I oppose amendment 61A.2(G) for the following reasons:

the developer, Greylock, has no history of affordable housing development.

Current zoning regulations already allow the construction of multiple developments, and zoned areas have been underdeveloped. Greylock could develop properties in properly zoned areas without this amendment.

The proposal simply allows Greylock to purchase and develop a property not currently zoned for multiple dwellings for their own profit, not for the benefit of the town.

The said property cannot be developed as planned without damage to water, septic, and traffic patterns. It could sustain five to six houses, for which it is already zoned.

The proposed amendment is not truly about achieving affordability and diversity in Essex.

If the commission focuses on developments with only 20% affordable units, increases in the relative percentage of such units in the town would be extremely small. Assume there are 1,000 current housing units and 30 affordable ones (there are actually slightly more in each category), i.e., 3% affordable. The Connecticut goal is 10% in each town. If each new development only added 20% affordable units, Essex would have to add 680 homes to achieve a goal of 168(10%) affordable units. This is grossly unrealistic, particularly given Zoning Commission goals of also increasing protected and preserved land areas in town.

Realistically, 10% affordable units can only be achieved by adding two to four relatively large affordable developments in areas already zoned for this.

In addition, creative use of empty commercial sites, like the old Colonial Market, could be explored for such development.

It is my hope the commission will take the long view of what is in Essex’s best interests, not the profit-driven interests of a company with no connections to this community.

Robert Grillo

Essex