Ashford Interstate Interchange Development Zone Survey
Q6 If you have any specific comments related to how the Regulations within the IID Zone can be improved, please submit them to the Commission here. § 300-19: Interstate Interchange Development Zone (IID).
Answered: 143 Skipped: 175
1 We need to preserve the natural resources, ecology and character including a dark sky. We also need to minimize traffic, especially truck traffic on surrounding roads.1/1/2024 3:14 PM
2 State of Connecticut should build a world class UConn Conference/Recreation Center (tennis/golf course) as part of Mountain Laurel Sanctuary and Nipmuck State Forest. 1/1/2024 12:22 PM
3 Keep Ashford RURAL! We have plenty of empty buildings on 74 that could be utilized for different things. Let's use those first and leave the landscape alone! 12/31/2023 11:38 PM
4 Question #3 & #4 - the best layout can't really be determined until the size is determined. There was no option for <250,000 square feet. I agree with what Charles Vidich wrote - 50,000 to 100,000 seems more reasonable for this parcel.12/31/2023 9:27 PM
5 None 12/31/2023 7:19 PM
6 For question #4, 250,000 was the lowest I could select but I would be more in favor of less, like maybe half of that. Although my rankings for question #5 has the Grand List Growth as the lowest ranking, it's not that I think it's not important. I think it is quite important but I don't believe the claims that our taxes would be lowered by some of the proposals are believable in the long term. Possibly in the short term. We should have some reliable guarantee of such claims with some type of penalty to enforce compliance if that's possible, before we rely on those claims.
12/31/2023 7:17 PM
7 I feel any industry/services that may contain hazardous materials to be VERY inappropriate for this site due to the watershed area.12/31/2023 7:14 PM
8 I have no additional comments. 12/31/2023 12:49 PM
9 No comments. 12/31/2023 12:44 PM
10 Keep Ashford Rural!!!!! 12/31/2023 11:52 AM
11 Living in Ashford for over 20 years I fondly tell people I only sleep here. I go out of town for everything (entertainment, shopping, child care, medical appointments, etc). I even work out of town. I think it is time to get things back in town Maybe a Whole Foods, Trader Joes or Stew Leonard's, child care options, medical offices etc. If we can get a plaza where these things are put into place, not only Ashford residents will come, but also residents from surrounding towns and states. You might even find that residents who rent space outside of Ashford may move back to town. It's time to think of needs rather than wants.
12 Keep our quiet corner rural, it’s why we live here! 12/31/2023 10:57 AM
13 Transparency from the developer is nonexistent. If residents of Ashford and those neighbors directly affected knew exactly what was being considered, they would be more accepting of changes.
14 I do not prefer either of the two layouts presented. It causes too much development in the area, and will result in traffic, crime, water pollution, and other problems. I favor a small hotel and restaurants
15 no development, deed it a nature preserve 12/31/2023 2:44 AM
16 As I have followed this issue over the last few months, I’m struck by the conflicts that exist. First there is the expectation by the owner that this sizeable parcel of land at an interstate interchange could be a lucrative investment. That expectation is tempered by the physical condition of the land itself: steep slopes, presence of drinking water headwaters, and potential, even likely, presence of pyrrhotite in the bedrock. Additionally, the existing regulations for the IID zone (300-19) contain two statements that are relevant in this case. I particularly emphasize the second statement. It is a topic mentioned by many Ashford citizens in their testimony opposing the amendment to the regulations proposed by the owner in early 2023. A. Purpose (1) (b) Proposed development must demonstrate that there will be compatibility with adjacent (residential and nonresidential) development and that it will not negatively impact adjacent development. (d) This zone is intended to project the image and character of an attractive and distinctive gateway into the Town of Ashford. The people of Ashford clearly indicated in their testimony that they thought a 1,000,000 square foot warehouse would not meet the standards shown above, yet a building that size is still under consideration per this questionnaire. Regarding the possible layouts of buildings, one large building seems inappropriate, and the layout of the 4 buildings so close together may also be impossible, depending on the results of a site evaluation. I assume there would also be the option of spacing the buildings more to accommodate the physical limitations of the property. It is unfortunate that no significant evaluation of the property can be made until an application has been submitted. It seems to me that even though the property appears to be in a perfect location for lucrative development, at an interchange of an interstate highway, there appear to be significant issues that might preclude any large-scale development that would bring the owner the sort of return on investment he is hoping for. I endorse the buildable lot standards that have been promoted by Charles Vidich. If these standards are applied to the IID zone, I think the best outcome would be achieved for Ashford and for the region. It is important for us to draw a line that stops development such as the Love’s truck stop recently built in Willington, just down the highway from us. The excessive light pollution and the potential for contamination of the groundwater and nearby streams are worrisome and if Ashford wants to be considered a rural town, we cannot have a large-scale development in that area that is brightly lit 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is important that we retain the right to say we are in the Quiet Corner, and that we have dark skies. It is important that we preserve the rural character of our town and that we do not permit a behemoth like the Amazon warehouse being constructed on Route 20 in Charlton, Massachusetts, which has multiple gigantic retaining walls and is visible for miles. There are many ways to develop the property by creating multiple smaller businesses, similar to the Tool Max company. While it is the right of a land owner to develop her/his property, any development is restricted by the P & Z regulations. Please make sure that our regulations do not harm our town. Common sense regulations that protect our fragile environment will still allow development, even if it is not on the scale that the owner may have hoped when he bought the property. 12/30/2023 8:34 PM
17 With truck stops east and west of Exit 72, and unfulfilled jobs at numerous employers locally, the only focus should be on maintaining Ashford's rural integrity with services that invite travelers to visit Ashford further. ie Upscale inn, independent eateries (no fast-food or franchised restaurants) and a few retail shops, and information center. All work create jobs and tax revenue. 12/30/2023 5:56 PM
18 Please limit solar panel farms gas stations fast food truck stops box stores trucking and delivery services and why should this zoning be any different... what special interest allows this to happen and why? It was purchased as residential property. What is wrong with that use.... not enough profit for the owner. It is being taxed at residential rates. The use needs to fit the stated goals of use as in the pocd. 12/30/2023 3:33 PM
19 In our opinion, we need to keep development smaller in keeping with our small country town character. 250,000 square feet is pretty darn big. As we are dependent on our natural resources for the quality of our drinking water as well as our overall life we must be vigilant in carefully maintaining these resources. We also should keep in mind the aesthetics of new development in town. The Dollar General building on route 44 is a good example of what not to build. The same store in Willington is much more attractive. 12/30/2023 1:17 PM
20 This survey has a bias toward economic development as it assumes that some development is desirable. The physical characteristics of the site should be further studied, especially with regard to bedrock, slope, watershed and habitat protection. Further amendments to development regulations in this zone should specifically address noise limitations and ambient light. Economic return for the property owner should not influence the town as it was apparently purchased on speculation two decades ago which may have represented a poor business decision. 12/30/2023 1:08 PM
21 Ashford resident for almost 20 years. We moved to Ashford to have a farm and quiet rural life. All these building proposals and planning / zoning changes are NOT in the best interest of our town. We as residents will reap no benefits from building up the area. Whoever purchased the property was obviously promised uses of the land that is not presently allowed. NOT our problem! The real estate agent that sold the property and that was allowed ( which was coercive and inappropriate) to speak at our town meetings is pushing to make changes to OUR town regulations. He’s probably getting sued for misrepresentation. And who cares if the real estate agent or property owner threatens to sue our town. We need to not be persuaded and bullied. The desires of our town residents were CLEARLY spoken at the meetings. The economic benefit does not outweigh the negative impacts on our homes, farms and life styles. Our town leaders need to stand firm and defend our desires. Thank you. 12/30/2023 11:55 AM
22 Continue green way in conjunction with Laural sanctuary. Benefit can be created from existing Ashford motel site.12/30/2023 11:45 AM
23 Keep ashford rural please! Consider the environment and the rural culture of this town. This was a big draw for me moving to Ashford.12/30/2023 11:08 AM
24 Neither option for question 3 is appropriate for that parcel. No structure for commercial activity should be allowed there. No apartment complexes or housing developments either. Value should come from the natural condition of the land, not from manmade items. Please adopt building standards that encourage the rural character of Ashford and encourage land preservation rather than wasteful development. 12/30/2023 10:56 AM
25 My main concern for this land is the fact that it's a huge watershed area. I am also concerned about whatever is built there possibly encouraging even more commercial building which will begin to take away the rural aspect of Ashford and the surrounding area. I saw what happened to Manchester.....30 years ago it was farmland and now it's a ridiculously expanded mega commercial area in a very short time....which continues to expand. We don't need that here....don't want that. Wasn't sure exactly how to "rank" some of the currently permitted uses because I don't know exactly what they would be....I do know that car repair shops and manufacturing could possibly endanger the watershed so I listed those as not appropriate. I have concerns that there are no water supplies available nor waste removal so whatever goes there would have to rely on well and septic.....and how that could potentially affect the watershed. I'm ok with some small business going in that could service travelers passing through....like a restaurant or small hotel/motel like what is currently there.....but turning it into some kind of business park or huge warehouse/walmart/shopping center....I don't think is appropriate. I am also concerned about a large low income housing facility going in (I had heard some rumors of such)...reason being that such a use would bring in a number of people who would not be contributing to the tax base in town, but who would require services....such as schooling. An influx of residents who would require schooling for their children would require more teachers/supplies/services ....a larger school and all the added tax revenue that would require....which they would not be contributing to and which the tax paying members of the community would have to foot the bill for. I think the best possible use for the land would be a restaurant and small hotel/motel. This would help the tax revenue and not necessarily cause a great change in the surrounding area. 12/30/2023 9:53 AM
26 We should preserve this area completely. I do not want ANY development. We live here to get away from the noise, pollution, and general ugliness of towns who have already destroyed their natural areas. Example- Willington FedEx/Truck Stops! Most all of us work in other towns anyway and there is no reason to sacrifice our town to “development.” I would gladly pay more taxes than to have a developed eyesore at the gateway to Ashford. KEEP ASHFORD RURAL- 100%! 12/30/2023 9:37 AM
27 I feel the land should be purchased by the town and preserved as an open natural space that should not be developed. There has already been a substantial increase of traffic in the past 2 decades with the sales of private building lots. I don't feel either option is appropriate for the building layout. There is no need to build anything, residents have easy access to all supply needs in nearby communities. Growing up in a CT farming town, I've seen the devastation of development strip a beautiful rural community of its charm and heritage. Hills were and still are being leveled, woodlands are being erased, farms are disappearing, and taxes are increasing exponentially, all in the name of "progress", there is no going back. I also request that the PZC implement Buildable Lot Standards in the zoning regulations and to research the best practices in similar communities through out Connecticut. We need to act as stewards of the land to preserve that which is precious, sacred and irreplaceable. Thank you 12/30/2023 9:35 AM
28 I only like the multiple layout more since it may allow for more services to the area. A single larger building could also house multiple tenants that can do the same thing. 12/30/2023 9:21 AM
29 I would like to maintain the agricultural essence of our town maintained. Any development that increases traffic on Rt 89 would be unacceptable.12/30/2023 7:24 AM
30 This is a very difficult task for the PZC & want to thank you in advance for the numerous volunteer hours that have been spent on these matters. I would like to comment on the questions asked above. Number 2 - in regards to appropriateness of allowable uses is something that I would need more specifications on before determining. These is an area where citizens that have expertise in the various fields would be helpful to tap into their professional experience & knowledge. #3 - development style - that would depend what kind of impact it would have on the land, etc... #4 - size of building - seems that what is in place now would be more than enough space. (250,000 or less would be my option) That would be more than 3 times the size of the Tolland Big-Y, larger than Manchester Home Depot(106,380 sq.
ft.), Willington FedEx (197,221 sq. ft.), Windham Walmart (167,328 sq. ft.) I would like the PZC to implement Building Lot Standards in the zoning regulations and to research the best practices in similar communities through out CT. There are many factors to consider when addressing the IID Zone & were voiced during prior meetings. Some that were repeatedly brought up were comments and concerns about the rich wildlife and cold water stream and extensive wetlands which serve as the watershed and headwaters of the Fenton & Mount Hope Rivers. These waters serve as drinking water supply to parts of Windham and Mansfield. Once again thank you.12/30/2023 1:47 AM
31 This survey is extremely disappointing and biased. There seems to have been a complete dismissal of the hundreds of comments that were made in hours of zoom meetings by concerned and knowledgeable Ashford residents not to mention the hundreds of letters that received in response to the proposed million square foot complex. There is no indication the the land has been appropriately surveyed and any thorough analysis of type or size of the structure(s) that would be appropriate for this parcel of land. The Zoning Comission has the responsibility to do due diligence in the planning and execution of the use of this land and there is no evidence that you have performed your function. 12/29/2023 7:05 PM
32 Additional comments regarding questions 3 and 4: Question 3 Why are the current developer’s proposals listed as the only options? That shows this survey is biased in favor of the this developer. This makes the entire survey questionable. There should have been a “none of the above item” at the very least. Building size should not be arbitrarily set. The land needs to be studied using known scientific techniques (standards based sizing) such as those suggested by Charlie Vidich in a recent letter to the board. Question 4 I believe It would be better for the town to have multiple smaller businesses in this zone. No business in a 250,000 square foot building is a small business. It has been shown that the land will not support buildings that large. This has been made abundantly clear to the zoning board through multiple days of public hearings and hundreds of letters. The purpose of zoning is to control development not encourage it. Residential development has many restrictions on lot size, building size combined with healthy water and sewer requirements. I see no reason that equally strict or stricter rules should not apply to businesses.12/29/2023 6:45 PM
33 Question 3 shows two options. I do not support either one of them and there is no option to allow for that. I am not opposed to a multi-building office/services park there but the building size needs to meet standards that match the land - not a random square footage. The building in the single building layout is one huge building. I do not believe it is beneficial to Ashford to devote the entire IID to one business nor is that in keeping with the character of our town. It is much wiser to have a diversified approach with a number of smaller businesses. The multiple building layout shows four 250,000 buildings. Based on the studies submitted by Mr. Vidich this site can not support that amount of square footage and continue to meet the basic environmental standards for smart building here. Our zoning should reflect smart development with environmental concerns in mind. Neither of these approaches show that. Question 4: The option of “reduce building size to less than 250000 square feet” doesn’t give you enough information. The building size needs to match the land characteristics not a random number that matches a site down the interstate. If the PZC is going to put a building size into the regs then they must have the studies of what the land can support without causing environmental damage. Based on the studies done on part of the IID this land can not support builds over 100,000 sq feet on the largest parcel. There are multiple parcels in the IID. I would like to see building size be defined by a required study using best practices for a standards based sizing. 12/29/2023 5:42 PM
34 i do not agree with either selction for question #3. I moved to Ashford due to how rural our town is, i would hope we can keep it this way.12/29/2023 1:03 PM
35 The PZC should make a decision on any proposal based upon the applicant's and its expert's submission as reviewed by the Town's consultants. The proposal set forth by Mr. Vidich and his cohorts at "Keep Ashford Rural" amounts to a taking for which the land owners in the IID zone should be compensated by the Town if passed 12/29/2023 10:01 AM
36 The town should change the zoning regulations for the IID Zone to recreational. Make it an eco-friendly park featuring hiking, bird watching, and nature. Ashford has very limited open park space. Even if state or federal funds are not available, the town should acquire this property for the future use of Ashford citizens. Many towns in CT use their tax dollars to acquire property for public use. We should do the same. 12/28/2023 8:50 PM
37 For question #4 I selected the 250,000 sq ft because that was the minimum I could select but I think it should be even lower, perhaps 75,000 – 100,00 if we are using maximum building size. Zoning regulations need to be strengthened and more specific. Buildable lot standards for IID are needed. I agree with recommendations by Charles Vidich that the Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission should consider using the site assessment tool developed by the UCONN CLEAR program as the first step in better understanding the land use constraints of the Interstate Interchange Development Zone and should consider evaluating the remaining parcels within this zone to make an overall assessment of the development potential of this zone. 12/28/2023 2:01 PM
38 Since businesses come and go, maintaining a stable business tax base can be a challenge, especially in a small, rural town. I believe it is better to have a variety of smaller businesses rather than one or two very large businesses. This tends to soften the blow on the tax base when a business moves, as opposed to what happens when a very large business leaves and decimates a small town’s tax base. I also believe that the terrain, geology and Pyrite deposits that characterize the IID Zone will be so limiting to development that the town will have to re- imagine how this area can be responsibly developed. Perhaps a business park with affordable lots to attract light manufacturers from more expensive urban locales. Thank you. 12/27/2023 4:05 PM
39 I would like to point out that asking for feedback from residents during the busiest time of year seems rather suspicious to me. As a long time resident of Ashford. I want the Commission to consider all the negative environmental issues that have been presented to them and discussed in previous meetings. We need to be more restrictive and protect our Town and all of the watershed area. I did not want to answer questions 3/4 but you forced me to chose, for the Record I Chose NONE of the choices to questions 3/4regardless of the number of buildings they are all too large and the environment is more important and you have been given the facts and statistics on that. A park or nature conservation would be appropriate. Keep Ashford Rural that’s why we moved here! 12/27/2023 3:42 PM
40 Public scare was inappropriate during the "NO MEGA WAREHOUSE!!!" nonsense. Statistics were falsified - those of us who are in support of bringing in revenue to our town to make it easier to live in were vilified. PZ committee should have limited public comments so that each person could only ramble once. 12/26/2023 3:22 PM
41 The regulations for this Development Zone must take into account the geology and topography of the site in order to minimize harmful impacts on drinking water quality, rather than relying on a specific building size as the only metric. I imagine that this may end up limiting building sizes (to much less than 250,000 sq ft), and that may help meet the current regulation standard, "This zone is intended to project the image and character of an attractive and distinctive gateway into the Town of Ashford." 12/24/2023 4:00 PM
42 Address future use regulations to outline what happens and who is responsible if the buildings are abandoned on property. Strict setbacks, noise, and lighting limitations.12/24/2023 7:18 AM
43 Any business there should not negatively impact ground water. Limit lot coverage to 50,000 square feet for one or multiple buildings. Also, limit height.12/23/2023 1:14 PM
44 Any requests for building outside of the permitted use needs to be vetted and allow for public comment and/or vote by residents.12/21/2023 11:22 AM
45 Would like to see a requirement that any changes to the zoning go to a town wide referendum. 12/21/2023 8:54 AM
46 I appreciate the opportunity to take this survey and to offer feedback. As an Ashford resident, I would most like to see this land used in a way that would improve quality of life in Ashford and also not detract from the town’s current charms. Getting retail, restaurants, or services we now lack would be terrific, plus it could create local jobs. But I would not want to do so at the expense of the environment. 12/20/2023 11:56 AM
47 Please implement Buildable Lot Standards in the zoning regulations and research the best practices in similar communities throughout CT. Neither of the building layout pictures is appropriate for the site. I could not submit the survey without picking one. I do not want either of the layouts pictured. If something must be built, I support Charles Vidich's research on what is appropriate for the site. A building footprint of 50,000 to 100,000 sq. ft. or multiple smaller buildings that total this amount or less. 12/19/2023 10:36 AM
48 No building should be over 50,000. Sq. Ft. The gateway zone must reflect the rural character of Ashford. Allow a farmer to farm and allow the developer to sell his development rights to the state. If we care about the developer making money. Wait, it’s not my concern about his money and it should not be any town officials concern. Please.....I beg of you...do not be the one that changes the rural character of Ashford forever. If someone wants to live in a town that’s not rural there are plenty of towns everywhere that already went down the developmental road and the mill rate is not any different than Ashford. Please......save this town. You as a town official have a tremendous responsibility and opportunity. Please save Ashford from bad development. 12/18/2023 6:43 PM
49 This gateway to our town should be in harmony with the rural character of Ashford. Unless the use is Agriculture there should be restrictions on the amount of space that can be developed. In any event the one building allowed cannot be over 50,000 sq ft. Please consider future generations. We will all be gone from this earth and the decisions made here will be the "Gateway" forever. Ashford is in the middle of the last green space left between New York and Boston. It is a heavy responsibility to guard this for future generations. Developers want to develop. The town should look at the long picture and wait for the right person to create our Gateway. NOT A WAREHOUSE. We are better than this. 12/18/2023 6:42 PM
50The reason why most of us live out here is because of the natural beauty and the skies at night. I’d like to propose non light polluting bulbs for all buildings over a certain size. They use these bulbs and tech on Hawaiian islands to preserve the night sky. 12/18/2023 6:40 PM
51 This is the quiet corner and we want to preserve it. The noise, light, traffic and environmental impact must be weighted heavily with any development. 12/18/2023 4:57 PM
52 Our natural resources are limited, we need to protect them and their impact on wildlife. Any development should take these in consideration and provide jobs/benefits to the Ashford residents 12/18/2023 3:28 PM
53 Q2: current permitted uses should be regulated based on scientific standards & land development constraints. Q3: none of the above Q3&4: P&ZC should regulate building layout and size in consultation with professionals having expertise in land development constraints and using buildable lot standards—not by using this poorly designed survey filled out by inexpert citizens like me. Q5: Business development is not a guarantee of tax revenue, jobs, or services. At this site it is a guarantee of wetland and public water supply watershed deterioration and pollution as well as destruction of natural habitat and forest.12/18/2023 11:55 AM
541. retail space, resturants, Dr offices, Apartments, small mfg/ industrual spaces 2. Multiple building that is designed for the healthy growth of Ashford and the residents. Reducing tax base, mill rate.12/18/2023 7:08 AM
55 Stop letting the old out of touch zoning board member who continuously tells everyone he helped write the current regulations be involved in writing any new regulations. He clearly only cares about his own thoughts on the IID. 12/17/2023 8:05 AM
56 Thank you for pausing to help the town clarify what exactly is most desired and needed for this area. This makes so much more sense than if the commission had approved the requested changes w/o the town getting to think and speak towards better development. We need better protection of environment and open resources, and at the same time there are likely business uses which would fit well in this highway space without significant disruption or environmental harm. 12/15/2023 1:44 PM
57 1) I do not think either choice offered in question 3 is appropriate for the town of Ashford. 2) I request that the PZC implement Buildable Lot Standards in the zoning regulations and that they research the best practices in similar communities throughout Connecticut. 3)Most importantly- The IID zone contains one of the highest peaks in eastern Connecticut (Snow Hill) whose steep slopes would require leveling to allow large-scale development. According to DEEP, pyrrhotite, the mineral responsible for crumbling foundations and possible contamination of wells/surface water, may be in the area’s bedrock. The area is mostly forested. Bordered by the Mountain Laurel Sanctuary, Nipmuck State Forest, and part of Morey Pond, it is rich in wildlife and has a cold water stream with wild brook trout. The entire IID zone has extensive wetlands, which serve as the watershed and headwaters of the Fenton and Mount Hope Rivers. These rivers serve as a drinking water supply to the parts of Windham and Mansfield. It is the scenic gateway to Ashford and is part of the Last Green Valley of Connecticut. This is why we chose to move to Ashford and caring for the land we live on is the most important thing we can do for future generations. 12/15/2023 8:29 AM
58 1) Max structure size should be defined by criteria proposed in "How to Determine the Development Potential of the Interstate Interchange Development Zone in Ashford, CT" by C Vidich dated November 26, 2023. Additionally, max size should be actively reduced from the pool of maximum square feet of TOTAL ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT as each individual structure is approved for construction (if a 20,00sf structure is approved, the total pool of 100ksf shall be reduced by 20ksf leaving 80ksf in the pool available for remaining development). 2) Structure size should be reflective of existing terrain; development of extremely steep sloped areas should be prohibited, larger footprints would be excluded from moderately sloped areas. The intent is to minimize excavation (especially of pyrrhotite) and minimize surface disruption of existing vegetation. 3) Exterior lighting (including signage) should conform to the "Five Principals for Responsible Outdoor Lighting" published by "DarkSky" and the "Illuminating Engineering Society" 4) Uses generating excessive Traffic should be prohibited; distribution centers, fleet yards, ambulance yards, etc. 5) Restrict hours of operation to minimize traffic, noise & light pollution 12/14/2023 4:02 PM
59 We moved here because the town is so small, the school is so small. We do not want more people moving in. Our crime rate is very low and we would like to keep it that way. No low income housing. We do not have the services ie - public transportation, local food stores. - nothing delivers out here. we have volunteer fire department and not many fire trucks or large ladder fire trucks. We do not have a police department and or a town officer. We have troop C and they take forever to get out here. The school is on a main rd, and the playground is very close to the road, we don’t need more people driving fast down 89. The Motel that was there has been there for ever. Leave the space alone and leave Ashford alone. We all chose to move out here away from everyone and everything. We did this because it is the quiet corner and we want to keep it that way. 12/14/2023 8:58 AM
60 I don't see the need for further development in that area of town, and it doesn't seem like there is interest for businesses to come to this town. I'd rather see energy put into filling business space that already exists rather than building new business space that could well be empty again in a few years time. This is a rural town, and I would like to see that character maintained. I could care less about the potential for lower taxes or jobs in town. Our town is small. People can easily drive somewhere to work or to get services.12/13/2023 4:02 PM
61 We need to find ways to reduce taxes. Ashford high taxes are a burden to seniors. 12/13/2023 1:30 PM
62 The existing Land Use Regulations were written by and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commision. They are in compliance with the POCD written and approved in 2015. This large parcel is remote from the rest of the town and is ideally suited for development. Ashford has one of the highest tax rates of the surrounding towns and would greatly benefit from development that would increase the tax base and correspondingly reduce taxes. 12/13/2023 1:23 PM
63 We live in Ashford for it’s rural beauty. Don’t want to lose that but I understand change happens. Please keep the environment intact as much as possible.12/12/2023 8:05 PM
64 I am a non-resident taxpayer/landowner. Traffic on 75 and 44 is fast and noisy with trucks, motorcycles, loud cars at All HOURS . Keep big trucks on interstates as best you can. Manage and regulate runoff and siltation. Have some better architectural standards for buildings like Dollar General. Ashford desperately needs businesses that produce taxes. 12/12/2023 3:36 PM
65 Current uses in the IID zone should be increased to attract business'. A town that is not growing is dying and residential taxes allow cannot support town expenditures. The IID zone is next to a major interstate which is not rural in nature. Developing the IID zone will not change the overall rural nature of the town. 12/11/2023 8:25 PM
66 It should be zoned more or less the same as the existing General Commercial Zone. The list of uses (question 2 in this survey) isn't the problem, it's the SCALE of development that's inappropriate. If you look at the list of uses in the IID, it's virtually the same as the General Commercial Zone. By creating a special zone with the stated intention of development, we invite the sort of inappropriate proposals like the one we've been wrestling with over the past year - the kind of proposal that violated virtually every control (size, height, coverage, etc) in the zoning code. The goal shouldn't be "big development". The goal should be organic development of the type appropriate to a small town, which is what we are. The POCD uses the word "rural" 23 times, and some form of the word "agriculture" 79 times. It also states that the Rt 84 interchange 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." This is completely inconsistent with a zone that invites 250,000 sq. ft. buildings, 35 ft. building height, 60% lot coverage, etc. None of this is an appropriate "gateway" to our town. Also - the statement in the POCD that this interchange is only of only 2 undeveloped along Rt 84 is awkward and incongruous. This is not a problem that needs to be solved. It's absolutely consistent that there would be an undeveloped highway exit in a town whose POCD uses the words rural and agriculture a combined 102 times. This is not Vernon. Personal opinion: Weight should be given to development opportunities that are dark at night. I do not want to identify my home town by the glow on the horizon when I'm driving home at night. Thanks for your efforts. Please err on the side of caution. Zoning variances can always be granted for the right opportunities - the kind that everyone gets behind, not the kind we recently experienced where (virtually) everyone is opposed. 12/11/2023 12:44 PM
67 Can't read the building and inside notes about size. 12/8/2023 9:07 AM
68 Why are we still talking about this? We have vacant business space already in Ashford. A development built does not equal a development filled. There are zero guarantees that any business will occupy the spaces. Look to downtown Storrs, a development built and most of it is vacant. 12/7/2023 8:47 PM
69 Thank you to the PZC for giving us the chance to speak up on the issue of the IID. I did not fill out the survey as it should be - I believe it limits the vast possibilities that might happen there. Question 2 and 3 I did not want to answer but it was required. If you use my answer as part of the survey to show that my input is part of a specific answer it would not be accurate as I only filled those in so that I might submit the survey. I would not choose either of the answers on Q 3. If we really want to stand out as the town that we are, then I think the land might be used as an area for an educational facility or recreational area. Perhaps Yale, UConn, or another educational institution might offer programs, classes, or seminars to the public about environment, nature, training for forest preservation or something along those lines, something that would attract people and youth, interested in learning more about beauty of nature. What an amazing introduction to our town this could be!!! I believe this property is unique in its position as the headwaters of watershed through Fenton and Mt Hope Rivers. This is an important consideration which does not seem to be given much attention by the PZC. Taking this into consideration, I believe the PZC should implement Buildable Lot Standards into the zoning regulations and research the best practices in similar communities. I believe this survey narrows one's thinking down to what zoning officials think the public might choose to be a good thing for the property of the IID. While this is a nice idea in general, the reality is most of us are not aware of what the impact will be for the different proposals offered in this survey. A study of other similar towns and their land use plans may be more helpful to our town than a survey of what people want. I think we should take into consideration the particular lot and it's adjacent properties to determine what is best for that parcel. What are the environmental, social, traffic, water, noise, light, and other impacts that will outcome from any particular activity there. Another point to consider is that the land used to be zoned residential and was changed without regard to or consent by the rest of the residents in that area.12/7/2023 5:16 PM
70 Buildings within the IID area need to be of a size and shape that conform to the overall size and shape of current development in the town of Ashford which does not typically exceed more than one or two stories high and not more than the size of the largest building - Ashford School. The future development in Town should take into consideration the landscape and natural resources of the area. Ashford has a rural environment and character which needs to be preserved and relished. The Mainline building is a prime example of the ability of a building to coexist with the environment rather than try to overtake it. Larger buildings in Ashford would be out of sink with the nature of the Town and would have potential irreversible consequences which would alter Ashford’s current rural character. 12/7/2023 1:18 PM
71 IID Zone should accommodate small businesses (locally owned if possible) - things like convenient store, grocery store, hardware store, gas station, pet store, professional services (tax prep, legal services, etc), auto repair, small engine repair, farm/lawn equipment sales, hair salon, restaurant, sporting goods and facility (batting cages, golf range, etc), package store/cannabis dispensary, pharmacy/drug store, and other small retail. All of these types of business satisfy all 7 considerations above, are within existing building size limits, and further, would serve (and possibly employ) the interests of our local community while still generating tax revenue for the town and without sacrificing the natural landscape, or inviting excessive semi-truck traffic. 12/7/2023 12:52 PM
72 This is the wrong use for this very sensitive land, which is the gateway to Ashford. It does not make sense to permanently destroy what makes our town unique in this area.12/7/2023 12:33 PM
73 I feel neither building layout is acceptable. My opinion is the land should remain undeveloped. 12/7/2023 11:02 AM
74 I am opposed to any use that would generate high volumes of either automobile or truck traffic on local roadways12/7/2023 8:39 AM
75 Given the impact on a fragile and important environmental area, I would beg the commission to rethink even the current regulations. I looked at what a 250000sqft warehouse consists of in size and scope and it is extremely overwhelming to such an important ecosystem and watershed that is so vital to so many towns and people. Not to mention the traffic load on our rural roads and the need for more rescue resources. I am hopeful the commission will make the right decision for its constituents and for their own neighbors and family when they make a final determination regarding this precious resource. 12/7/2023 8:16 AM
76 Although required by this survey to select a building site plan, I do not like either. It is a travesty with both plans to lose the natural forestry which is crucial to saving our rural status and preservation of the last green valley. Thumbs down to both development plans. 12/7/2023 12:26 A
77 Question 3 does not allow for "neither of the above". I don't believe that the parcel under consideration should be developed in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Ever. I only picked option 2 because there is no option to pick option 3, which is NO DEVELOPMENT AT ALL. The survey is flawed. I do NOT agree with either of the options. Please rewrite the survey. 12/6/2023 10:23 PM
78 Have a professional environmental conservation attorney review current regulations and work with us to improve the wording of the regulations to properly preserve the headwaters and watershed of the streams originating within or near the IID. 12/6/2023 6:58 PM
79 Change the answer to Question #3 to: No buildings are appropriate for the interchange zone. 12/6/2023 6:23 PM
80 If we must develop the land let’s be smart about it. It’s a small town and it would be nice to keep that culture. That said seeing the stars and maintaining our water table is so important...12/6/2023 6:16 PM
81 Preserve The Last Green Valley 12/6/2023 5:51 PM
82I agree with the results of research submitted to the PZC by Charles Vidich and request his expert advice be heeded. Due to the nature of the property, as he describes, I would not want any structure/imperious coverage to exceed 50,000 sq feet. Although I found this survey to be ambiguous, I appreciate the time and consideration of those who are working to make Ashford citizens' opinions heard. Thank you.12/6/2023 4:23 PM
83 This property is the source of water for Windham county not only for Ashford, which should be considered significantly. Thus any development(s) should be minimized extremely small, guaranteeing there will absolutely no accidental contamination(s) or any other type of hazardous incidents. I was surprised this survey only shows "limit building size limit less than 250,000sq ft, which seems still quite high. In my opinion, it should be less than 50,000sq ft. Overall this survey is not specific enough. Answers can be interpreted either way which I do not appreciate. 12/6/2023 4:04 PM
84I would like Ashford to protect itself from development on the scale of the current Mansfield rt 195 site or similar mega projects that take advantage of a small rural town's 'exploitability'. We don't have an airport, university, manufacturer, car dealership, financial district or town center ... those things might represent growth and progress to some, but would completely and utterly change the environment of this community to its detriment.12/6/2023 2:22 PM
85 Moved to 446 ference rd in ashford because of preservation of natural landscapes dark skies and natural resources. I highly encourage town officials to keep ashford rural and preserve this beautiful town our resources landscapes and dark skies. The impact of factories businesses retail traffic and crime will rise and the ability of our small town will be negatively impacted and only increase tax payers burden our beautiful town should remain the way the way it has been and preserved for future generations. Would much rather see the land be added to nipmunk state forest. 12/5/2023 8:55 PM
86 These questions are opinion driven. However, question 3 is especially pointless. Requiring an answer makes it a loaded question. The building and/or development should be based on use by the developer/tenant, not somebody's like or dislike of a building or site plan. Zoning should have nothing to do with building size, type, or even sight plan. Even building height requirements are suspect. 12/5/2023 12:54 PM
87 Regulations to preserve dark skies and surface water must be strong and enforceable in planning/execution/maintenance. 12/4/2023 6:12 PM
88 There are other options that don’t involve the further destruction of CT woodland and natural visual appeal. (How many trees have we lost already to Eversource and their constant quest to level our scenic skyline instead of coming up with smart technology alternatives to the decades old method of stringing power lines across our roads?) I wonder if we made our focus the preservation of the natural and semi agricultural nature of this region its main appeal, would we perhaps have some other options to choose for a space? Maybe farming won’t make a rich town, but we don’t all need or want to be West Hartford. I’m in favor of paying more in taxes if it keeps the town more or less the way it is without shortsightedly selling our souls to corporations that will eventually find ways around any restrictions or limitations we place on them. So let’s limit further what is appropriate on that land. Also, let’s be more specific. By “telecommunications” do we mean a massive site with hundreds of employees making minmum wage, or is that a cell tower with mostly fields and woods around it? If the former, then resoundingly “no!!”, if the latter, then that may be acceptable. 12/3/2023 6:34 PM
89 No one wants a giant warehouse as the gateway to Ashford. Fill the vacant businesses on 74 before destroying nature to create more empty business space. Just raise taxes if we are that much in the red Ashford is meant to be rural. If people can't afford can't afford the mill rate, they can go to Willimantic. I'll gladly pay more in taxes to live in a rural area. 12/3/2023 6:28 PM
90 No ugly mega distribution center 12/3/2023 5:31 PM
91My main concern is the preservation of natural resources and limiting high traffic volume within the IID Zone to keep the rural character of Ashford. I encourage the PZC to implement buildable lot standards in the zoning regulations and research the best practices of similar towns in Connecticut. I don't support either building layout option. I feel that even 250,000 square feet is way too large for a building and that any building on that site would damage the rural character and natural resources in that area.12/3/2023 11:42 AM
92 Site used for solar field 12/3/2023 11:38 AM
93 Add renewable energy generation as a permitted use For any use minimize parking footprint 12/3/2023 9:31 AM
94 Please make something better to create job. I drive to Boston for work which is not fair at all. I love living in Ashford, but the way ashford is headed is going backwards. We need to move forward. Please make ashford better so we don’t have to travel all those places to keep our money in-house to thrive 12/3/2023 9:02 AM
95 I love the dark skies, fresh air, quiet nature of Ashford. I moved here to raise a family in this beautiful and quiet community. I fear that the addition of big business to this area could greatly change the place that I call home. I hope that my community agrees with me, this way we can keep large business out of Ashford. 12/3/2023 8:54 AM
96 I moved to Ashford from Rhode Island looking for a quiet residential place to live. The last thing that I want as a resident of Ashford is for this quiet, quaint, friendly and welcoming community to change in any way. I am willing to pay any amount in taxes to keep it this way. I understand the want for incoming revenue for the area, however with such a small community surrounded by more than plenty jobs and amenities I feel the land of ashford should stay quiet and residential. KEEP BIG BUISNESS OUT OF ASHFORD. 12/3/2023 8:54 AM
97Question 2, 3 and 4 do not allow any other options or choices. They are very convoluted. I believe the taxpayers of Ashford have already given their input and the Planning and Zoning is still not listening. You have specific members who want to see economic growth and an increase in the Grand List no matter what the cost to the environment is. You need to listen to the people and change the use of the IID zone. If you change the use maybe the Joshua's Trust could play a part in keeping this area for everyone to enjoy and the environment along with it. I have lived in Ashford for almost 56 years and raised three children here. One of them will inherit my home as she loves Ashford and its ruralness along with the wild animals we see and many beautiful birds and butterflies. Please listen to us and keep out Mega Warehouses. Thank you. 12/2/2023 6:04 PM
98- The regulations need to be very explicit that retaining walls are NOT allowed in the setbacks. The zoning regulations should be written to include nutrient removal from stormwater discharge, including that from commercial roofs. The stormwater regulations should be clear that the 2024 Stormwater Quality Manual is a adopted as a regulation. Any development over 1 acre is subject to the General Stormwater Discharge Permit for Construction Activities which requires the adherence to the 2024 Stormwater Quality Manual and the stricter requirements for nutrient removal, but a lot of commissions are not aware of that when granting approval. The comment above with the two images is very misleading. Neither of those images were feasible under the current zoning. The multiple buildings did not meet parking requirements, and the site plan only worked in 2D. Topography was not taken into consideration and the hundreds of square feet of retaining wall face areas that would be required. Given the parking to the property lines, the walls would have been in the setbacks, which is not currently allowed. Allowing retaining walls in the setbacks will allow major modifications to the topography of the site to the very edges of the parcel and ruin the rural look of Ashford. Before placing a random building size in the regulations, example site plans should evaluated to see if even a 200,000 square foot building would fit and what a building of that size would really look like. I don't think most people have an idea of what a building of that magnitude really looks like, in person. 12/2/2023 5:29 PM
99 I am against ANY WAREHOUSE at this location. Answers to #3 & #4 above are implying that the IID Zone should NOT be modified to restrict ALL development (more restrictive). I will oppose all P&Z proposals that do not change the current IID Zone to be MORE restrictive and do not covert all this land back to AGRICULTURAL ONLY use. I’m very fed up with the P&Z NOT listening to the overwhelming majority of Ashford citizens. It’s disgusting that development in this IID Zone is still NOT BARRED.12/1/2023 5:12 PM
100 Keep Ashford rural. Less traffic and less people. 12/1/2023 2:20 PM
101 The combined effect of answers to the layout and sizing questions is unclear to me. I am in favor of multiple buildings totaling less than 250,000 sq. ft.12/1/2023 10:55 AM
102 Allow the area to be developed in order to maximize benefit to the entire town, not limited to a vocal minority's wishes. Stalled development is helping no one, and using the IIDZ for housing would actually burden the town further.12/1/2023 8:16 AM
103 Please implement Buildable Lot Standards in the zoning regulations and to research the best practices in similar communities throughout Connecticut.11/30/2023 7:54 PM
104This property is immediately next to I-84. It's unrealistic to worry about light pollution or noise pollution or traffic when there are tens of thousands of vehicles driving a hundred feet away. The goal should be to make Ashford as friendly to businesses as possible, especially when they are so far from the "heart" of town to worry about petulant things like noise and light pollution along an interstate highway. As long as some spring water bottling plant like Nestlé doesn't come in and ACTUALLY suck the town dry (normal businesses and manufacturing won't have any realistic affect on the town), there are no truly strong reasons to shut down any sort of growth in Ashfords businesses at this location.11/30/2023 7:34 PM
105 No low income housing. Make 89 from the intersection of 44 to route 84, a no-through road. We could call it the Ashford Parkway. Keep trucks on 74. This would quell concerns about truck traffic from future businesses. 11/30/2023 6:05 PM
106 Question 2 seems moot - these are already allowed activities. Question 3 my answer is neither style, which is not an option. Here either choice supports the 1,000,000 square feet facility. Think this issue should be put to referendum vote of all town residents. 11/30/2023 5:32 PM
107 Thank you so much for giving the IID zoning regulations a thorough review. And even more thanks for reaching out and giving the citizens of Ashford a chance to provide their input. Given that this is the head of the watersheds for both the Fenton and Mount Hope Rivers upon which a significant number of households depend, it is an environmentally sensitive site. For that reason, there should be limits on the individual building size and on the individual building footprint size (in line with the likely presence of pyrrhotite). There should also be limits on the total bldg. square footage allowable per 5/10/25/50 acre parcel and limits on the total bldg. and paved surfaces square footage allowable on that portion of the IID site north of I84. The "multiple building layout" figure provided in your survey, which is probably allowable under the current regulations, has WAY too much infrastructure plopped onto this sensitive site. Going forward, there is no way that this amount of development should be allowed. The wetlands should be mapped and development should be prohibited in the mapped wetland regions. Clear cutting of the forests, to the extent that it would significantly affect the watershed and/or the wetlands, should be prohibited. Preserving undisturbed green space should be given consideration in any future regulations. There should be limits on the amount of grading - Snow Hill should not be leveled. Grading should not produce any changes to the mapped wetland regions. Protecting the quality of the water should be given a very high priority. Uses which would carry a risk of severe pollution of the groundwater (service stations, manufacturing which requires chemicals in tanks, golf courses with their extensive use of lawn chemicals, etc.) should be prohibited. The Gateway to Ashford should reflect the small town and rural aspects of Ashford. Smaller buildings, clean uses, green spaces, and letting the natural setting shine through better represent Ashford than large buildings, dirty or polluting uses, acres of pavement, or leveling the slopes and filling the wetlands.11/30/2023 9:08 AM
108 Consider the impact to EMS services for any large development. Anything over 500,000 sq ft will require additional resources (fire trucks & staffing) that will be a significant cost to the town to cover. 11/30/2023 4:58 AM
109 No mega warehouse. Space should be for locally owned and operated business that benefit the people of Ashford.11/29/2023 7:57 PM
110 The town agreed years ago that the land near the highway would be good for development, but when it was time to develop the land people complained. I couldn’t think of a better place being so close to the highway on and off ramps.11/29/2023 7:44 PM
111 Consider the future. Whatever change is made will be permanent. This is your legacy. 11/29/2023 6:15 PM
112 I think the town needs to consider what demand there is for properties along a highway. Talk to commercial real estate brokers and find out what is the minimum building size businesses are looking for. We may want smaller buildings, but there may be zero demand for that, which means the property stays underdeveloped.11/29/2023 5:46 PM
113 I have no preference for question 3, it is whatever the owner/developer feels is best for their use. Question 5, "preserving existing landscapes" doesn't belong. You can preserve dark skies and natural resources without maintaining curre t landscape. Mai taining current landsca0e seems like it means no development. Disagree. 11/29/2023 5:16 PM
114 I’d like to see it partially used as a site for a day care. Ashford lacks enough child care 11/29/2023 4:28 PM options.
115 Please take into consideration the rural nature of Ashford, and that many residents live here for that. Preservation should be most important.11/29/2023 2:17 PM
116 Building sizes are a problem. One is way, too large, and there are too many in the other plan. Would a Cracker Barrel cause damage? Didn't like either set up for bldg., but had to choose 1 to close survey.11/28/2023 8:27 PM
117 The preservation of the natural environment and rural character of Ashford is a number one priority 11/27/2023 7:38 PM
118 Please consider making appropriate changes to future PZC guidelines to reflect standards of building in regard to the environmental impact. Many of us choose to live in this "quiet corner" because of the decreased traffic, natural landscapes, and rural safety. 11/27/2023 2:10 PM
119 There is validation or vetting involved in this survey to verify input. "Anyone" completing this survey could be "stuffing" the ballot box as pro mega wharehouse supporters. I have been a lifelong resident of ashford and have concerns over data being collected by just "anyone". 11/27/2023 1:38 PM
120 My main concern with the large warehouse project is traffic on Rt 89 and 44, and water quality degradation due to runoff into watershed area.11/27/2023 12:58 PM
121 I live less than 3 miles from this site and I am concerned about the impact on the environment and the increase in traffic.11/27/2023 9:26 AM
122 Low-Key business development... ie: Professional Services, lite manufacturing, specialty retail, retaurants, etc...11/27/2023 7:59 AM
123 Please consider adding zoning regulations that SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT facilities that perform "Cross Docking"11/27/2023 6:43 AM
124 There should be no building 11/27/2023 5:36 AM
125 Keep Ashford Rural. No mega warehouse! 11/26/2023 11:47 PM
126 Keep Ashford Rural! No big warehouse! Consider restaurants or at the minimum a motel or retail store although we already have plenty of strip malls that are still empty11/26/2023 11:42 PM
127Life long resident...we have to many empty businesses in Ashford fix that...then a grocery store....restaurant...good motel....something that would help the towns people and keep the environment safe and peaceful 11/26/2023 10:59 PM
128 It’s imperative we keep large scale industrial/commercial/manufacturing use away from that zone. They simply don’t fit into the 300 year character of town. I would like to minimize the development of that area as much as possible. Nothing built ever is the best solution for me. If anything cater services to highway traffic so people don’t venture far from the immediate vicinity.11/26/2023 10:28 PM
129 Please keep Ashford rural with limited building in this area 11/26/2023 8:58 PM
130 Any size building is unacceptable for this area. Building of any kind will destroy the environment. You can’t eat money. 11/26/2023 8:08 PM
131 No additional traffic on 89 11/26/2023 7:57 PM
132 Your survey is confusing and misleading. Ashford needs to remain a rural town with NO WAREHOUSES!!! Large scale development will result in damage to local forests, rivers, and wetlands. I only answered these ridiculous questions to be able to comment. I don’t prefer either answer on 3 11/26/2023 7:53
133 Has any consideration been given to the impact on road damage due to increased traffic, need for more fire and security services (volunteer fire and rescue are declining). and I don't like either option in question 3. 11/26/2023 7:07 PM
134 Protect Zone II D from any future development that could potentially harm the headwaters to our now clean watershed. Keep the Gateway to Ashford water and forests pristine and in harmony with it's longterm well loved rural character. We need to strengthen existing regulations to reflect what our Ashford Citizens want and need to preserve. Thank you. 11/26/2023 7:01 PM
135 Question 3 should have allowed for a choice other than buildings, i.e. no buildings when outdoor recreation, forestry or agriculture should be a choice. There would be a significant impact to the watershed if any development of the area was not related to outdoor recreation, forestry or agriculture. Regulations should not allow for large or small scale buildings of any type, including commercial, retail, business offices, industrial manufacturing, etc. 11/26/2023 6:53 PM
136 I request that the PZC implement Buildable Lot Standards in the zoning regulations and that it research best practices in similar communities throughout Connecticut. I am AGAINST the construction of ANY warehouse, commercial enterprise, or facility—regardless of size or whether it's a "single building" or "broken up into multiple buildings"—that would compromise natural landscapes, increase light and air pollution, or consume natural resources like water. No amount of "tax revenue" or "jobs" (lol, you guys) is worth ruining this beautiful natural environment.
137 Against housing development 11/26/2023 5:13 PM
138 This is the area of Town where we want development to take place especially when there is already a significant physical barrier called I-84 separating the rest of the town versus the interior land areas. The Final regulations should afford flexibility in a provision to allow a developer to propose alternative development proposals as the business climate remains in a state of flux and business and developers should be able to propose a development that meets the business climate/needs of the time. While environmental considerations are important, short and long term impacts are evaluated/monitored under many state, federal and local regulations that will mitigate said impacts.
139 Our towns don't need this, don't ruin the quality of our lives over tax money and development, we don't need or want it. 11/22/2023 3:33 PM
140 Growth & change are always hard for Towns to go through and their residents, business, guest etc. But without it, growth will never happen to allow the Town to move forward benefiting those who need to be sustainable, it’s better to embrace change than to ignore the progress. 11/20/2023 3:01 AM
141 There needs to be a town vote on eliminating 300-19. The taxpaying residents do not want ANYTHING built there. The town should buy the property and deed it as a public preserve, and put a permanent end to all this 300-19 development that no one wants, or voted for. Let the residents buy the land, put it to a vote. 11/18/2023 3:23 AM
142 Anything to bring business to Ashford. We currently go to surrounding towns for 99% of necessary goods and services. Tax Revenue along with zero-increase budgets should be the goal to keep Ashford affordable. We are one, maybe two, generations away from most of the open area from being sold off by our grandchildren for the profit necessary to live where you don't have to drive 40 minutes for groceries, shop, or attend social events. The latest "just a little bit more" in taxes raised my mortgage by over $200 per month. It won't be long before we are priced out of our house. 11/17/2023 6:11 PM
143
My Great Grandfather x7 settled Pomfret and helped organize the Ashford and Eastford settlements along with his descendants. This is how it was meant to stay, preserved as natural country living. Do not disrespect our founding father’s and destroy it!! Do not cave to elitist scum that could care less about the devastating impacts they will carelessly create! Remember the over 300 years of sacrifice that brought us to this crossroad. Progress is not always truly progress! Not when it destroys a way of living that cannot be replaced. 11/17/2023 3:39 PM