Property owner seeks feedback on zoning text change to allow assisted‑living in C‑1; commission open to further review

Kevin Hecht, a property owner on South Main Street, asked the Planning and Zoning Commission for informal feedback on a potential zone text amendment to permit assisted‑living and convalescent homes by special permit in the town’s C‑1 district.

Hecht told the commission he owns two adjacent parcels, 220 and 222 South Main Street, totaling about 1.66 acres and said the rear parcel has limited frontage and access via a private road (Old Town). He said the prospective operator envisions a “boutique” assisted‑living facility with a maximum of about 40 residents and that he would keep the existing front building as office space while adding a smaller residential care building in the rear.

Hecht said he reviewed regulations in other Connecticut towns and argued that the current Cheshire rules— which the commission said require minimum acreage and other siting criteria for assisted‑living—make his property difficult to develop for that use under present text. He asked whether the commission would be amenable to a c‑1 text change to allow assisted living by special permit, or whether a tailored change limited to small C‑1 parcels or SDD (Special Design District) parcels would be preferable.

Commissioners and staff discussed options and constraints. Planning staff noted that the C‑1 district in Cheshire is small (a handful of parcels east of Route 10 up to Academy Road) and suggested any text change could be narrowly drafted to apply only to C‑1 parcels adjacent to residentially zoned property or to SDD parcels. Commissioners did not commit to a full zone‑wide amendment that would broadly change permitted uses on Route 10 frontage, and the preliminary consensus was to pursue a more tailored approach if Hecht wishes to proceed.

The commission asked for follow‑up and staff‑level conversations. Commissioners and Hecht agreed he should return for another preliminary discussion after staff prepares draft language or options. No formal application or public hearing was scheduled at the meeting; the discussion was explicitly nonbinding and informational.

Hecht said the concept would preserve the historic front building and build a smaller colonial‑style care building in the rear; he said the rear parcel’s access and lot configuration influenced his request. Commissioners asked a number of clarifying questions about lot configuration, acreage and potential unit counts; Hecht said the operator anticipates a maximum of 40 residents and described the proposal as small‑scale, high‑quality care rather than a large institutional facility.

Staff noted two pending applications that will be scheduled for public hearing and asked Hecht to wait on setting a hearing date for the text amendment petition until required referrals (including to the Council of Governments) are completed; the planner indicated that the petition would likely be scheduled in September if Hecht proceeds.

The commission agreed to further conversations and staff follow‑up; no action was taken.