have been available for inspection in the Land Use office. The MSTA was told to submit a FOIA request for copies of the documents by Chairman Bowler: this reply wrongly sidesteps the public access requirement that all land use applications require, and unnecessarily restricts public access to public documents.
4. The Commission voted to hold a Public Hearing on the permit modification, which will take place at next month’s Conservation Commission Meeting, April 30th, at 6:30 pm.
Wednesday, January 3, 2024
P&Z Commission Meeting Preview - 1/4/24
Tomorrow night’s P&Z Commission meeting (Thursday, January 4 at 7pm in Shepardson Auditorium Center) will be a long one. There are 4 public hearings, a possible decision on the Southford Park applications, 2 subdivision modification applications, two site plan applications, and an accessory apartment application. The meeting is available on Zoom, and the link will be posted in comments below.
January 5th is the one year anniversary of the P&Z public hearing for the original Timex application: three text amendments to raise the allowable roof height in the LI-200 zone, to add distribution facilities as a permitted use, and to define distribution facilities in the Definitions section of the Middlebury/s Zoning regulations. This application was withdrawn in February. The MSTA appealed the Conservation Commission’s May wetlands approval to Superior Court, and the first brief in that case is due this month. A new P&Z site plan application was filed in August for “industrial flex-space” along with a grading/excavation application and a text amendment to raise the allowable height in the LI-200 zone, and P&Z may render a decision for these three applications tomorrow night.The public hearings for the Metro Realty applications concerning the other Timex-owned property off Straits Turnpike will likely be the star attraction tomorrow night. Residents have concerns about population density, traffic, elimination of open space, potential impact to Middlebury's educational costs, precedent for future projects, and rapid, unchecked growth that might change the feel of a “semi-rural, small town.”
If the past year has revealed anything, it’s that Middlebury residents will go to great lengths to preserve that special something that makes Middlebury unique. You’ve attended meetings month after month for an entire year, given almost $100,000 of your own, hard-earned cash, turned out in record numbers during an otherwise unremarkable municipal election, and set a very clear expectation that the mandate expressed by the electorate is to be heeded. There is very little sympathy for the excuse that a developer might threaten legal action, and thus a commission “has” to approve an application: this is the opposite of holding an application to the standards required by our regulations. The burden is on an applicant to prove an application complies with our regulations, not on the town to flex our regulations so it doesn’t get sued.
So once again, we ask you to stand up for our town, attend another meeting, repeat yourself for more than the 12th time, and hold the line: Middlebury wants to stay a small, semi-rural town.
Sunday, October 29, 2023
Important Meetings: 10/31 - 11/2
🔺Important🔺
Planning and Zoning Meeting
Thursday, 11/2, at 7 PM, Shepardson Auditorium
The 3 public hearings related to the Southford Park distribution facility/flex-space continue next Thursday. All concerns regarding this project are fair game for P&Z to consider: traffic, noise, quality of life issues, pollution, impact to surrounding property values, safety to residents and our children, and so on!
Over the last few meetings, the chairman has read the names of those who have sent in letters opposing or supporting the project, so if you can’t make the meeting or are uncomfortable speaking publicly, please consider sending in your thoughts and making your voice heard! Written comments can be emailed to pandz@middlebury-ct.org
🚨Other important meetings next week🚨
‼️10/31 7:30 PM at Shepdardson: Conservation Commission Meeting. On the agenda is the Metro Realty Rental project.
‼️11/1 at 6:30 PM at 61 Echo Lake Road, Watertown: Watertown’s Planning and Zoning Public Hearing on Planned Development District off Bunker Hill Rd and New Wood Rd (behind the car dealerships and across from Stop & Shop) for 767,500 SF of distribution centers and a multi-family housing project.
October 5th P&Z Meeting Recap
October 5th’s marathon P&Z meeting brought several town issues into sharp focus, and it was encouraging to see such a high level of community concern and engagement.
❗️Both the Shepardson Auditorium and the overflow room next door were filled, and at least 55 people logged on to the Zoom call. There was excellent sound and video coverage provided by the town, which really helped the audience hear and see the complex presentations.
❗️During the public hearings for the Southford Park, LLC applications (#23-58Z, #23-59Z and #23-60Z), the public was limited to three minutes for comments. Several speakers pointed out that this is a huge project and the public has a lot to comment on that doesn’t fit into three minutes, but the Commission stood firm on the limit: there was a timer and a buzzer if someone ran overtime and the microphone was cut off shortly after time expired. Speakers were encouraged to return to the continued public hearings at the November P&Z meeting to give additional comments as necessary, or to submit written comments.
❗️Developer Norman Drubner testified that he loves Middlebury, raised his family here, and would never do anything to harm the town. He also clarified that local resident Dean Yimoyines is not involved with the project.
❗️The CEO of Atlantic Management, Joseph Zink, commented that the site could have been developed with several more buildings, but that the 35 acre buffer was always important to the project to set it off the road and away from the public view.
Public concern touched on the following:
‼️The traffic study’s choice of intersections and survey date (one was during a school vacation). The intersection of Judd Rd and 188 (the road to PHS) is rated an F in Level of Service (LOS), and this non-signalized intersection can only get more dangerous with the addition of truck traffic. Also, the study surveyed traffic during non-school hours, which ignores school traffic at LMES and PHS.
‼️The graphic renderings of the project do not show the view from the Benson Woods side of the project. Since the already-approved-2nd-phase puts new homes in close proximity to both buildings, and the loading bays are on the same side as these new homes, the renderings are not an accurate depiction of project impact.
‼️The Applicant’s continued insistence that there is no known tenant so the use of the building can’t be defined is a direct contradiction to Middlebury’s Planning and Zoning regulations. There must be specific, direct evidence that the use of the building complies with our regulations. If an applicant can’t definitely prove this connection, then a site plan application needs to wait until the tenant is known and the use can be verified. To be really clear, it’s not WHO is using the building that’s important to define, it’s WHAT is using the building. For example, the Republican-American keeps calling the project a food distribution facility. There could be a number of brands that might want to use such a place, so is it cold and non-cold storage? Is this a mid-supply chain warehouse for imported foods or something closer to final distribution? Those kinds of questions can and should be answered no matter which specific company ends up in the space (Bozzutos, Sysco, Amazon Fresh, Restaurant Depot, US Foods, etc.).
‼️Industrial Flex Space is not defined in our regulations, so it is not a permitted use. While Warehousing is a permitted use, it is not defined, but warehouse is defined (“a building used primarily for storage of goods and materials prior to distribution that are produced in conjunction with a manufacturing facility) and trucking terminals are prohibited unless connected to on-site manufacturing. Taken together, the intent of the regulations clearly ties warehousing to on-site manufacturing. If the project needed a text amendment in January to add distribution facilities as a permitted use, no one is buying the idea that the project suddenly complies with our regulations some nine months of opposition later.
‼️Many residents are against the town of Middlebury accepting the Conservation Easement for this project.
‼️A protest petition per Conn.Gen.Stat. §8-3(b) was handed in to the Commission: the law states "If a protest against a proposed change is filed at or before a hearing with the zoning commission, signed by the owners of twenty per cent or more of the area of the lots included in such proposed change or of the lots within five hundred feet in all directions of the property included in the proposed change, such change shall not be adopted except by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the commission.” In plain language, the property owners bordering the LI-200 zone object to the height text amendment change, therefore the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot approve the height change by a simply majority vote, it can only approve the height change with a 2/3 or super-majority vote.
The Planning and Zoning Commissioners asked several of their own questions:
❓Chairman Terry Smith agreed that the Commission had an obligation to protect Benson Woods residents, and asked for renderings showing the project from the west side where the second phase would be built.
❓Vice Chairman Bill Stowell and Commissioner Erika Carrington were very concerned about the traffic study and the lack of consideration for school traffic hours. Stowell asked for additional traffic studies at the times and intersections that PHS and LMES start school and release from school (this is Judd Rd/188 and N. Benson/188).
❓Several Commissioners asked about the use of the building, commenting on the unusual course of asking for site plan approval without knowing how the building is being used.
All three Southford Park, LLC hearings are continued to the November 2nd Planning and Zoning Meeting. Because the public hearing was continued, written comments can still be submitted to pandz@middlebury-ct.org. There were 4 new applications on the agenda, most if not all were scheduled for the December 1st P&Z meeting.
At the very end of the meeting, Vice Chairman Stowell asked to talk about the electric sign at the Consignment Shop. He was concerned that Dean Yimoyines wasn't adhering to the conditions placed on approval of the sign (one message per week). Stowell said he stopped by to watch the sign earlier in the day and timed 5 messages running at 10 seconds each. Stowell wanted ZEO Curt Bosco to issue a cease and desist for operation of the sign, saying that he didn't like that the Commission was being disobeyed. ZEO Bosco said that he believed the town attorney and Mr. Yimoyines' attorney were supposed to be meeting, but Stowell interrupted and said he didn't care about attorneys, he wanted the rules followed and a cease and desist sent.
Next P&Z meeting is Thursday, November 2nd at 7pm, probably in the Shepardson Auditorium.
Wednesday, July 5, 2023
Attention Middlebury Residents!!
The Planning and Zoning meeting on Thursday 7/6 has new business all residents should be watching closely.
Monday, July 3, 2023
Thursday, May 18, 2023
Meeting with Police Chief Deely
Jennifer Mahr, President of the MSTA, requested to meet with Police Chief Deely this morning to discuss productive ways Middlebury residents can continue to express their opposition to the proposed distribution facility at 555 Christian Rd. Both agreed that residents have every right to speak out against the project, and future MSTA meeting notices will contain helpful suggestions on how the public can participate.
• Sign the petition (in person or online, doesn’t matter)
• Call the First Selectman’s office: 203-758-2439
• Email the Board of Selectmen: firstselectman@middlebury-ct.org
• Attend a Board of Selectmen meeting: 4pm on the first and third Monday of the month in the Town Hall Conference Room
• Attend the Democratic or Republican Town Committee monthly meetings. Republicans meet at 7:30pm on the second Tuesday of every month at Shepardson Community Center, room 26. The Democratic meeting schedule is not online, contact Curt Bosco for details. Both committees control the nomination process for town boards and commissions. If you’d like to volunteer to serve on a town board or committee, contact the appropriate town committee for details.
Thank you to all of you who continue to speak out and stand up for Middlebury!
Thursday, April 20, 2023
April 18th Recap, Part 1
In his closing comments last night, Attorney Fitzpatrick made a bold statement: “if you (the Commission) choose not to believe these experts, believe the independent expert you hired, who agrees with us.” Slam dunk, case closed? Absolutely the opposite, and a major logic derailment. But that’s the end, so let’s rewind to summarize from the beginning.
First, a huge THANK YOU to everyone who attended the meeting. The room was full, and camera crews from NBC and Channel 3 were present for the entire meeting. In the spirit of “fairness,” the Intervenor was asked to go first to respond to the revised plans submitted last week. Attorney Ainsworth summarized his final comments, Professional Engineer Steve Trinkhaus joined via Zoom and stood by all his comments and submitted reports, and then the public was asked to comment. This was the real shocker of the evening: no one was allowed to comment at the April 11th meeting, nor did the town notify anyone that public comment would be allowed during the April 18th meeting. Had anyone known the public could comment again, people would have been prepared to do so. Four brave souls jumped up to speak and then public comment was closed.
George Logan, the town’s peer reviewer, spent his time trashing the letter Steve Trinkhaus submitted on April 11th. He went on and on about how he went back to the manuals Mr. Trinkhaus cited in his literature review and then “read the next paragraph” that supposedly agreed with SLR. Mr. Logan claimed everything in Mr. Trinkhaus’ report was taken out of context and SLR was right and the Intervenor’s expert was wrong.
For the applicant, Attorney Fitzpatrick ran his entire team through the process, again. Key comments:
• Dennis Quinn, herpetologist: Federal wetland B is a not sensitive wetland and nothing is probably living there. Federal wetlands C is more sensitive. Vice Chair Mary Barton asked what the off-site impacts would be from this project, and Quinn replied none, because the 2nd building was moved further away from the Benson Woods vernal pool.
• John Milone, owner MMI, now part of SLR: The new plans submitted last evening only reflect questions raised by the Commission last week, mainly that the conservation easement could be extended along 188. No details provided on what the easement would actually entail. He pointed out the “conservation area” was now 35 acres, there would be no salt storage onsite and no vehicle refueling onsite. Vice Chair Mary Barton asked about a new EPA regulation requiring EV charging stations per number of parking spaces, and that will be looked into. Commissioner Peggy Gibbons asked point blank: “do you believe this project won’t disturb the natural environment?” and Milone replied that he didn’t think it would. (Cue illegal groans from the audience.)
• Matt Sanford, Soil Scientist: Re-explained the invasive species management plan, submitted new arial photos of historic land use on the site since the beginning of time, explained that all wetlands are not "created equal", noted that moving the buildings would not save the function of the artificially created wetlands slated for destruction, and touted the value of saving the wildlife corridor in the conservation area. When asked by Commissioner Tzeptos about the success rate for created wetlands, Sanford blamed failures on inadequate hydrology, lack of maintenance/monitoring, and using soils riddled with invasive species. Sanford pointed to the Killingworth Reservoir as a shining example of wetlands mitigation. Interestingly, that project was 6.5 contiguous acres, or 283,140 sq ft of created wetlands. Last week, the Intervenor submitted a study showing success rates on wetlands creation depends on size of the project (the larger the better) and climate (warmer is better, colder really struggles). Depending on which alternative is approved, the applicant is proposing to create only 32,740 sq ft, 3,000 sq ft, or 20,750 sq ft of “ higher functioning wetlands,” a tenth or less of the size of the successful example.
• Attorney Fitzpatrick: Closing summary claimed the applicant has more than met every requirement for the project, has an AWESOME engineering team that gave only straight forward facts and relied on established science with solid, verifiable - not arrogant - evidence for the wetlands they are disturbing. Fitzpatrick was unable to provide real details for the conservation easement because the Middlebury Land Trust won’t take the land, so the applicant will just give it to the town to do what it wants with the 35 acres. (So is there a conservation easement or not?).
And now we’re back to where we started: if the Commission doesn’t believe the amazing SLR team, it should believe the independent reviewer, George Logan, because he’s awesome too and he agrees with SLR.
But then, a little nugget of SLR wisdom floats down from meetings past. If you remember way back to January 31st, when Attorney Ainsworth mentioned that ribbon snakes might be present on the property, SLR Soil Scientist Matt Sanford lost his mind over the thought of ANYONE touching or even looking at a ribbon snake if they weren’t a herpetologist. Nor could anyone not a soil scientist have an opinion on what defines a wetland. And, remember that Attorney Fitzpatrick has, on numerous occasions, insisted that only science and the appropriate experts could determine the fate of this application? Well, let’s apply that logic to the town’s “independent peer reviewer,” Mr. Logan, who is a soil scientist. He is not a drainage engineer or Low Impact Development (LID) expert, so by SLR and Attorney Fitzpatrick’s logic, the peer reviewer’s comments, outside of wetlands delineation, CAN NOT BE a basis for the Commission’s decision. George Logan is only a soil scientist, and therefore not qualified to comment on matters of storm water management and water quality, let alone design an unheard of combination for the applicant.
So, when Attorney Fitzpatrick told the Commission NOT to believe the SLR team and to believe George Logan instead, that tells you everything you need to know about this application. Mr. Logan invented the drainage basin/bioretension system that SLR so eagerly accepted, but there’s no known use of that specific combination in the real world since no evidence of current use was submitted to the Commission and the public hearing is now closed. The ONLY Low Impact Development (LID) expert who testified before the Commission never changed his tune: the proposed storm water quality management system will not work the way SLR and Mr. Logan pretend it will, and the resulting lack of water quality will pollute downstream receptors.
Bottom line: this application is asking to fill wetlands - not restore or enhance existing wetlands - and it wants everyone to believe that the world would be a better place in the end. Timex already wrecked the property, so Drubner is justified to finish the job! Instead of heeding the legal mandate to avoid impact from the very beginning, this application justifies the worst impact by claiming the law doesn’t care about “less equal” wetlands, and neither should the Commission charged with protecting all wetlands.
Here’s the real truth: anyone concerned about legacy in Middlebury, either personal or the town’s, should read the writing on the wall. Approving this project will ruin decades of work spent preserving the semi-rural, small town we all cherish. There is no amount of grand list gain that could undo this damage, nor should Middlebury sell its soul to the first idea that walks through the door. Believe us when we say we don’t want this here: we’re not confused, we don’t appreciate being patronized, and we certainly have the right to decide as a town what’s good for us.
Just Vote No*.
* The Public Hearing is closed. The Commission has yet to set a date for its deliberation, but it has 35 days to make a decision. Stay tuned for Recap, Part 2.
Monday, April 17, 2023
It’s a busy week for the MSTA!
Please join us!
- Tuesday at the continued Conservation Commission Public Hearing, 7 PM at Shepardson Community Center - Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83898001940?pwd=S1VPRWwzQTMyRjFZSjNJTzhUKzB3UT09
- Thursday for our Fundraiser at Pies and Pub (eat-in or takeout!) 4:30-9 PM
- Saturday at Meadowview Park from 10-12 PM for the Middlebury Park and Rec Earth Day Clean-up
Sunday, February 26, 2023
A Duty to Preserve, Protect, Maintain and Minimize
What exactly does the Conservation Commission do? Why is its decision on the proposed redevelopment of the Timex property so critical for the future of Middlebury? Let’s look at the language of Middlebury’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations: “The preservation and protection of the wetlands and watercourses from random, unnecessary, undesirable, and unregulated uses, disturbance or destruction is in the public interest and is essential to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of the state. It is, therefore, the purpose of these regulations to protect the citizens of the state by making provisions for the protection, preservation, maintenance and use of the inland wetlands and watercourses by minimizing their disturbance and pollution; maintaining and improving water quality in accordance with the highest standards set by federal, state or local authority;…”
The
Conservation Commission is the first and only line of defense between
the protection of our natural resources and the wanton destruction of
said resources for monetary gain. The obligation is first to the
protection of our natural resources, with development for economic gain
taking a secondary importance. Thus far, it seems that the Middlebury
Conservation Commission has forgotten its priorities: it failed to find a
significant impact to wetlands for the proposed project, and it has
failed to rigorously protect Middlebury residents from unnecessary and
undesirable pollution.
Let's
be brutally honest: at the November 29, 2022 Conservation Commission
meeting, only 4 members of the Commission were present: Chairman Paul
Bowler, George Tzepos, Peggy Gibbons and Curt Bosco. According to the
minutes of that meeting, “The members of the Commission agreed that a
Public Hearing was not required.” There was also no finding of
significant impact to wetlands by the proposed project.
Middlebury’s
Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations define “Significant Impact
activity” as “any activity, including, but not limited to the following
activities which may have a major effect or significant impact.” There
are 7 different criteria, including “any activity involving disposition
or removal of material which will or may have a major affect or
significant impact on the regulated area or another part of the inland
wetland or watercourse system.” The regulations are here: https://www.middlebury-
The
proposed project on the Timex site will completely fill in .35 acres of
wetlands and disturb 7 acres of the upland review area (defined as the
100 ft boundary around a defined wetland area). The complete destruction
of wetlands is the very definition of adverse impact, and yet the
Conservation Commission failed, from the very first meeting, to identify
such an impact. The Middlebury Small Town Alliance has had to hire a
Soil Scientist and a Civil Engineer who specializes in water quality and
drainage to point out the obvious: the applicant's proposal fails to
meet state regulations for storm water management and pollution control,
and it fails to prioritize the protection of wetlands as a necessary
condition of redevelopment.
Here’s the key findings from our Environmental Review:
- The proposed filling of wetland resources is a significant activity as per the definition within the Middlebury Inland Wetlands regulations
- The application materials lack discussion of feasible and prudent alternatives
- The application materials are unclear regarding what methods were used to delineate the wetland boundaries, with confusing labels
- The application materials do no fully evaluate impacts to offsite wetlands/waterbodies, which are expected to be substantial and adverse
- The application materials lack discussion and data regarding impacts to the forested wetlands west of the site
- The wetland creation plan lacks quantitative calculations to demonstrate that a created wetland will not result in the dewatering of downstream wetlands or that existing hydrology will support such a created wetland
- It is recommended that less risky mitigation strategies or development configurations be explored and employed before resorting to wetland creation
The
applicant has tried to argue that there is a difference between
“federal” and “state” wetlands, and that the “state” wetlands were
created only because of how Timex developed the site. The applicant also
tried to argue that the “state" wetlands are isolated, and not
connected to the “federal’ wetlands, which somehow justifies their
elimination because they’re not important. All of this is mumbo-jumbo
designed to confuse the lay-person into accepting the idea that it is OK
to fill in wetlands because a real estate developer wants to shove a
project someplace it doesn’t belong. Even the peer review, which was
ordered by the town, agrees with our findings: the applicant didn’t
fully delineate the actual wetlands on site, and the storm water
management plans don’t comply with state regulations.
It
is the Conservation Commission’s first and primary duty to preserve,
protect, and minimize the destruction of wetlands during the course of
proposed development. That doesn’t mean letting the applicant’s
“experts” misuse science for the applicant’s benefit, it means holding
the applicant to the “highest standards set by federal, state or local
authority.” Under that criteria, the Commission should only vote to deny
this application: any other decision is a failure to to protect the
citizens of Middlebury from unnecessary and undesirable pollution.
The February 28th Conservation Commission meeting is 7:30pm at Shepardson Center. Plan to attend the meeting in person. Please wear red to show your opposition to this project.
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Monday, January 30, 2023
TOWN UPDATE: New Meeting Information this week 1/31 & 2/2
The town is hearing our collective voice! Let's show up to the meetings (wearing red) so everyone knows we are united.
In response to requests from Middlebury residents who wish to participate in the ongoing Land Use Commission proceedings, the following accommodations have been implemented:
Both meetings will be held at the Shepardson Community Center Auditorium.
Conservation Commission Meeting, Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 7:30 pm.
Planning and Zoning Commission, Thursday, February 2, 2023, 7:00 pm.
Both meetings will be available via ZOOM.
Conservation Commission link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/
83582864100?pwd= bk11QTJwRG9jRldDcE9lazFiV2tqQT 09 (Meeting, not a Public Hearing). Planning and Zoning Commission link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/
84868021279?pwd= WkVocFg0ek5obWhQd2diK00wTzFZZz 09 (Public Hearing).
The Shepardson Auditorium will have a sound system monitored by sound and video technicians to accommodate both the Commissioners and the public participants. The Commissioners will have microphones as will the podium.
The main Auditorium will have the Panel of Commissioners seated on the stage as to provide optimal seating on the floor for 150 audience members.
The adjacent dining room will be void of tables and be arranged with additional seating and audio/video feed.
Room 26 will have additional seating and audio/video feed.
A shuttle bus service will be available for overflow parking at both the Library and Town Hall. The Shuttle bus will traverse the parking lots of the Library, Town Hall and Shepardson commencing one half hour prior to each meeting. It will be available for the duration of the meetings and after the conclusion for the safety and convenience of the participants.
Commuters are asked to remain in their vehicles with flashers on to alert the shuttle driver for prompt pickup.
Police and Fire Officers will be on hand to insure the safety of the public.
Additional measures will be implemented as deemed appropriate.
Curtis Bosco
CZEO
Middlebury Planning and Zoning
1212 Whittemore Road
Middlebury, CT 06762
(203) 577-4162 Ext 2
Good News! Presenting the case at the Conservation Commission meeting
The Middlebury Small Town Alliance has been invited as an "intervener" to present its case at the Conservation Commission meeting tomorrow, 1/31, at 7:30pm in Shepardson Auditorium. Our civil engineer expert witness will be testifying.
A huge thank you to everyone who donated to make this possible!!!
Saturday, January 28, 2023
Meeting instructions for 1/31 and 2/2
Conservation Commission meeting - Tuesday, January 31st @ 7:30pm, Shepardson Community Center Auditorium
- Wear something RED to show your opposition to destroying wetlands on the Timex site
- Plan to arrive early to ensure you can find parking and a seat
- Here’s the meeting agenda: https://www.
middlebury-ct.org/sites/g/ files/vyhlif6871/f/agendas/ 013123_0.pdf - If you can’t attend, email your comments to the Wetlands Officer, Debbie Seavey at dseavey@middlebury-ct.org
by Tuesday, 1/31 at 4pm. - If you can’t attend, the meeting will be available to watch on Zoom. Here’s the link: http://us02web.zoom.us/j/83582864100?pwd=bk11QTJwRG9jRldDcE9lazFiV2tqQT09
Planning and Zoning public hearing - Thursday, February 2nd @ 7pm, Shepardson Community Center (room TBD)
- Wear something RED to show your opposition to adding Distribution facilities as a permitted use in the LI-200 zone
- Plan to arrive early to ensure you can find parking and a seat
- Meeting agenda is not yet posted, will be here: https://www.middlebury-
ct.org/planning-zoning- commission - If you can’t attend, email your comments to Curt Bosco at cbosco@middlebury-ct.org
If you try to attend either meeting and are turned away because you can’t find a place to park or you can’t get into the building, please email middlebury.small.town.
Good news! The Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting minutes (amended unapproved) of January 23, 2023 have been updated to include the Commission's unanimous vote FOR the following resolution
The Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting minutes
(amended unapproved) of January 23, 2023: https://www.middlebury-ct.org/
MINUTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Monday, January 23, 2023
Page 4
RESOLUTION FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission (the "EDC") is constituted to encourage balanced smart economic development in Middlebury, review architectural consistency, and recommend tax incentives where appropriate.
WHEREAS, the Town of Middlebury Planning and Zoning Commission is considering a proposal that would change the zoning ordinances as follows: January 5, 2023 Meeting: Application for text amendments of Sections 9.1 Definitions to add Distribution Facilities, 42.1 Permitted Uses to add Distribution Facilities as a permitted use, 42.2.4 Height of Buildings adding warehouses and distribution facilities not to exceed fifty feet to the current language.
WHEREAS, members of the Economic Development Commission (the “EDC”) have been contacted by a wide array of Middlebury property owners, homeowners, residents and constituent electors and taxpayers of the town regarding the proposed text change that would benefit one property in a commercial zone immediately adjacent to several neighborhoods; the proposed change would intensify the use of the commercial property and conduct of business beyond what is currently provided in the existing commercial zone.
WHEREAS, the new use would strain the local road infrastructure and impact the peaceful enjoyment of the residents of the immediate neighborhoods and the general conduct of life in town.
WHEREAS, the existing former use was a sensitive and consistent approach to development that was in concert with the adjacent residential development that occurred over time. This reality cannot be dismissed solely based on a permitted zone and simply adding provisions to increase intensity of use.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission should also respect that the town has other zones that will not impact neighborhoods in the same way and are better suited to accommodate the commercial intensity, infrastructure needs, and traffic attendant to the proposal currently under consideration.
WHEREAS, the Commission should consider that such a text change may result in other unintended consequences in similar commercial zones elsewhere in town.
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission (the "EDC") maintains that as the town's growth continues the EDC must recognize not just the desire for economic development and added value to the grand list to occur in such zones, but that such development needs to occur with a comprehensive approach and understanding of other residential and commercial development as it has evolved to date in such areas.
THEREFORE,
the proposal currently before the Town Planning and Zoning Commission
should be rejected in favor of other areas within town that are better
suited for such development. Consistent with this recommendation the
Commission should immediately proceed to the re-examination of our
commercial and industrial zones to consider designations where such uses
will not radically alter the enjoyment of other development that has
occurred in immediately adjacent neighborhoods and the local and state
road infrastructure is conducive to such developments.
Thursday, January 26, 2023
Why Can’t the Town just Vote NO???
January 27th is the one-month anniversary of an informational meeting hosted by the Avalon Farms HOA Board for its members with Curt Bosco, Middlebury’s Zoning Enforcement Officer, and First Selectman Ed. St. John. The purpose of the meeting was to answer questions about the Southford Park proposal (meaning the site plan before the Conservation Commission as well as the text amendments before the Planning and Zoning Commission). Several other Middlebury residents were invited to the meeting, including neighboring HOA board members and private landowners close to the Timex site.
Since that time,
opposition to the idea of a 750,000 sq ft distribution center in
Middlebury has grown immensely. However, the same question keeps popping
up: why can’t we just take a town vote and vote no?
Unfortunately,
CT state law gives the sole authority to Planning and Zoning
Commissions to make these kinds of choices. There is a process to
follow: someone applies with an idea, the idea is considered, the answer
is yes or no depending on several factors, the most important being
what right is conferred in the regulations. Essentially, if the rules
say something is allowed as long as the applicant meets all stated
requirements, the application can’t be denied if it meets all stated
requirements. This is what right-of-use means: If you want to put a
pool in your yard, the town can’t say no as long as you follow all the
rules for putting in a pool.
Because the
Planning and Zoning Commission is solely responsible for making all the
rules about what can go where, there can’t be another authority that
interferes with this process. As much as we all want to VOTE NO, we
can’t take a vote that would compel P&Z to do anything. We could all
sign a symbolic petition, but that would waste time and energy on
something that doesn’t really advance the cause.
What
does advance the cause? The upcoming Conservation Commission meeting on
January 31st at 7:30pm at the Shepardson Center is a key milestone in
the process. There is no public comment scheduled for the meeting, so no
one can speak opposition during the meeting. However, you can email it
in ahead of time to the Wetlands Officer - dseavey@middlebury-ct.org - and you can attend the meeting and watch the Commission discuss the
application. You could even quietly hold a sign that says: Opposed - Do Not Destroy Wetlands.
This
brings us to the heart of the issue before the Conservation Commission:
the destruction of wetlands. Per the Clean Water Act of 1972, all
parties seeking to construct projects that will have an impact on
wetlands must take all reasonable measures to avoid such impacts, to
minimize unavoidable impacts, and to provide mitigation for the
remaining unavoidable impacts.
Here’s the key: you can’t just skip to option #3. You must first take all reasonable measures to avoid such impacts.
Application #490 is using 19.1% of the allowed 20% usage of 111.9
acres. It’s basically shoving all the building it can onto the combined
properties at 555 Christian Rd. and 764 Southford Rd. It’s asking to
fill 15,608 sf of “isolated wetlands” so it can create 32,000 sf of
other “mitigation” wetlands elsewhere on the property. But the only
thing driving the filling of wetlands is the size of the building and
the surrounding access, parking and loading areas. Furthermore, the CT
Audubon reports that “many mitigation sites in Southern New England have
a high failure rate because they fail to meet performance standards
(Minkin and Ladd, 2003).” In other words, it’s expensive to build
mitigating wetlands correctly, and most developers don’t have the skill,
patience or desire to spend money on doing it correctly. Plus, who’s
really watching once the permits are issued and the project is approved?
In
this case, the mantra shared at the December 27th meeting was as
follows: “It’s just science. There’s not enough of an impact to wetlands
plus they are adding back twice as many, so it’s fine. The Conservation
Commission didn’t call a public hearing because it wasn’t a very
significant impact.”
The real science
is way different: filling wetlands is the very definition of
unreasonable impact. One is supposed to design a project in such a way
as to AVOID such destruction. Reducing the overall building size and
corresponding parking/loading areas would be an easy way to avoid filing
wetlands. This site is asking for 750,000 sf of building because it
maximizes the developer’s profit, not because it’s the best choice for
the surrounding environment.
It’s not a total
sum game either: what occurs naturally often isn’t replicated
artificially very easily. Sure, you can get an artificial arm after you
lose yours, but does it really function the same way? Likewise, the
random creation of new wetlands does not add value back to the original
system in the same way the original wetlands did. Add to this discussion
the fact that this proposed use is categorized a High Pollutant Load
Site by the CT DEP Storm Water Quality Manual “2004 Manual” and you
have a recipe for environmental disaster. The civil engineer hired by
the Middlebury Small Town Alliance to review the site plan submitted to
the Conservation Commission (Application #490) found 8 pages worth of
reasons why the site plan doesn’t comply with CT regulations on storm
water management. It wasn’t just one area of non-compliance, it was
piece after piece after piece of the design that was either not best
practice, designed incorrectly, or just flat out not the way it should
be done.
What do we conclude from all this?
Had someone not caught wind of what was happening around the holidays,
this application would have snuck right through the Conservation
Commission and Planning & Zoning with very little resistance and
little to no embedded protections for Middlebury residents. It’s not
just a simple text amendment before P&Z, it’s a request to change
the very nature of the LI-200 zone from a light industrial use (meaning
the affects of the use of the zone - pollution, noise, traffic, etc.) to
a heavy industrial use (heavy traffic, heavy pollution, heavy noise).
It’s asking us to put our children’s health and our own on the line
(asthma rates within a mile of a warehouse are at 55% and heart issues
are at 9.1% according to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
for the area encompassing LA, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino
counties) It’s asking us to shoulder all the negatives for what
positives? Some tax revenue that we might see way in the future once all
the tax abatements cease and property taxes rise so the other side of
town can compensate for the 20% loss to property values within a mile of
the project?
It’s just not worth it. Even the
Economic Development Commission doesn’t support this project: it voted
to send a resolution saying as much to the P&Z Commission at its
January 23rd meeting, and then was threatened the next day by the First
Selectman and Town Attorney with a Middlebury Code of Ethics violation
for sending an "unsolicited opinion" to another town committee. The
draft copy of the meeting minutes were altered to remove the language of
the resolution and the result of the vote. Not only is this a blatant
Freedom of Information Act violation, but it’s probably a federal civil
rights violation too.
We don’t have to take
any of this. Not the proposed zoning changes, not the “mansplaining”
away of important environmental issues, and certainly not the bad
behavior by our own officials. Please - this affects all of us, and not
just in Middlebury. The regional traffic pattern changes will trickle
out towards Southbury, Woodbury, Watertown and Oxford too. We’ll all pay
the cost, and we won’t be able to do a darn thing about it if
distribution facilities become a right-of-use in the LI-200 zone.
At
the beginning of this article, I said taking a town vote was a waste of
time and energy...that was a ploy to suck you into my article (hope it
worked) and to allow me to make my final point. You actually can vote.
You can vote with your body by attending the Conservation Commission
meeting on January 31st and the Planning and Zoning Meeting on February
2nd. You can vote with your mouth by sending emails to dseavey@middlebury-ct.org (
So let’s vote, and let’s take back our Town!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)