PRDD Critique

The following document has been compiled by Charles Vidich, an Ashford resident. This is helpful in understanding some of this issues that would be created by implementing the proposed Planned Rural Development District (PRDD).  This plan will be presented at the Public Hearing (ZOOM only) on July 14, 2025  at 7 PM.

To: Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission

From: Charles Vidich, MCP, SM

Subject: Proposed Zoning Revisions to Create a Planned Rural Development District

Date: July 7, 2025

The draft regulations raise numerous questions that need to be resolved.

1.        Failure to Address IID Zone Concerns: Why create a PRDD when the concerns that were raised two years ago were focused on the inadequacies of the Interstate Interchange Development District regulations. The proposed regulations don’t fix these poorly crafted regulations. Indeed, they simply create more poorly crafted regulations for new types of development that are of questionable value as discussed below.

2.        Purpose of the PRDD Regulations: The commission proposes a multi-level review process that eliminates public participation on the early and most important phase of the development process: the master plan for any PRDD project. By segmenting the process into four phases the public is limited from participating in the most critical early phase that doesn’t require a public hearing. The subsequent two phases require a public hearing under the zone change phase and Master Plan approval phase.  The fourth and final phase doesn’t require a public hearing under the site plan review process. This convoluted and overly drawn-out review process is only associated with a limited number 61 towns in Connecticut with professional planners. This approach is also designed to curtail public participation in the most critical initial planning phase of any development proposal. Perhaps, more importantly, the Connecticut Supreme Court as well as a leading Connecticut land use attorney have identified why the proposed approach violates due process requirements applicable to planning and zoning commissions (see below).

3.        Lack of Standards in the PRDD:  Having reviewed the zoning regulations for 167 municipalities that use Planned Development, Special Permit and Site Plan procedures – or some combination of these multi-phase procedures – this is the only one that has the least standards to guide the development process. The standards that exist are tethering standards (making it a floating zone) and are bare bones: a required minimum of 25 acres of land, frontage on a state highway and the requirement that it be in an IID Zone, a General Commercial Zone or the Technology Development Zone. There is only one parcel in the IID zone that exceeds 35 acres. However, it does not have state highway frontage without merging with an adjacent lot. There are four lots in the General Commercial Zone that have at least 25 acres but two of those lots are already developed (St Philips Church and Tremko Lane Complex) and a third one is under development for a nursery. There is one parcel owned by the town of Ashford, containing 225 acres, in the Technology Development (TD) Zone.  The TD zone regulations require a minimum of 50 acres to be developed under the applicable zoning regulations. There are seven other small parcels zoned for TD development, all of which are individually less than 50 acres but collectively 74.54 acres including one parcel of 26.4 acres. It is not clear what advantage is created in having a PRDD overlay for properties already governed by TD development regulations. This does not make a lot of sense. Also, the TD development zone abuts nine single family dwellings located along Route 44, creating potential land use conflicts for any large-scale development.

If the Commission believes that a floating zone is a useful tool for development in Ashford, it may be useful to consider a variety of other tethering principles that are used across the state. Based on a recent analysis of the 102 floating zones that exist in Connecticut, there are two types of tethers: hard tethers and soft tethers. Hard tethers are used to tie development to specific locations that have precise locations. In contrast, soft tethers are used to fine tune the siting of any given development based on less geographically precise factors (see attached Table 1). The analysis in Table 1 was prepared by the Western Connecticut Council of Governments staff in 2024. Table 1 may be useful to the commission if it chooses to develop a floating zone. However, the commission should give serious consideration to the potential adverse impacts a proposed floating zone would have on the utility of the three zones in which it could be located. Why would a developer choose the onerous approval procedure proposed for the PRDD zone when the three underlying development zones offer a relatively fast track process for approval?

4.        Approach to Mixed Use Development: The proposed list of permitted uses suggests the commission has not established a specific purpose for the PRDD.  While mixed use development is an excellent idea – especially when it includes a combination of residential and compatible commercial development – the inclusion of industrial uses does not make sense.  Two years ago, there was an enormous amount of public opposition to the development of warehousing in the IDD zone. The inclusion of such uses in Ashford, where 99.9% of the land area is in a public water supply watershed doesn’t make sense.  If the PRDD is to be a meaningful concept, the proposal should focus on a mixed-use development strategy focused on affordable housing integrated with suitable compatible commercial uses from the listed retail and service uses.  The PRDD, if it is to be a meaningful strategy for development, should indicate it is for mixed use development (i.e., residential, retail and service uses only). The commission should also delete the term rural from the title Planned Rural Development District since there is nothing rural about creating a development district. Indeed, of the 34 planned development districts in Connecticut that use the Master Plan approval process (all located in 25 municipalities), none use the term “rural” as an adjective for a planned development district (see Table 2).  By definition, planned developments are not rural when they include commercial and industrial land uses as permitted uses.

5.        Sustainable Development Standards: There are no buildable lot standards or any mention of environmental protection standards in the proposed PRDD regulations.  The Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission, like every Planning and Zoning Commission in Connecticut, has a requirement to address conservation as well as development. This was mandated by the state legislature in 1995. Apparently, we still have many commissions that think zoning is only about development. Ashford has more public water supply watershed land than any municipality in Connecticut and should consider its responsibility to protect drinking water and other conservation measures. The Western Connecticut Council of Governments just issued a report titled Safeguarding Public Water Supply Watersheds: Local Strategies to Prevent Chemical, Petroleum and Stormwater Contamination of Connecticut’s Drinking Water Resources. I would encourage the Ashford Planning and Zoning Commission to review the findings and recommendations in that statewide since its scope addresses Ashford specifically.

The commission may also wish to review the Connecticut Supreme Court decision in Timber Trails Association v. Sherman PZC, decided May 20, 2005. That decision upheld the right of the Sherman Planning and Zoning Commission to require buildable lot standards as a tool to protect public water supply watershed lands. This is particularly relevant since, as mentioned above, Ashford not only has more public water supply watershed land than any other municipality but has one of the least protective zoning controls for drinking water in the state.

Other important dimensional requirements that are critical to watershed protection are impervious cover standards and riparian setback buffers. Furthermore, the proposed PRDD does not establish any guidance or standards for buffers between incompatible land uses. This is of particular concern for all three zones in which the PRDD could be located.  Leaving all standards to a negotiated approach – as is found in Planned Developments that use the Master Plan approach in Connecticut –assumes a degree of regulatory sophistication not associated with state’s rural municipalities (see Table 2). 

6.        Due Process Considerations: When a zoning commission makes substantive decisions that are not open to the public, it raises due process concerns. This issue was addressed by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Wayne C. Gerlt v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of South Windsor et. al in 2009. In that case the Court held that “decisions made by commission on general plan of development are preliminary and nonbinding as to all parties.”  The plan of development referenced in this case is not the Plan of Conservation and Development but the “master plan” concept proposed in the PRDD. When a commission commits to a course of action in a preliminary meeting that is by definition, “non-binding” those concepts can’t be taken as an accepted foundation for moving forward to a zone change and special permit process. This is a due process issue. It is also a segmentation of the public hearing process that obviates public involvement in the key conceptual phase of a project’s development.

7.         Make it Up as You Go Approach:  Lacking any development standards except those mentioned above, the process proposed means the commission will negotiate every aspect of a proposed PRDD development without any guidelines or guardrails that might protect adjoining properties, limit traffic congestion, ensure appropriate open space, protect riparian buffer zones, limit septic system discharges based on the carrying capacity of the land and off-site pollutant impacts – to name a few of the possible concerns.  In essence, the proposal is a blank check for the developer.  The phrase “planning and zoning commission” includes the word “planning.” That concept is not reflected in the proposed PRDD regulations. An example of a planned development regulation with a modicum of standards is the current Technology Development Zone. Once again, the proposed PRDD regulations allow a developer to decide what type of zoning he or she wants.  It is important to recognize that anyone can propose a zone change or a new zoning district. That is not a new concept. What is new, in this instance, is the Commission is proposing to collaboratively work with a developer – not at arm’s length when functioning is their legislative capacity – but as partners with the developer. The Connecticut courts have ruled that zoning commissions, acting in their legislative capacity, must make decisions consistent with due process requirements established by statute and case law.

Terry Tondro, author of Connecticut Land Use Regulation (Second Edition), one of the leading authorities on zoning in Connecticut, addressed the problem raised by meetings held with the commission without a public hearing process as follows:

“Here lies the problem with efforts to increase the flow of information between the developer and the commission, or to facilitate the negotiation process in general: The “third party”, the public is inevitably frozen out of the negotiations. Typically, the developer presents preliminary plans to the town for review prior to the public hearing. The police chief, fire chief, traffic engineer, etc., all review the plans and comment on them as the plan would affect the performance of their departments; the developer attempts to meet those criticisms and perhaps after a round or two, the developer presents a “final” set of plans for submission to the commission. So far, the public has not participated in these negotiations, although the meetings between town officials and the developer are often open to the public. But as a result of the process, the town and the developer are more or less committed to the final plans as submitted. To the extent that is true, the subsequent public hearing process becomes a sham, even though it is the major means by which the public can voice its concerns.”[1]

                  The commission should be mindful of numerous court cases that address this due process issue including the one cited under the “Due Process Considerations” section of this memo. 

Conclusion: The proposed regulations sidestep the most important issue that led to the recent moratorium on the IID Zone; the need to revise the regulations that apply to the land at the Intersection of Interstate 84 and State Route 89. Is the commission aware that the proposed PRDD regulation is so cumbersome that it makes it far more likely that a developer will stick with a development proposal under the current IID zone regulations? Why would a developer choose a more cumbersome approach – unless the commission is sending a signal that they intend to cut the public out of the review process. Is this what the commission wants – to minimize   public input at the most critical phase of the process? 

The proposed PRDD regulation is steering the commission to a highly complex and questionable review process. It favors expensive consulting firms that normally do business in more urban and suburban municipalities for large and complex developments. It is not necessarily in the best interest of Ashford – especially if the goal is to develop retail services that meet the needs of Ashford residents. Perhaps the most important point to be made is that the PRDD development approval process, as currently proposed,  violates the due process rights of the public.

Having participated in the review of various similar zoning schemes proposed in Mansfield and Willington – both with very complex levels of zoning review – the public raised serious concerns with their due process rights. Taking a similar approach in Ashford would not only be unprecedented in the history of Ashford zoning, but it would also complicate the town’s efforts to attract appropriate and compatible development.  I don’t believe the commission has been briefed on the legal and due process concerns raised by this proposed PRDD regulation. Perhaps, more importantly, there are few standards to guide PRDD development, and no resolution of the outstanding issues raised by the current inadequate IID zone regulations. Creating a PRDD floating zone does not resolve the fundamental reason that more than 1,000 Ashford residents opposed the potential threats to rural life in Ashford by a mega-warehouse in the Interstate Interchange Development Zone.

[1] Terry Tondro, Connecticut Land Use Regulation, Second Edition, The Atlantic Law Book Company, 1992 (with updated to 2000), pp 645-646.