The Day has received a statement of the Stonington Economic Development Commission (EDC) concerning the Lattizori proposal to amend the zoning regulations to allow a large shopping mall and other commercial uses on property now zoned for 1-acre lots for single-family dwellings. I represent residents of the StoneRidge retirement community who live across Jerry Browne Road from the Lattizori property and they are just as concerned about protecting their neighborhood as anyone else would be.

The EDC claims that approving the Lattizori application, Stonington will generate a $1 million "swing" in revenue that will lower local property taxes. The argument is deeply flawed.

First, if generating property taxes from commercial development were Stonington's only priority, then it should allow shopping centers, hotels, and office buildings everywhere in town. My clients do not believe that Stonington should sell itself out for property taxes. Zoning exists to protect the entire community, not to enrich developers.

Second, the EDC statement distorts the issue as being a choice between 54 houses and the Lattizori proposal with nothing in between. The Stonington Plan of Conservation and Development recommends that the Lattizori property west of Pequotsepos Road be zoned for transition uses between R-40 single-family neighborhoods and the hotel/aquarium uses on Coogan Boulevard.

Recommended uses are age-restricted housing (like StoneRidge) and professional offices, which also generate property taxes with minimal public services. The issue is not 54 houses versus the Lattizori monstrosity, but rather what form a "transition" zone should take and what kind of non-residential uses are appropriate.

Third, the Lattizori proposal is not for "a modest scale shopping destination" as claimed, but for 220,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, a 140-room hotel with restaurant, bar and banquet facilities, 47 townhouses, unlimited office space and unlimited apartments on the upper floors of the commercial buildings. To put this in perspective, the retail component alone is equal to twice the size of the Olde Mistick Village. This is not a "transition" zone.

Fourth, it is a myth that shopping centers equal lower taxes. West Hartford (with West Farms Mall, Corbin's Corner, Bishop's Corner, Blue Back Square, LaSalle Road, and more) has an equalized mill rate of 37.09, while the comparable rate in Stonington is less than half, at 15.14 mills.

Manchester (with The Pavilions, the J.C. Penney warehouse, and numerous shopping centers, office buildings, and industrial parks) has an equalized mill rate of 32.98, again more than double Stonington's.

Reality isn't so grand

The reality is that a new shopping center with interstate visibility will divert the high-rent tenants from older areas that are farther from the highway. Gains in assessment on the Lattizori property will be offset by losses in the rest of Stonington and in the commercial districts on both sides of the Mystic River. There are also higher service costs. For example, both Manchester and West Hartford have professional fire departments because volunteers could not keep up with the demands of large-scale commercial development. There is no free lunch!

Stonington should follow its adopted plan and demand true transition uses on the Lattizori property, not the half-million-square-foot commercial complex being sought by Lattizori Development.

Mark K. Branse is an attorney with Branse, Willis & Knapp, LLC in Glastonbury.