ESSEX

A proposed text amendment that would have allowed for the construction of 12 four-unit townhouse-style condos has been rejected following several months of well-attended public hearings.

Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) voted 6-1 to reject the text amendment that would have changed rural zoning regulations.

The amendment, brought forth by representatives of Mystic-based developers Greylock Properties, aimed to “add a new Section 61A.2(G) to permit Multiple Dwelling Projects in the Rural Residence District.” Greylock had previously floated the idea of erecting 12 four-unit townhouse-style condo buildings at 160 Saybrook Road in Essex, believing that the zoning change would allow for such a development to help the town achieve state-mandated affordable housing goals.

The proposal faced strong public opposition at public hearings on Aug. 1 and Sept. 1, with critical public testimony aimed at concerns over increased density, traffic patterns, and a change in the character of Essex if the amendment were to be accepted.

Commissioner Mark Reeves made the motion that resulted in denying Greylock’s application.

“The application does not meet the language of the Plan of Conservation and Development (PoCD) regarding the preservation of traditional rural lands,” said Reeves. “The application does not meet the language of the PoCD that encourages development along transportation nodes and major transportation corridors.”

Reeves said that the PZC does not possess enough information on the ramifications of accepting the text amendment, and how it would affect existing neighborhoods and public services such as emergency and education.

“The commission does not have the information necessary to accurately determine the impacts of the text amendment as proposed on the town of Essex,” he added.

Commissioners Jane Siris and David Rosengren disagreed with most of the commission, saying that text amendment would not be a negative addition to rural zoning regulations. Rosengren said that the PZC should have taken action immediately on adopting the text amendment instead of continuing unproductive deliberations in the future. He expressed his view clearly that the text amendment would be the right step forward to encourage more young people to move to Essex, or else the town would face negative consequences.

“We live in an aging community. We also live in a very high-income community; it’s basically a retirement community,” said Rosengren. “If we don’t start changing that, if we start adding opportunities for younger people with less opportunity to get into this community, this community will essentially die.”

Rosengren also disagreed with Essex being a rural community and that the increased density that might come with Greylock’s proposed amendment and subsequent permissible development should not amount to a “radical” change since the town is already a densely packed community.

A theme among the critical public was that non-resident private developers should not be influencing the direction of the town, specifically in offering affordable housing. PZC Chair Russell Smith agreed that a text amendment similar to Greylock’s “should be written by the commission and put out there, not a developer.”

The commission answered that major point of concern when Reeves made another 6-1 approved motion that the PZC “undertake a review of our multifamily zoning regulations as it applies to multifamily housing and that we established a subcommittee to look at affordable housing options in all areas of Essex, including the RU [Rural Residence] zone.”

Rosengren was once again the lone vote against the motion, saying that future conversations by the subcommittee on affordable housing would inevitably fizzle.

“If we don’t do it now, when are we going to do it?” he asked. “My suggestion is we’re not because what happens when you go for more discussions is everything dies in committees.”