Distribution center opposition continues

#MiddleburyCT #MSTA #DistributionCenter

Left to right, Michael Yantoro, Barbara Yantoro, Marty Girouard, Diana Anton, Dana Shepard and Bill Giuditti at the February 19 handout of “No Distribution Facilities” signs. Residents opposing the project are placing the signs in their yards. (Marjorie Needham photo)

By MARJORIE NEEDHAM

The Middlebury Small Town Alliance (MSTA) continues to campaign against construction of a distribution center on the Timex property on Christian Road in Middlebury. MSTA members Dana Shepard and Bill Giuditti handed out “No Distribution Facilities” yard signs in the Dunkin’ Donuts parking lot February 19. The first batch of 100 signs had been snapped up, and these signs were from a new shipment of 250.

As of now, one of two applications for the project has been withdrawn, at least temporarily. The applicant’s attorney on February 1 withdrew the application for zoning text changes. That application was before the Planning and Zoning Commission and drew crowds of people to its January 5 meeting.

The second application, for approval of a wetlands mitigation plan, remains before the Conservation Commission (CC) and is expected to be on its February 28 agenda. The MSTA, mainly through its Facebook presence, is encouraging residents to turn out for the CC meeting. An attorney, civil engineer and soil scientist hired by MSTA will be able to address the CC because their attorney filed a petition for intervenership. Otherwise, public comments are not part of CC meetings.

That’s because it generally doesn’t hold public hearings. When the project application first came before the CC on November 29, 2022, before Middlebury residents learned of the project, it determined no public hearing was required. Apparently a public hearing is required only if there is significant impact to wetlands, and the CC and the MSTA disagree on this point.

The applicant proposes to fill about 15,608 square feet (.36 acre) of wetlands and create about 32,000 square feet (.73 acre) of wetlands. At the January 31 CC meeting (it does not meet in December), the MSTA attorney, Keith Ainsworth, said that is a significant impact and the CC should have scheduled a public hearing.

Also at the January 31 meeting, the MSTA was challenged by Matt Sanford of SLR, on behalf of the applicant because its attorney, who is not a soil scientist, made statements about soil conditions. MSTA has since hired a soil scientist, but has now been denied access to the site, leaving the soil scientist to rely on reports created by others.

At the January 31 meeting, CC vice-chair Mary Barton, who conducted the meeting, asked the applicant to flag the buildings and parking area so CC members could walk the site. She also said she believed the public would be allowed to walk the property. She said if CC members visited together, that would constitute a meeting, would be noticed, and open to the public; if they visited individually that would not be a meeting.

Since then, we have learned CC members are visiting the site individually. Although we left the January 31 meeting understanding the public would be allowed to visit the site, that apparently is not the case.

In addition to the flagging, the CC decided to initiate a peer review of the project paid for by the applicant and for the applicant to also have an A2 survey conducted by a licensed surveyor and to submit a phasing plan. These items likely will be presented at the February 28 meeting.