Town Council Chair Peter Talbot opened a public hearing Aug. 12 on the potential sale of about 58 acres of state‑owned land adjacent to Interstate 691 and fronting on Route 10, a parcel the town acquired from the state for economic development. Town planner Mike Glidden told the council “that 5 years starts from 07/26/2022 until 2027,” the statutory marketing window established under Special Act 19‑4.
The council heard a detailed presentation from the developer team representing 3 Squared LLC: attorney Dennis Sanoviva; Isaac Shwekey, a 3 Squared principal and Cheshire resident; land planner Phil Doyle (LADAPC); and Rob Adams of TI Cold. Sanoviva said the team responded to RFP 2425‑11 and has assembled a development team and consultants, and Doyle reviewed a site plan that locates the largest buildings away from Highland Avenue and proposes preserving roughly 25 acres as open space.
The developer’s concept centers on a cold‑storage building of about 118,000 square feet (with roughly 9,000 square feet of second‑level office/ancillary space), additional light‑industrial space of roughly 20,000–86,000 square feet in several buildings, and an optional 80‑unit “business‑supportive” housing component. Doyle said the plan would place buildings “below the eyesight” of most drivers on Route 10 by using the site topography and existing vegetation as screening.
Glidden cautioned the council these votes cover only whether to proceed toward a contract for sale; he explained multiple regulatory steps would follow, including inland wetlands, planning and zoning, Water Pollution Control Authority review and Department of Transportation and DEEP permits. He told the council that “no one regulatory authority will be curtailed by the decision” and that local land‑use commissions retain their independent review powers.
Residents from nearby Birch Drive, Castle Heights and surrounding streets spoke for more than an hour, citing noise, traffic, wetlands, public‑safety and public‑health concerns. Castle Heights resident Ron Naiman presented a petition of 948 names and urged the council to “block this” and to require noise mitigation; several speakers cited measured daytime decibel averages exceeding Connecticut local limits and said current background noise from the Whole Foods facility is already audible.
Speakers also warned of increased truck traffic in a 1.1‑mile stretch of Route 10 containing seven traffic signals and multiple near‑future residential projects. Michael Sawicki said the corridor already hosts several developments opening soon and asked the council to “hit the pause button” and study cumulative traffic impacts before adding truck‑intensive uses. Several speakers urged the council to seek an extension of the town’s marketing window from the state so residents can better evaluate cumulative impacts.
Developers and their consultants answered procedural and technical questions in the hearing: Doyle and Sanoviva said the RFP‑based concept is preliminary, that building locations and sizes could change during due diligence, and that site utilities and a private on‑site pump station would be required to reach the manhole at Route 10. Sanoviva said the state will receive the sale proceeds and that the town’s direct financial benefit will come from property tax revenue if development occurs.
The council did not vote on the sale. At the August meeting Councilor Tricia Kramer moved and Councilor Dina Allard seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to the council’s September meeting; the motion passed unanimously. Council Chair Talbot asked residents and councilors to submit written questions to town planner Mike Glidden so answers can be added to the record before the continuation.
Why it matters: the site is one of the largest developable parcels in northern Cheshire, and a sale would remove state title and place a private, potentially truck‑intensive land use adjacent to long‑standing neighborhoods. The council’s decision to continue the hearing gives residents and regulators more time to review technical studies, permits and alternative proposals.
What’s next: the council will reconvene the public hearing at its Sept. 9 meeting; the developer and the steering committee will respond to questions and provide updated technical materials, and local land‑use commissions will retain independent authority to approve or deny permits if a sale proceeds.