Planning and Zoning Commission (linked)

RECEIVED
JUN 1 2 2023
Planning & Devel
Opmen
Town of Waterford, cr
Date: 06/12/2023
RE: PL-23-7
Dear: Planning and Zoning Commission of Waterford:
We are writing to voice our concerns about the Proposed Clark Lane Development by Scott Gladstone of
Kingstown Properties LLC.
This project is deemed affordable housing and using the 8-30g law as a caveat for the Developer to
make lots of money on the backs of our Town and our Residents, override town zoning laws, while
creating a low quality of living and being insensitive to already existing neighbors. Several neighbors
were told by Vision during appeal appointments our homes will be devalued due to the trailer park
being built behind us. This proposal is taking value and property away from the original owners that
there housing was originally built and established in Waterford according to zoning rules and
regulations.
This project is consisting of 47 Mobile / prefab homes on 5 acres behind 11 modest homes on 5 acres
utilizing a law 830-g to allow them to try to put whatever they want and take away proper setbacks and
buffers from current residents to line their own pockets. These will be all rentals and no owners. They
are allowed to use this state law because 15 will be deemed affordable and deeded for 40 years. Based
on their affordability plan 7 will rent for $1756.00 and 8 will rent for $2434.00 which is not affordable
for renting a mobile home on swampy wetland with no green space or any amenities for families on the
plans. The rest of them, 32 will all rent at higher market rate. All tenants will pay their own utilities so
nothing will be included. This is a very expensive rental, and the affordability is questionable.
That’s $31,764.00 per month of revenue on the affordable units and then suppose he rents the others at
$2800.00 per month that’s an additional revenue of $89600.00 per month. Total whopping minimum
possible monthly revenue of $121,364.00 per MONTH. That is a lot of monthly revenue on one property
to say he can’t afford to provide any green space, extra parking for guests, playground for the kids,
buffers to existing neighbors, or less density. Scott Gladstone complains that they need to cram all this
density in to make any money. | am not so sure that | believe that, and no financials have been seen to
prove this. This is an overcrowded, unattractive dense living area with little focus on the quality of living.
This property is a flag lot/ rear lot, and this would never be allowed in this demographic location with
this much density without using the 830-g law to override zoning rules that are in place to protect the
existing taxpayers. Scott Gladstone of Kingstown properties is circumventing town zoning and building
codes and really exploiting the statutes established to benefit all of Waterford for his own financial gain.
He started out proposing 24 units and then got greedy and jumped up to 47. On a P&Z meeting in July of
2021 he stated clearly, and it’s recorded that if the town did not agree with his plan, he would walk but
109R &131 Clark Lane
Public Hearing
PL-23-7
Exhibit 18

now he turned around and added 830-g and threatened to sue his own town. What a good neighbor and
local business owner in town!!!!
Clark Lane is a modest neighborhood, and we really look to our Town Officials for guidance and
protection however many are feeling let down that this project is being even considered. Being a
modest neighborhood, this area was targeted knowing many residents would have limited resources to
afford expensive lawyers and experts to fight on our behalf. We are at the mercy of the Town officials to
protect us.
Scott Gladstone and Kingstown Properties LLC is an inexperienced and careless developer which really
shows in this proposal. How can we trust he will even do what he says he is going to do? Completion
bonds and Financial Compensation Bonds for the neighbors should be considered for the mess he is
going to create.
We have concerns about:
1. Deforestation for this new project will really affect us. The woods and the trees help buffer
noise from the dog pound, High School events, Parties that they have at Bates Woods Park, and
other properties on that side of the property. We already live on Clark Lane, one of two major
north / south throughways in town. With the busy street in the front, we mainly utilize the back
of our property for more peaceful living. We are asking for proper 50 feet setbacks from our
existing property line and a less dense project.
2. Wealso do not want people from this development walking through our yards so we would ask
for a fence of 10 feet vinyl fence with arborvitaes on Scott Gladstones side of the fence spaced
correctly for growth so that they will grow taller than the fence to preserve some of our privacy,
quiet, water uptake, and air quality. Kingstown Properties must be required to maintain the
fence line.
3. We would ask that the density is reduced, and greenspace be added plus an overflow parking
lot. It will not be safe when the tenants have visitors and since there is no parking, visitors will
have to park on the narrow private road causing fire truck and police cars to be unable to pass
through when needed. As the plans state each mobile home will have a propane gas tank so if
there is a fire, with this density, the whole project plus our houses will be in great danger of fire.
Grills and firepits should not be allowed. We are questioning if a full size (126x12x36 ft) Firetruck
can properly enter the private road since the site plans only show space large enough for a
garbage truck.
4. Many of the existing neighbors have large mature trees where the roots extend out and can be
damaged during and after construction. Scott of Kingstown Properties is planning to dig a 3 to 5
feet ditch on the eastside and pushing that dirt to the westside of the property to accommodate
existing high-water table and storm water treatment plan based on their site plans. This amount

of movement will cause soil instability. We are in fear that they will cause damage and disease
to our trees, and therefore we are requesting proper 50ft setbacks based on current zoning
laws. This is a family neighborhood including seniors and small children, and it is unsafe to have
these large trees damaged and unexpectedly falling in our backyards and on our homes and
family members. Our mature trees provide shade and are necessary to for our quality of life that
we enjoyed for decades. Mature trees and preservation of nature are consistent with
Waterford’s Preservation of Conservation and Development Plan. Minimal destruction of trees
is part of the LID —low impact development plan and quality of life for residents.
Many residents including other areas of Waterford agree that this is an overly large retention
and bio retention basin. Due to its grand scale and its ineffectiveness at pulling out nutrients and
pollutants, it will be a hazard and next to our Middle School which is public town property. The
basin is 5 feet deep (our water table is at least 2 feet below the surface) and 240 feet long which
cannot be secured or enforced and will cause multiple hazards. Middle school students are very
vulnerable, and this basin will be an attractive nuisance to all students and children in this area.
Also, we feel the walking trail with egress to our school is unacceptable. When speaking to the
assistant principle he stated that they have one entrance and one exit to the school for a reason
and it protects the students while keeping track of who is on campus. Scott Gladstone does not
have students in Waterford schools anymore so he could care less what happens to the school
or children due to his project and this plan shows it. We are concerned with Scotts vision of
adding walking trails in the woods with egress to the middle school that will attract kids or
predators to hangout near a school is a BIG NO and raises many red flags.
We are worried about the health and safety of the existing neighborhood and children,
teachers, and staff of the middle school due to diseases brought by mosquitos because of the
football sized retention basins, high water table, and standing water. Since they are changing
the ecology which is how currently we keep the mosquitos at bay we are worried this will be a
breeding ground. It only takes 5 days for a mosquito to breed and hatch and they breed often.
Waterford has had issues with Mosquitos spreading disease in the past shutting down sports
and school events forcing residents inside before dusk. We are emphasizing that this project is
with too much impervious surface being added there requiring these overly large retention
basins.
Traffic will be a major concern. The proposed mobile home park will add at least 100 plus
additional cars added to Clark Lane will cause major backups and issues. The two-way entrance
will be a major accident problem due to limited distance between entrance/exit and the
intersection, of Clark Lane, Chester Street, and Fog Plain Rd. New London high school and
Magnet high school has changed their entrance and exit dumping all traffic onto Chester Street
causing further backups starting January 1, 2023. There is not enough leeway after cars turn on
to Clark Lane to stop and enter/exit the new project which will cause accidents and unsafe
conditions. Also please note that we noticed traffic study box falling over and not working
properly during school winter break in December 2022 although traffic study stated it was done
November 3rd. We feel that this is a faulty traffic study and should be re done when school is in
session to accurately capture the traffic numbers. The change in the flow of traffic was done

10.
11.
after January 1, 2023, which is not accounted for in their traffic study done in supposedly
November. They also mentioned/suggested in their traffic study that town makes changes to
existing roads at Fog Plain/ Clark Lane intersection in the future, but they negated to say the
new development would increase traffic. Again, this puts burden on the town and the taxpayers
to accommodate Gladstone.
The east side of this project behind approx. 10 to 12 trailer homes will have an 8-foot steep drop
which will be unsafe. They are moving the dirt and pushing the units right up to the steep drop
because there is not enough space in this narrow strip of land that they are cramming too many
units on. A development like this would make more sense if they had one row of units which
would also provide more room for setbacks, parking for overflow, greenspace, playground, or
club house.
In their application statement of Design Compatibility, the applicant deceptively picked and
chose only a few houses on Clark Lane and Chester Street (New London CT) to show similarities
but is false. All houses on Clark Lane are stick built and have basements and or attics along with
side, front, and rear yards for green space which is not comparable to this trailer park design.
Oxford Ct trailer park which was also listed as a similar property however it has amenities such
as fitness center, club house, barbeque area, playground, and dog park which is un comparable
to Kingstown properties proposed development. They mainly compared the spacing of units in
Oxford which does not seem similar and if units are spaced closer together with green space
areas again, they would make more sense and provide a quality of life where families can thrive
verses this crowded project with no open space or amenities.
Since the closing of the New London Dump this area has been prone to issues with Rat
infestations. Currently they under control. They thrive in overcrowded living areas which we all
agree this will be and with the removal predatory animals due to habitat loss with the
deforestation for this new project we feel there will be a problem again. We insist that the
applicant provide professional extermination services year-round.
There are No amenities and there is No onsite management, and we are worried that there is no
enforcement of any of the rules such a parking on the road which will be unsafe. Who will
monitor that there is only one family per dwelling and lessees are not subleasing the mobile
homes. Short term rentals should be addressed and not be allowed for this property. Parking
will need to be strictly enforced since it is such an overcrowded / tight space and there is no
overflow parking listed on the plans. Two parking spaces for a 3-bedroom mobile will be difficult
to adhere too.
Christine Haase Hid
fene Sherman

9. 7 ‘Additional Information
K
g
New London
2
Is any part of the site within 500' of the Town line? Which town:
a
Will any egress or ingress for the property use streets within an adjoining municipality?
°
Is any work proposed in wetlands or watercourses? Explain in Statement of Use
Is any work proposed within 100 feet of a wetlands or watercourse? Explain in Statement of Use
9°
Is any work proposed within a floodplain or flood hazard area? Explain in Statement of Use
Is public water available or proposed to the site? Identify: water ma i n
public sewer
rh
Are public sanitary sewers available or proposed to the site? Identify:
ga
X h. Is there a utility, drainage or other easement(s) on the site? Specify:
IO eB OROOR
KOORORE 2
is
/ Percent of property(s)
Use and purpose of open spa
*
10, Previous Land Use Permits Associat ith the Property(s) : ie
Have previous permits been issued for the Property: Yes im No (List singularly; attached additional pages if necessary)
Date Issued Issuing Agency Approved Use/Activity
5/15/2000 Planning & Zoning Commission site plan approval of an assisted living facility (never built)
3/23/2023 Waterford Conservation Commission Permit to conduct regulated activity within upland review area

“CTION 4 - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIA S
4.1 GENERAL The minimum lot size in this district shall be 20,000 square feet subject to conformance with
the lot design standards of Section 3.34 of these regulations. The following shall be permitted uses within
this district. (Amended 7/2/90, Effective 7/13/90)
D RIC
4.1.1 One-family dwellings.
4.1.2 Farming, except piggeries and the raising of animals for the production of pelts, provided that no
farming shall be permitted on any lot which is less than 120,000 square feet in size.
Roadside stands not over 200 square feet in size, only when used for the sale of farm products, shall be
permitted only if such stand is accessory to a farm use existing on the lot on which said stand is located. All
such stands shall be set back 15 feet from the front property line and shall be provided with at least three off-
street parking spaces in addition to those parking spaces required to serve the other uses of the property. All
of the products offered for sale at any stand established under this provision shall have been grown or
produced on said property.
4.1.3 Public libraries, public schools, and places of worship, subject to the approval of a site plan under
the provisions of Section 22 of these regulations.
4.1.4 Public or private parks and playgrounds, subject to the approval of a site plan under the provisions
of Section 22 of these regulations.
4.1.5 CUSTOMARY HOME OCCUPATIONS, as defined in Section 1 herein and subject to the provisions of
Section 3.11 of these regulations.
4.16 ACCESSORY USES as defined in Section 1 herein and subject to the provisions of Sections 3.9 and
3.10 of these regulations. .
4.1.7 Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with Section 3.36 of these Regulations.
4.2 USES PERMITTED IN THE R-20 DISTRICT SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL PERMIT
The following uses may be permitted in the R-20 District, if approved by the Commission in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of these regulations.
4.2.1 Radio or television antennae, flagpoles, towers, chimneys, water tanks or standpipes, any of
which extend more than 40 feet above the ground or private antennae more than 20 feet above
the residential structure on which they are to be erected or more than 40 feet above the ground.
4.2.2 Cemeteries.
4.2.3 Buildings and structures and sub-stations operated by utility companies, but excluding service
yards and outside storage areas.
4.2.4 Municipal facilities including firehouses and parking lots serving firehouses.
4.2.5 Convalescent nursing home, places for assisted living, hospitals, medical clinics, or medical service
laboratories. (Amended 8/19/08)
4.2.6 Private educational institutions (Amended 8/19/08)
4.2.7 Age Restricted Housing, subject to the provisions of Section 3.17 of these Regulations. (Adopted 10/01/2000)

4.2.8 Adaptive Reuse Development subject to the provisions of Section 18a of these Regulations.
(Effective Date 9/1/14)
4.3 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE AND WIDTH
No lot in this district shall have less than 85 feet frontage on a public street, and each lot shall be at least
100 feet in width at the building line
cept when lots front a State Highway, the minimum setback shall be 75 feet.
BUILDING COVERAGE (amended 6/15/03)
The aggregate building coverage on any lot in this district shall not exceed 25% of the total area of said lot,
except that the Commission may, by special permit, allow an increase in coverage for existing Nursing
Homes up to 35% where such expansion is for the purpose of creating private rooms, there is no increase in
beds, and all patient beds are accessible at ground level. Section 23.9.1 shall not apply in the case of an
application for a building coverage exception.
4.6 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
No building in this district shall be constructed, reconstructed, extended, enlarged, moved, or altered in any
way so as to have a maximum building height in excess of 35 feet, except as provided in Section 3.6 of
these regulations.
4.7 OFF-STREET PARKING
Off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each lot within this district in accordance with the
provisions of Section 20 of these regulations.
4.8 SIGNS
All signs erected within this district shall conform to the requirements of Section 21 of these regulations.
49 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
No development shall be undertaken on any lot within this district nor shall the existing character,
including vegetation and topography, be disturbed from its natural state except in accordance with the
provisions of Section 25 of these regulations.