ESSEX

A proposal to amend regulations governing Essex’s largest residential district drew strong criticism at a town Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting held on Aug 1.

A text amendment with the purpose to “add a new Section 61A.2(G) to permit Multiple Dwelling Projects in the Rural Residence District” was brought forth by those representing Greylock Properties. Last year, the Mystic-based developer floated the idea of erecting 12 four-unit townhouse-style condo buildings at 160 Saybrook Road in Essex. The idea was resurrected at the PZC’s last meeting, and what could prove a consequential adjustment to zoning regulations drew a sizable audience of citizens who packed the auditorium at Essex Town Hall.

Attorney Bill Sweeney represented Greylock at the meeting. He asked that the PZC focus on the matter legislatively but did go into detail as to what a change in zoning laws would entail for the kind of property Greylock would look to construct.

Sweeney explained that the proposal would change zoning language governing the Rural Residence District, which covers the majority of Essex and requires 1.8 acres per home. Under the proposed regulations, a multifamily development like the one drawn up by Greylock would require that the property be a minimum of 10 acres, have a density no more than 20,000 square feet of land per unit, and have frontage on a direct access to a state highway. A GIS analysis found that out of 13 total parcels in Essex with sufficient acreage and highway frontage, only three were found to be eligible locations for development, including 160 Saybrook Road.

Alluding to that fact, Sweeney said, “My client’s text amendment…would allow a limited number of multiple dwelling units within your Rural Residence District, restricting them to certain eligible properties.”

Although Sweeney acknowledged that Greylock does not specialize in affordable housing projects, he said the proposed regulations could help “encourage the diversity of much-needed housing within residential areas of Essex that can support higher-unit density.” Sweeney believes that it could help Essex meet its goals of reaching a threshold for 10% of its housing stock being deemed affordable per Connecticut State Statutes 8-30g. Such a goal is also outlined in the town’s Plan of Conservation of Development 2015-2025, with the recommendation being that the town “establish overall municipal goals for increasing the percentage of state-designated Affordable units within Essex.”

According to the 2022 Affordable Housing Appeals List by the Department of Housing, 3.28% of housing units in Essex are deemed affordable.

The 8-30g statute has proven controversial in municipalities across the state that have been faced with other affordable development proposals. Much of the criticism regarding the statute surrounds the permissibility for private developers to bypass local zoning regulations in order to help towns achieve that 10% threshold.

Sweeney said that Greylock does not intend to take advantage of the “state [8-30g] scheme.” He added that this proposal does not come down to a matter of spot zoning that would specifically benefit Greylock and is instead intended for broader application.

Following remarks by Sweeney, several members of the audience of citizens spoke up in strong opposition to the addition of the amendment. A common concern among residents was that the kind of property floated by Greylock was incongruent with the traditional small-town character and culture of Essex, a big reason why families moved to and have stayed in town. Other concerns ranged from uncertainties about traffic volume and the effects on water quality and wildlife.

Phil Nuzzo, one of the founding members of Save Rural Essex, LLC, wrapped up these concerns when speaking on behalf of the group.

“We’re concerned about this amendment, that it will forever change the character of our town, specifically in areas of traffic safety, water septic, and will have serious negative environmental impacts for our area. Not in one specific area, in any of these areas,” said Nuzzo.

John Gatti passionately spoke of how inappropriate it was for an “opportunist” group like Greylock to come into Essex and influence its historic character. He did not buy Sweeney’s points about limited development if the amendment were to be adopted by the PZC.

“It starts small and it gets big because they want to encourage people with large lots of land to sell. It becomes a snowball effect. And what has occurred over 400 years can literally be gone in a matter of years with a text change like this,” he said. “This is about the will of the people.”

Arguments presented by Nuzzo and several others who spoke received applause from nearly all members of the public. A petition was later presented to the PZC that included over 100 signatures in opposition to the text amendment.

Considering points that had been raised by Nuzzo and Gatti about many members of the public who were unfamiliar with the matter and unaware of the meeting’s occurrence, the PZC agreed by a 5-1 margin to hold a second hearing on the proposed regulation change. That hearing will be held on Tuesday, Sept. 5, 7pm, at Essex Town Hall.