Charles Vidich Testimony

The following is the text of the testimony that Charles Vidich, Ashford resident and professional Land use and environmental planner, will present to the Ashford Zoning Board. The research he is currently undertaking is extremely helpful in clearly identifying why warehouse and distribution centers are incompatablie with the site. This report covers some of his current findings.

To: Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission

From: Charles Vidich, 40 Frontage Road, Ashford, CT 06278

Subject: Proposed Amendment to Interstate Interchange Development Zone Date: January 29, 2023

My name is Charles Vidich. I am professional land use and environmental planner with over 40 years of experience working at the municipal, regional, state and federal levels of government. I have served as a consultant town planner to numerous municipalities in Connecticut and New Jersey. I have also been recognized as an expert witness in zoning matters by the Connecticut Supreme Court and the Federal Court system. My environmental work has been recognized by three American Presidents – Jimmy Carter, William Clinton and George H. Bush. I currently serve on the Connecticut Council on Environmental Quality, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. In that latter capacity, I represent the environmental interests of the citizens of the state including the residents of Ashford.

My comments that follow are intended to aid the Planning and Zoning Commission in it deliberation over the proposed amendments to the zoning regulations. The proposed amendments are entirely in conflict with the environmental, economic development and sustainability goals of the town of Ashford. The proposed amendments should be rejected for a wide range of reasons as follows:

Incompatible Land Uses: The proposed addition of three new land uses – warehousing and industrial facilities, research facilities, including research, development and testing laboratories or centers and distribution centers – are totally incompatible with the Interstate Interchange Development Zone. The land in question is at the headwaters of the Fenton River, a public water supply watershed that must be protected from inappropriate large scale commercial or industrial development. The land in the Fenton River watershed has been in a protected status for over 100 years. Despite the land being on the north side of the interstate, it directly discharges into the Fenton River. The Fenton River is the public water supply for the more than 50,000 residents of Mansfield, Windham and the University of Connecticut. The land in question is at the headwaters of the Fenton River – making it the most sensitive and most vulnerable of all the lands within the watershed. Not only should this application for a zone change be denied, the existing land should be converted to a residential zone.

Plan of Conservation and Development: The Ashford Plan of Conservation and Development identified the Interstate 84 Interchange Special Planning Area as an area suitable for appropriate scale development. This area coincides with the current zoning district known as the Interstate Interchange Development Zone. While this zone is well situated with respect to access to I-84, the POCD failed to fully address the ecological limitations of this land; its location in the headwaters of the Fenton River watershed. The Plan recognizes the lack of traffic as a disadvantage to attracting commercial

1

development. However, this is not a limitation for warehouse and distribution centers – especially those that have been turned down by the adjoining municipality of Willington. The POCD has established development goals that recognize the liabilities of large-scale development at the interchange.

Revised Development Standards: In light of the proposed zoning amendments, the Planning and Zoning Commission should consider more appropriate development controls at the Interstate Interchange Development Zone. Revised development standards should consider the scale and intensity of development. This following zoning standards would address some of the concerns raised by the proposed zoning amendments: 1) reducing the maximum lot cover and impervious cover standards to no more than 15 to 20%; 2) limiting building heights to no more than 35 feet; and 3) limiting the types of acceptable development to those that more directly benefit the town as a whole – rather than massive scale development focused on benefits to the entire Southern New England economy. The POCD rightly states; “although this SPA [Special Planning Area] is remote from most of Town, it also [is] a gateway into Ashford for people arriving from Interstate 84. Therefore, efforts should be made to preserve the scenic beauty of the area and natural resources such as wetlands, Morey Pond, and the Mount Hope River. Likewise, any economic development should be mindful of these sensitive environmental resources.” The proposed zoning amendment are entirely inconsistent with these guiding principles.

Zoning Lot Coverage and Setback Standards: The proposed application would allow development of warehouses greater than 250,000 square feet. The property affected by the application represents 113.77 acres – 97.7 acres owned by Ashford Realty and 16.7 acres by Campanelli Rodolakis LM Acquisitions. Based on the parcel size, this site could accommodate a 1.486 million square foot warehouse. The implications of such intense development will result in 1) significant stormwater discharges into the headwaters of the Fenton River; 2) massive increases in truck and labor force traffic over a non-top 24 hour a day 365 days a year operation; 3) degradation of the adjoining Mountain Laurel Sanctuary which abuts the property owned by the applicants; 4) a dramatic decline in the rural character of Ashford and; 5) an extremely ugly visual impact on those entering the gateway to Ashford. The applicant proposes a 30% building coverage for the site compared to the current 25% building coverage standard. The implication of this proposal is that the applicant could construct a building covering 34.131 acres. This is equivalent to a building with a one story footprint of 1.486 million square feet. Does Ashford really need to be the sacrificial lamb for a massive warehouse and distribution center? Such a development will be totally inconsistent with the rural character and the gateway entrance to Ashford. Willington already dealt with this issue several months ago and soundly rejected the idea after hundreds of people, including myself, strongly opposed the concept. It was totally inappropriate in the rural setting of Willington and is likewise inappropriate in Ashford. The proposed zone change amendment appears to be nothing more than a continued search by the developer of the warehouse concept after being rejected in Willington.

Flawed Site Selection Criteria: Having spent many years of my career working on site selection committees for warehouse and distribution centers, I can tell you from first-hand experience this is not an appropriate site for a warehouse or distribution center. While, access to an interstate is always a site selection factor, the other critical variables are 1) access to sewer, 2) access to public water 3) avoidance of locations abutting residential development and 4) avoidance of sites in ecologically fragile lands – in this case land at the headwaters of the Fenton River watershed.

2

Trip Generation Rates: The Institute of Transportation Engineers has developed standards for trip generation rates associated with warehouses. Based on those standards, a warehouse of 1.486 million square feet will generate an estimated 2,713 trips per day including 892 trucks per day. While the actual number of trip generated will depend on the type of warehouse and its size, it is customary planning procedure to analyze the worst case scenario of traffic impacts based on the proposal at hand. If you have not lived near a warehouse or distribution center you won’t appreciate the traffic they generate. In May 2020, Connecticut Department of Transportation conducted average daily traffic count for State Route 89 at its junction with I-84. That study identified 1,200 vehicles over a 24 hour period. In effect, the proposed zone change application would more than double the vehicular traffic on Route 89. Not all of this traffic would be limited to on and off movements connected with Interstate I-84. Indeed 65% of the traffic generated by warehouses is associated with employees of such facilities. For that reason vehicular trips can be expected to be distributed onto I-84, north on Route 89 to Stafford Springs and South on Route 89 to other potential residential areas. This level of traffic is totally inappropriate for a rural town.

Lack of Public Sewers: Lacking public sewers, the developer would install a community leaching system. Such systems are poorly regulated by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. The CTDEEP regulations essentially operate on an honor system. The state does not perform audits and performance is based on self-representation of compliance. These systems have a high level of non-compliance with water quality standards. As an environmental manager with over 40 years of experience, including supervising such systems, it is inappropriate to place such systems within the headwaters of pristine public water supply watershed.

Lack of Public Water: Lacking public water, the applicant or any developer who may buy the property, will require on site water wells to meet the needs of the estimated 570 workers and the 300 truck drivers that will be working at the proposed warehouse. Based on the Connecticut Department of health water planning standard that requires 75 gallons per person per day, the proposed facility will require 63,250 gallon per day – excluding water required for process water, vehicle cleaning and building cooling needs. This level of water consumption will require state approval. Any development that consumes 50,000 gallons or more per day requires a permit. The permit, called “diversion of water for consumptive purposes” is only approved if it generates minimal environmental impacts. With the removal of more than 50,000 gallons of water per day, a warehouse of the size allowed by the proposed zoning amendment, will undoubtedly adversely affect the quantity of water available to neighboring residences. Equally important, the drawdown of more than 50,000 gallons per day, will adversely affect the groundwater hydrology and may also dry up the existing wetlands on the property.

Inland Wetland Impacts: While the Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission has no jurisdiction over inland wetland matters, it is critical that the commission consider the environmental consequences of the proposed development. It will not be possible to develop the proposed 1.486 million square foot warehouse without either filling the wetlands or seriously impairing their integrity. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has identified hydric wetland Soils on the property. The CTDEEP hydric soils map identifies three areas of hydric soils on the property. There are an estimated 10 acres or more of wetland soils on the property. The sheer scale of development allowed by the applicant’s zoning amendments would be similar to that proposed in Willington several months ago. The proposal could turn the 113 acres of land affected by the proposed zoning amendments into a massive concrete desert. The inland wetlands are likely to be adversely affected.

3

Parking Space Impacts on Public Water Supply Water Quality: The applicant has not proposed new parking requirements to reflect the three new land uses; 1) warehousing and industrial facilities; 2) research facilities and 3) distribution centers. Lacking any parking standards, the commission will be hard pressed to determine the appropriate parking for any of these three land uses. The current regulations only address parking standards for manufacturing although reference is also made to parking standards for “other type uses” when parking standards have not been established. Clearly, the application should be denied since there are no parking standards proposed for the three land uses. Defaulting to the category “other type uses” would be a grave mistake when dozens of Connecticut municipalities have parking standards for these three uses. While it is not possible to precisely determine the worst case amount of land required for parking, driveways, truck parking and truck bay areas, it is highly likely 60% of the property could be consumed by 1) the building footprint (30%), 2) ancillary buildings, 3) the required parking and loading areas and 4) driveway and fire access roads.

Watershed Degradation: Studies conducted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the University of Connecticut have determined impervious coverage of any land in excess of 11% results in the degradation of water quality for downgradient rivers and streams. Impervious cover of 25% or more result in significant degradation of water quality and this is a critical because 100% of the runoff from this site discharges into the pristine waters of the Fenton River.

Building Height: The applicant is proposing to allow buildings to reach a height of 75 feet or 40 feet higher than the current maximum allowable height of 35 feet. A recent review of the zoning regulations across the state of Connecticut identified typical building heights in industrial zones as ranging from 30 to 45 feet. Indeed within rural municipalities without sewer and water building heights are much lower than those found in urban areas of the state. The proposed height requested by the applicant is not only inappropriate for the rural character of north Ashford, it will destroy the beauty of the area, become an eyesore for the residents who live across the town-line in Union and will create fire protection issues for which the town of Ashford is not prepared to handle.

The applicant proposes to provide 30% open space as compensation for the 75 foot tall buildings. The applicant has also proposed to increase the setback from residence zones to 75 feet or comply with the required side or rear yard setback – whichever turns out to be a greater in length. While this may sound reasonable, it offers no benefits to the adjoining residences. The proposed setback for buildings larger than 250,000 square feet is 200 feet for land adjoining residences or agricultural uses. This means the proposed setback based on the extension of the building height to 75 feet doesn’t add any benefits over the applicant’s proposed side and rear yard setbacks. The 30% open space allocation is also a non- starter. The applicant is incapable of developing the entire parcel based on a 60% impervious area standard. For this reason, the proposed 30% open space stipulation for tall buildings represents providing the town with the leftover acres not used for development. Perhaps more importantly to all Ashford residents the applicant’s proposal would fail to hide the potential warehouse or distribution center from public view. No fence, tree or earth berm is capable of hiding a 75 foot warehouse located within a stone’s throw of the entrance ramp of I-84 west. A 75 foot tall warehouse, visible to over 85,000 vehicles traveling on I-84 on a daily basis, is simply not appropriate at a location considered the gateway to Ashford. The Ashford Zoning regulations for the Interstate Interchange Development Zone recognize this concern. The regulations state “the height and scale of each building should be compatible with its site and existing (or anticipated) adjoining buildings.” If this proposal is approved, Ashford will never be the same again.

4

Inadequate Land Use Controls for Proposed Development: There will be a wider range of inadequate land use controls within the zoning regulations if this proposal is accepted. A warehouse of 1.486 million square feet will also require significant revisions to the following zoning standards: the fire suppression standards governing on-site water capacity are inadequate; dry hydrant separation distances are insufficient for a large warehouse facility; impervious surface standards fail to define the types of materials that are considered impervious including what constitutes a pervious paver; the site plan standards call for a fence at least six feet high to shield outdoor storage, service or loading areas – a standard not designed to address a 75 foot tall warehouse; similarly the landscape standards that currently apply to the Interstate Interchange Development Zone are not adequate to screen a 75 foot warehouse. Fortunately, the current zoning regulations have two very important considerations that serve as the basis for rejecting this proposal; “(3) The height and scale of each building should be compatible with its site and existing (or anticipated) adjoining buildings. 2) (4) Where large buildings are to be placed in settings where smaller buildings would be more appropriate, the apparent mass of the buildings should be reduced by introducing variations in wall setbacks and heights, additions of windows and other openings, using different materials or finishes, and similar methods.” These two existing zoning provisions are consistent with the goals for development in the Interstate Interchange Development Zone. They also provide an additional reason to reject the proposed application.

Impact to Vidich Property: All of the land owned by the Vidich family is part of the upper reaches of the Fenton River and immediately downgradient of the proposed development site. All of the water discharged by the proposed development will come directly over the streams and wetland areas on our property directly downstream of the three culverts and tunnels crossing underneath I-84. The water quality of the wetlands on our property serves as the habitat for tens of thousands of migratory birds including nearly 90 different species. Discharges of stormwater from a proposed warehouse, distribution center or research center will significantly degrade the water quality of the Fenton River and the ecological integrity of over 25 acres of wetlands on our property. Trucks and vehicles discharge tire dust, oils, antifreeze, windshield wiper fluid, lubricants, gasoline and numerous other cleaning agents. In addition, cleaning solvents, road salts, fertilizers, pesticides, and toxic materials such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are used in or around warehouse and distribution centers. These contaminants can be expected to enter stormwater. This can occur either through poor environmental practices or accidents. These types of releases to the environment can’t be controlled by modern stormwater retention or detention facilities. Detention and retention facilities are designed to control sedimentation. They are incapable of controlling the discharge of solvents, salts, pesticides, PFAS and gasoline released to the environment. The only real protection is by recognizing the inappropriate siting of these three land uses in one of the most pristine public water supplies in Connecticut.

Conclusion: This proposal is not a private decision affecting only the applicants. We live in an interconnected world. The actions and activities that can be expected to occur on the site affected by the proposal will affect the drinking water of tens of thousands of people who live downgradient. It will also adversely affect our property, those of my neighbors and the entire town of Ashford. As a professional land planner with over 40 years of experience in the fields of economic development and environmental protection, this is one of the worst proposal I have ever seen. I trust you will understand the gravity of the issues that have been raised in this memo and take the appropriate action to deny the proposed zoning amendments.

5

Respectfully Submitted,

Charles Vidich

40 Frontage Road Ashford, CT 06278

Attachments:

Connecticut Department of Transportation Average Daily Vehicle Volume

Connecticut Department of Energy Environmental Protection Map of Open Space, Forest and Wild lands. Connecticut Department of Energy Environmental Protection Map of Watershed and Hydric Soils. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection map of Fenton River watershed.

Below: Connecticut Department of Transportation Average Daily Vehicle Volume

Below: Connecticut Department of Energy Environmental Protection Map of Watershed and Hydric Soils. 

Below: Connecticut Department of Energy Environmental Protection Map of Open Space, Forest and Wild lands