To the Editor:
On Tuesday, May 28 the Easton Planning and Zoning Commission approved a special permit for Greenfield Mill, a custom woodwork and cabinetry business which is operating in an Easton home.
The meeting was covered in an article written by Jarrod Wardwell in the Connecticut Post on June 15. That article quoted John Foley, P&Z chair as saying: “I think this is a natural…”
I disagree.
The “major home-based business” permit was granted on a 3-2 vote because the activities involved in manufacturing custom furniture had had an adverse effect on the residents living in the home. The remedy sought by the permit was to move the business out of the home and into a separate factory building on the same lot. All of Easton is zoned residential. Commercial buildings are not permitted.
I have lived in Easton for more than 40 years and have served on several boards and commissions. Most recently I was the Chairman of The Zoning Board of Appeals. I am experienced in the legal boundaries Easton has established to remain a rural, farming-orientated community.
The concept of a “home-based business” in Easton’s zoning regulations inherently demands that the business activity be fully “in the home” because it acts as a natural check on the activities involved in the business. The logical assumption is that the homeowner will not do anything that might negatively affect or endanger people living in the home.
In this instance, that is exactly what has happened.
The owner’s business has created a serious health threat and safety problem. The following is a quote from the Greenfield Mill request for a special permit (24-01): “…and worse creates obstacles for occupants trying to leave the building in case of emergency. More importantly the health of the occupants living 24/7 in this environment poses issues made alarmingly clear over the last decade […]. Wood dust, which is pervasive, has been classified as a carcinogenic by federal government, OSHA and the World Health Organization.”
And perhaps most poignant: “Requiring a family (with a newly added infant) to live in this environment constantly is dangerous.”
These are the claims made in the Greenfield Mill application, not mine.
Rather than grant a special permit, the remedy should be to relocate the commercial business to a town that has commercial zoning.
Further, at the time the town granted the original permitted activity of the woodworking and cabinetry building, it would seem the town was unable to monitor sophisticated and modern manufacturing activities in the home to ensure the safety and health of the occupants. Who will take on that responsibility now?
Should Easton’s Planning and Zoning Commission want to support commercial development, they should do it with residents having the final say through the appropriate process. This permitting process fails to meet the standards or adhere to the guardrails that Easton has relied upon for decades.
Tom Dollard
Easton
Former Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
