Anthony Paticchio has submitted the following comments to the PZC for consideration. He has been a past membr of the PZC and served on the Commission during the drafting of the Interstate 84 Interchange Development Zone regulations. He is a retired investment attorney and a 28 year resident of Ashford. He has done an excellent job of clarifying the Ashford Plan of Conservation and Development goals in his comments. The applicants for the change used that document as a basis for their appliction and Statement of Justification for the text changes in the regulations.
January 29, 2023
Anthony Paticchio 178 Waterfall Road Ashford, CT 06278
RE: Town of Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 13, 2023:
Public Hearing on Amendment of Zoning Regulations Application of Campanelli Rodolakis LM Acquisitions LLC and Ashford Realty Trust LLC to amend Sections 300-14 and 300-19(D)(1) of the Ashford Zoning Regulations
To the Members of The Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o: Michael D’Amato, Zoning Officer: zeo@ashfordtownhall.org
cc: Katie Connolly, Land Use Clerk: kconnolly@ashfordtownhall.org
My name is Anthony Paticchio and I live at 178 Waterfall Road in Ashford, CT.
I am submitting these comments in opposition to the proposed amendment to the Interstate Interchange Development Zone, Section 300-19 of the Ashford Zoning Regulation (“IID Zone”) proposed by the Applicant. I recognize that these comments are extensive, but in light of the scope and scale Applicant’s proposed amendment to the IID Zone and the enormous impacts it would have on the Town of Ashford, I want to provide specific and detailed reasons for my opposition to this Amendment.
I will first address the proposed Amendment to the IID Zone itself, and then the Applicant’s Statement of Justification.
The Proposed Amendment.
The proposed Amendment requests the following changes to the existing IID Zone regulations:
I. Adds three additional Special Permit Uses to Section 300-14 (Word Usage and Definitions):
(10) Warehousing and industrial facilities;
(11) Research facilities, including research, development and testing laboratories or
centers;
(12) Distribution Centers;
II. Amends Section 300-19 (Interstate Interchange Development Zone) at Section (D) thereof:
At Section (D)(1):
changes “Structure Size” to “Building Footprint”( a significant change not addressed by
Applicant);
decreases the lot frontage requirements for structures sized from 20,000 sq ft to
250,000 square ft (now using Building Footprint instead of Structure Size to calculate square footage);
1
reduces the side and rear lot setbacks in each of the two Structure Size categories in the current regulations (now using Applicant’s proposed “Building Footprint” instead of “Structure Size” to calculate square footage);
creates a new additional category of structure size (using Applicant’s proposed new formulation, based solely on Building Footprint instead of Structure Size, to calculate square footage, disregarding any building square footage on additional floors of any building above the ground floor). The current regulations do not provide for any structure size in excess of 250,000 square ft.);
at Section (D)(1)(a) adds a requirement of year-round screening to buffer plantings;
at Section (D)(1)(b) excepts retaining walls from setback requirements;
at Section (D)(1)(c) increases building coverage from 25% to 30%;
at Section (D)(1)(d) increases building height from 35 to 75 feet, subject to increasing
open space from 10% to 30% for buildings over 35 feet, and minimum distance to lot lines equal to greater of required zoning and height of building when building height exceeds 35 feet.
The Applicant relies on selective cites to Sections of the POCD and ignores other provisions which raise significant issues of the incompatibility with the POCD.
The Application references two POCD objectives of Economic Development within the Interstate 84 Interchange Special Planning Area, but fails to cite the first stated objective of providing “needed goods and services”, with its clear reference to associated objectives of a focus on business development which prioritize Ashford’s needs – see, for instance, POCD Objective 1.c. - “Identify local needs and actively seek out and encourage businesses that serve those needs.” This is critical when read with the actual Statement of Purpose for the IID Zone at Section 300-19 A. of the Ashford Zoning Regulations, which discusses manufacturing and commercial uses only (not warehousing and Distribution Centers), stresses compatibility of development with adjacent and surrounding residential and non-residential development, and states that IID Zone development shall not negatively impact adjacent development.
Compatibility relates not only to the nature of a use, but also critically to the permitted size and scope of the use. This amendment offers the potential for facilities not currently within the use categories for which a Special Permit may be sought in the IID Zone, and for increasing the overall development within these new use categories, as well as within its existing use categories, constructed to a size many times larger than the maximum size facility contemplated by the existing IID Zone regulations. Given the size of the Applicant’sconsolidated parcel, and applying the proposed zone amendment, a facility with a building footprint of almost 1.5 million square feet would be possible (this footprint size could be duplicated for each additional floor of a building up to a height of 75 feet) – such a facility would exceed the footprint of 26 football fields. Nothing of this size and scope was ever contemplated by the Ashford Planning and Zoning Regulations, or by its Special Permit criteria and requirements. And, associated impervious surface could cover up to another 1.5 million square feet (another 26 football fields). Any argument that its Special Permit requirements would protect Ashford from any excessive or overreaching development within the amended IID Zone is without merit. The Special Permit process would not afford Ashford the ability to
2
reject a project for being too large if it fit within the regulation. It would only regulate the manner in which the project could be built out.
Nothing of this scope and size would be “compatible with the rural character of the Town” as contemplated in the Vision for the Interstate 84 Interchange Special Planning Area at page 34 of the 2015 Plan of Conservation and Development (the “POCD”). The impact of any such development on the delivery of necessary town services to the residents and businesses in Ashford alone would be staggering. For starters, the proposed building height increase from 35 feet to 75 feet could not be served by existing fire and rescue services which would require permanent and significant costly upgrades. Development of the size and scope this zoning amendment contemplates would not satisfy the POCD goal of “recruiting commercial and industrial uses with minimal impact to farmland, forests, and residential properties in interior portions of the Town” (POCD at page 34). Immediately adjacent development and neighborhoods would not be the only areas adversely impacted by such overdevelopment, or by the huge increase in large truck traffic and its associated pollution and wear and tear on roads and infrastructure if the property were developed to large-scale warehousing or distribution center use. The project impacts would then extend to properties in the surrounding areas, as well as along Routes 89 and 44 where large truck traffic coming to and from the development would travel, in effect adversely impacting most areas of the Town in a manner not compatible with preserving the rural character of the Town.
I want to draw special attention to the proposed addition of Distribution Centers proposed by Applicant. Applicant’s proffered definition of these facilities does not reflect what they in fact are and the impacts they will have. These mega-structures, with building footprints routinely exceeding 1 million square feet (17+ football fields), have in recent years proliferated in rural communities with promises of jobs, increased tax revenues, and minimal negative impacts to nearby land and water resources. In many of these cases, the resulting mega-development hasn’t lived up to its promises, and more and more communities are rejecting them. Jobs are not high-paying and are likely to be replaced through automation in the coming years, and usually come without benefits. Job turnover is high, and in the event a user does not materialize or decides to vacate the site, the Town may be left with the burden of a massive empty facility. Any expected tax revenues must be considered with regard to (i) the real costs of inviting such large-scale development into a small rural Town without its own police department and with fire and safety services scaled to its small rural size, (ii) any tax concessions which may be required to secure a user, and (iii) the potential costs associated with the Town being left with a massive empty and unused facility in the future.
Despite this, the Applicant claims that its amendment satisfies the POCD’s vision for the Interstate 84 Interchange Special Planning Area as “permitting the operation of large scale industrial businesses, as well as complementary commercial activities compatible with the rural character of the Town.” What Applicant fails to mention is that the IID Zone purposes articulated in Section 300-19 A., when taken together and as a whole, are clear about the kind of development that is complementary and compatible with the rural character of the Town -- Section 300-19 A.(1)(d) A. 4. states explicitly that “this zone is intended to project the image and character of an attractive and distinctive gateway into the Town of Ashford.” It is the additional stated purpose of the IID Zone at Section 300-19 A. (2) to “promote the economic
3
viability and operational sustainability of agricultural business in the Town of Ashford”, including, without limitation, by enhancing “environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends.” Such a development would in no way be attractive or distinctive, and by contemplating structures at a potential height of 75 feet (compounding the square footage of the footprint for each floor included in any building), would not be inconspicuous. It would not in any way enhance or support the environmental and natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends. Ashford has attracted and promoted agricultural use with its promise of being a farm-friendly community. Development of this size and scope in this location adjacent to high value environmental, water, and agricultural resources, including those areas in immediate proximity to Morey Pond, the Mount Hope River headwaters, and the Fenton River watershed, would run counter to supporting these goals.
I served on the Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission when the IID Zone was created. It was not an oversight that the Commission provided for no structure within the zone in excess of 250,000 square ft, no building height above 35 ft, and no provision for Warehouse/Freight Movement, let alone Distribution Centers. These were not considered as furthering the stated purpose of the IID Zone or as being consistent with the POCD as then in effect (or with the POCD in its current form as adopted in 2015). The IID Zone was created with careful regard to the services Ashford has available, and to the environmental sensitivity of development adjacent to the Fenton River Watershed, Morey Pond, and the headwaters of the Mount Hope River, and provided only for proposed development of a scale and scope compatible with these adjacent sensitive environmental areas, water resource areas, and Priority Land Preservation Areas shown on Figures 15 and 23 of the Plan of Conservation and Development.
Development in excess of the maximum 250,000 square ft. size currently contemplated in the IID Zone (a footprint equal to the current maximum of 250,000 would be the size of 4.34 football fields), as well as warehousing and freight movement operations, were considered when the IID was first created and rejected as incompatible with, among other things, the goal of an attractive and distinctive gateway into the Town of Ashford. The POCD recognizes this at page 34, by acknowledging that:
“(A)lthough this Special Planning Area is remote from most of the Town, it is also 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.”
Applicant’s proposed Amendment is not consistent with, nor is it in keeping with, this intention and would open the door to overdevelopment on a massive scale with respect to every use category within the IID Zone, carrying with it (i) the associated extensive road and infrastructure improvements which would be needed to accommodate the new use categories as well as development on the scale proposed within the existing use categories, and which would negatively impact the adjacent high value areas identified in the Plan of Conservation and Development, (ii) a substantial increase in large truck (for warehouse and distribution centers) and vehicle traffic (for any of the use categories raised to the size and scale here
4
proposed) on Routes 89 and 44, as well as on adjacent town roads, (iii) the negative impact of the high demand for water associated with development of the scale and scope contemplated by this Amendment on a Town which relies on private wells (which are sensitive to changes in the water table) to meet the water needs of its residential and agricultural users, (iv) the impacts of large-scale water run-off from development of the size and scope contemplated by this Amendment on the adjacent and nearby high value water resources. Applicant’s conception of large-scale industrial development goes far beyond what is envisioned by the Ashford Zoning Regulations and the POCD as appropriate and sustainable development in the Town of Ashford.
What is here proposed is not simply an updating to modernized standards of development within the IID Zone as Applicant contends in its Statement of Justification addressed below. It constitutes a fundamental and undesirable change to the vision and the goals of the POCD for this Special Planning Area, and to the purposes for which the IID Zone was established. Development within the IID Zone of the scope contemplated by this Application would fundamentally and negatively impact the Town of Ashford as a whole, not just a remote corner of the Town.
The Statement of Justification.
In its Statement of Justification Applicant promotes its proposed amendment as a means of attracting “desirable commercial and industrial users to IID Zone properties.” Applicant further claims that its “requested changes are necessary to modernize existing standards that, at present, hinder development in this zone.”
I submit that development within the IID Zone which would satisfy the goals and purposes of the POCD, as well as the purposes for which the IID Zone was established, and which would provide Applicant with a reasonable return on its investment, is both realistic and feasible without adopting the massive changes to the IID Zone proposed in this Application. The Town’s and the Commission’s focus in its planning documents is on achieving a size and scale of development which is appropriate to the Town of Ashford, and which balances a number of factors enumerated in the planning documents, not solely on maximizing development of any site without regard to resulting impacts on the Town’s natural resources, its available Town services, and its overall quality of life.
Applicant’s reliance on the preamble statement of purpose for the IID set out in Section 300-19 of the TPZ Regulations, “to provide economic opportunity, consistent with the Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development, in the Town by permitting the operation of large-scale businesses, industries, and complementary commercial activities”, as justification for this change is misplaced, primarily because it relies on a misreading of what Ashford contemplates as comprising large-scale businesses and industries (as is apparent by any careful and reasonable reading of its Zoning Regulations and in the POCD). Applicant takes a general statement, which must be read and interpreted in the light of everything that follows in the existing zone regulation, as well as in conjunction with the entirety of the Plan of Conservation and Development, out of its context and attempts to turn it into a statement justifying development of any size, scope, and impact as Applicant would desire. The Applicant claims in
5
its Statement of Justification that its proposed additional uses (enumerated below) for the IID Zone are comparable to the existing use categories within the IID Zone of “Sale of building equipment, merchandise, material or supply businesses”, “Offices for business, financial, professional, research, or skilled trade services, and “Manufacturing”.
The three proposed additional user categories within the IID Zone proposed by Applicant are:
“Warehousing and industrial facilities” (neither use is defined, and they describe two distinct and in many cases unrelated uses),
“Research facilities, including research, development and testing laboratories or centers” (not using the Regulation’s existing defined term “Research Facility”), and
“Distribution Centers” (with this definition proposed by Applicant: “an establishment engaged in the receipt, storage, and distribution of goods, products, cargo, and materials”).
With the possible exception of Research Facilities (which under current TPZ Regulations are limited to facilities in the Technology Development Zone), this argument is meritless. Warehousing and Distribution Centers are of a different nature altogether from the purported “comparable use categories” Applicant would ask us to accept. The traffic, noise, onsite and offsite pollution, 24 hour high impact operation, need for 24 hour high impact lighting, and the myriad of additional direct impacts of any such intensive development on the surrounding environment and community, demand that any consideration of these use categories be given separate and close scrutiny. And, when the massive increase in facility size proposed by Applicant is added to the analysis, it is even clearer that these new use categories are not at all comparable to the existing use categories. In fact, all of the existing use categories within the IID Zone, as well as the Special Permit requirements in the Zoning Regulations (which do not contemplate development of the size and scope proposed) would need to be re-examined before changes to the scale of development within the IID Zone proposed by Applicant should be considered.
A portion of the Interstate 84 Interchange Special Planning Area south of Interstate 84 is identified within the SPA in the 2005 and 2015 Plans of Conservation and Development (though it’s important to point out these areas are not included within the IID Zone). Much of this area has now been developed to residential use and therefore brings additional existing residential development within direct proximity to the IID Zone. Also, if any portion of the IID Zone is now or in the future located south of Interstate 84, any proposed changes to the IID Zone intended to apply to the entirety of the zone need to account for this.
Any consideration of the proposed Amendment must include a thorough understanding of the real geographic area within which development impacts will be felt directly by the community, including (i) as a result of the great increase in large tractor trailer traffic on roads extending down and near Route 89 and onto Route 44 for truck traffic heading east into and out of Providence and southeastern Connecticut in the event of a warehousing or distribution center use, (ii) on water availability and water quality throughout the extended surrounding area from any development within the IID of the size and scope proposed, and (iii) on the residents of nearby established residential and agricultural use properties, including around Lake Chaffee.
6
Not only are mega-scale warehouse and freight movement operations not compatible with the clear development criteria for this SPA articulated in the POCD and the clear intent and purpose of the IID Zone as set out in Section 300-19(D)(1), but this proposed Amendment would also open the IID Zone to mega-development for any of its existing Special Permit Uses. It would subvert the intent of the IID Zone and the vision for this SPA articulated in the POCD for commercial and manufacturing development that prioritizes Ashford’s local needs, as articulated in the POCD, and that is compatible with Ashford’s rural and agricultural-friendly character.
Applicant presents the argument that its proposed Amendments to the IID Zone meet the objectives of the POCD for this Special Planning Area. In fact, Applicant’s list of “desirable” outcomes are in large part desirable only for the Applicant. Applicant addresses the issue of current non-development within the IID Zone without acknowledging that it in fact controls the largest amount of acreage within this zone, and that its position reflects only its view on how to maximize its return on its investment in the Property. While Applicant may want to create a zone which meets its desires and enables it to maximize its gain from a sale and development of its property, this proposed Amendment is not compatible with Ashford’s planning documents. Applicant acquired its property with no ability to develop it along the lines it is proposing here and with no assurance that it could effect a zone amendment to meet its desires. Nothing is being taken away from Applicant by rejecting its proposed amendment.
Applicant argues that its changes to the IID Zone are necessary “to successfully market IID parcels to desirable companies that will substantially contribute to the grand list”. I would urge the Commission to make its own assessment of the market for development of property within the IID Zone, and to make its own determination as to what kind and what scope of development within the IID Zone is appropriate in the Town of Ashford, both in terms of contributing to the grand list, and in satisfying all the development goals and purposes set out in the POCD and the IID Zone regulations.
Applicant notes that “the vast majority of the Property - consisting of more than 100 acres in the IID – is vacant despite being specifically designated for industrial development for nearly a decade.” Applicant purports to have arrived at the only viable solution for developing the vacant sites in the IID Zone with these proposed amendments to the IID Zone. I again urge the Commission, working with other Town stakeholders and within the parameters of the Plan of Conservation and Development, to make its own determination as to what kind of development meeting the goals and objectives of the IID Zone and the POCD there is a market for, and not to rely only on the Applicant’s assessment.
The Applicant acknowledges that IID parcels, including its Property, are proximate to a number of parks, wetlands, and other recreational areas, and proposes that its 30% green/open space proposed requirement for development in excess of 250,000 square feet or in excess of 35 feet in height, is the only mitigation needed to compensate for its proposal to greatly increase the size and scope of possible development within the IID Zone. What this might mean for Applicant’s approximately 114 acre consolidated site is that 30% (up to almost 1.5 million square feet) could be covered by building footprint of a structure or structures built to a height
7
of 75 feet, another 30% (again up to an additional 1,5 million square feet) could consist of impervious surface, and another 30% of the remaining 40% would need to be retained as open space. Since the total impervious surface which is allowable in the IID Zone is limited to 60%, and given the nature of the site, it’s unlikely that Applicant’s increased open space requirement constitutes material mitigation for the massive development increase sought by Applicant, and may in fact simply reflect the maximum feasible development of the site by Applicant even under its proposed amendment.
Summation.
This proposed amendment of the IID would in effect create a new zone entirely, with vastly different development outcomes and Town-wide impacts than were contemplated for the IID Zone and for development within this SPA consistent with the POCD. I respectfully ask the Commission to reject Applicant’s proposed amendment as vastly overreaching in its scope and wholly inconsistent with the stated purposes of the IID Zone and the POCD.
Thank you, Anthony Paticchio
8