Processing Your Payment

Please do not leave this page until complete. This can take a few moments.

August 3, 2020

Neighbors challenge in court Enfield PZC’s approval of massive distribution center

Rendering | Winstanley Enterprises A rendering of the proposed distribution center in Enfield.
By Jessica Lerner, Journal Inquirer

An administrative appeal has been filed on behalf of Enfield residents of the Misty Meadows neighborhood questioning the legality of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval of a 501,500-square-foot distribution center at 113 N. Maple St.

The appeal, filed in Hartford Superior Court by land use lawyer Kenneth Slater Jr., details how the PZC allegedly “acted arbitrarily, capriciously, unlawfully, and in abuse of the discretion vested in approving the application” and asks the court to order that the site plan approval of the application be rescinded.

During a 5½-hour virtual public hearing held on the matter on July 9, about 35 residents spoke in opposition of the massive 43-foot-high distribution center proposed by Adam Winstanley, owner of the Massachusetts-based real estate developer Winstanley Enterprises.

They expressed concerns over increased truck traffic, noise, the safety and wellbeing of students at he nearby Hazardville Memorial School, the impact on property values, and the unknown second tenant.

The distribution center is designed to accommodate two tenants — Agri-Mark, a Massachusetts-based company that distributes a wide variety of dairy products, and a second tenant that’s yet to be named.

“One of main themes of the complaint is … a rush to judgment, and approving a plan that in a number of respects was simply non-compliant,” Slater said.

While the PZC did hold a public hearing, Slater said the commission didn’t really give a fair process to the neighbors to be heard.

“They limited their time, and when they got to the end, normally they would give members of the public an opportunity to respond to things to the applicant said, having given the applicant over an hour of time at the beginning of the hearing,” he said.

Town Attorney James Tallberg and PZC Chairman Ken Nelson had no comment on the pending litigation, though Nelson mentioned he wasn’t surprised the residents decided to take legal action.

Winstanley could not be reached for comment.

The public hearing began by allowing the representatives from Winstanley Enterprises to speak for more than one hour, followed by members of the public being allowed to share their opinions on the project, most of whom vehemently opposed the large-scale project being built on a 71-acre parcel.

Afterward, the “floor was turned back to the applicant who provided rebuttal information and responses to comments made by the public,” during which the microphones and telephones of all participants of the public were muted by Nelson.

Slater and several members of the public utilized the virtual meeting function of “raising their hands” to request an opportunity to be heard, but these requests were ignored.

In addition, the public wasn’t given an opportunity to speak for a second or third time following the applicant’s rebuttal, only being allowed that one round of “time-restricted commentary” despite pending requests to be heard again, which the appeal states amount to a fraction of the time afforded the applicant.

Following the rebuttal, Tallberg then counseled the PZC against extending the public hearing and delaying the vote, even though Slater states in the appeal that the commission had more than 100 days before it was officially required to close the hearing and render a decision.

The PZC, Tallberg said at the public hearing, went above and beyond by holding a lengthy public hearing to allay some of the residents’ legitimate concerns, and the commission should move forward and make a decision to approve the application.

The administrative appeal also claims the PZC violated its own bylaws by continuing the meeting past midnight — a unanimous vote to approve the site plan application was taken shortly before 12:30 a.m. — and approving an application that failed to comply with zoning regulations.

Sign up for Enews

Most Recent

Most Recent

0 Comments

Order a PDF