Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 7/22/2020
ENFIELD – On July 9, the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) voted unanimously to approve the application for development submitted by Winstanley Enterprises LLC within one of the Enfield’s industrial areas.
This development will result in the construction of a 501,500-square-foot, one-story warehouse, along with vehicle parking spaces, trailer parking spaces, and loading docks. It is expected to be open by 2022, with construction starting in the near future.
The warehouse will serve as a distribution center for Agri-Mark, a dairy cooperative consisting of 800 family froms from New England. This includes about 50 farms from Connecticut, with “several local to Enfield,” according to Jeff Sephoric, chief operating officer for Agri-Mark.
Originally established in 1916 as the New England Milk Producers Association, the cooperative became Agri-Mark in 1980. Twelve years later, Agri-Mark merged with Cabot Creamery Cooperative and in 2003 acquired Chateaugay Cooperative in Upstate New York and the assets of McCadam Cheese.
Sephoric noted in his presentation to the PZC on July 9 that they were “good stewards of the land and the environment” and that they intend to be “good neighbors.”
Adam Winstanley, principal of Winstanley Enterprises, said at the same meeting that the company had met with Agri-Mark over a year ago, and thought they would be a “good fit” for the area, adding that they were a “less intensive user” than other companies they had talked to. Winstanley also noted that they were “not a far flung owner” and that they “value the communities” they invest in.
Laurie Whitten, director of development for Enfield, said, “These industrial and commercial developments are very good for municipalities in that they bring tax revenue to the town, jobs, and potential expansion. Having national and international companies invest and develop in the town of Enfield helps our bond rating, which allows the town to borrow money at a lower rate. This is a win for all the citizens and businesses in town. Winstanley Enterprises LLC is a very reputable and desirable developer. Their sites are beautiful, well managed and pristine. On top of that, they tend to offer more amenities, landscaping etc. than is ever required, as they have with the large berm between the development and neighboring residential development.”
In spite of the fact that the parcel of land being developed is in an industrial zone designated for this purpose, and that the application was approved with all standard conditions, and with several additions such as sidewalks being provided along both road frontages, a group of residents living near the area voiced strong opposition to the project.
Condominium owners from the Misty Meadows and Maple Heights neighborhoods have stated that they had received no formal notice about the developer’s application, and that they had “mere hours” to convince the PZC to hold a public hearing on the plan. Although the application didn’t require a public hearing, according to Ken Nelson, PZC chairman, and other town officials, the commission voted to listen to their concerns at their meeting scheduled for July 9.
In a letter to the PZC dated July 5, Moody Road homeowner Warren Kessler wrote, “I am writing in opposition to the planned warehouse development on 113 North Maple Street ... the section of Moody Road that I live on is already overburdened with tractor trailer traffic ... The noise and vibration from current tractor trailer traffic is currently problematic for residents on Moody Road. The large warehouse planned adjacent to my property would detrimentally affect my quality of life due to increased noise and vibrations from tractor trailer traffic on the roadway and the proximity of the proposed loading docks to my residence.”
Another Moody Road resident, Diana Malek, offered her opinion to the PZC by including in her letter, “Unlike the applicant’s other investments, it brings no potential wealth to the community, only to himself, the client, and those who are allowing this to transpire. In other words, almost no one that lives in Enfield.”
In a letter to the PZC dated July 6, Maple Heights resident and former member of the PZC, Kathleen Sarno, indicated that she had been designated as the spokesperson for her condominium complex, located at 102 North Maple St. She presented their concerns and objections during the July 9 meeting of the PZC. Additionally, several of the residents hired a land use lawyer to assist them with their efforts to block the development.
In response to the opposition of this group of residents, Whitten said, “I truly feel for the neighbors, and understand their dismay. However, the Planning [Department] staff is bound to follow the regulations. This use is permitted by right with a Site Plan Approval. Per the regulations, it did not require a public hearing. Staff has no jurisdiction to set a public hearing when one is not required. That is the purview of the PZC; we are still bound by the current regulations, statutes and case law.
“We have all heard the saying ‘Buyer beware.’ When one is purchasing any property, they should always check the zoning. Check it for the property, adjacent property and property down the street. If there is vacant property, one should assume that at some time it will be built upon. The zoning regulations of every town will tell you what uses are permitted in that zone, and that is what might be developed on that site based on its zone. Just because there is a house on a parcel, it does not mean that the parcel is residential as it could be a non-conforming structure. Similarly, if a plot of land is farmed, it is quite possible that it may be developed (unless it is preserved in perpetuity.)”
Also, Nelson responded, “In regards to the Winstanley project, we as commissioners are bound by the regulations set forth by the previous commission and the plan of Conservation and Development. This application had NO waivers from the regulations and was approved by a unanimous vote. As far as the commission trying to ‘put this through quietly,’ the land sold over three years ago; there is signage on the property advertising it for lease by Winstanley; and it passed [the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency] all before the Planning Commission ever heard about Winstanley. Leading their [the residents’] fight is former Planning and Zoning Commissioner Kathy Sarno, who had many, many years on the commission and had the ability to make changes, but didn’t. Sarno should be concerned about what is best for all the residents of Enfield.”
He added that, in addition to the benefits mentioned by Whitten, by approving this project, the PZC avoided a costly lawsuit that the town would not have won. “Not only would that [a lawsuit] not stop the project from going forward, it would have cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to fight something that is clearly allowed,” he said.
Nelson continued, “As a commissioner not all decisions are easy and that’s why we have regulations to follow. It’s not our opinions that matters, but what the town as a whole has dictated best for the entire town. The new plan of Conservation and Development is just getting started. Now is the time to be proactive in your community so you do not have to be reactive in the future.”