Commission approves MetroStar 80‑unit 8-30g workforce housing at 249 Bridgeport Ave

The Milford Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously approved a site-plan review and lot-consolidation application under Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-30g for an 80-unit residential development at 249 Bridgeport Avenue.

Blake Smith, MetroStar director of development, and attorney Kevin Crusaidan presented the revised proposal, describing two five‑story buildings with identical 1-bedroom units (540 square feet each). Crusaidan summarized the affordability plan required under the statute, saying 30% of units — 24 of 80 — will be deed‑restricted under the 8-30g regulations, with a 40‑year restriction on a portion of the units and rent calculations that include utilities. "As for the record... 30% or in this case, 24 of the residential rental units will meet the criteria for affordable housing as defined by the Connecticut general statute section 8 dash 30 g," he told the board.

The project team included architect Paul Santos, engineer Ron Wasserman, and traffic engineer David Sullivan. Santos described energy and safety features, including roof‑mounted photovoltaic panels and designs intended to provide sightlines and “eyes on the street.” Wasserman explained site access, an engineered retaining wall and a plan to coordinate with United Illuminating and the Connecticut Department of Transportation for driveway work; he said the dumpster and service access will allow standard refuse truck movements. Sullivan said traffic modeling showed levels of service would remain acceptable and that consolidating two driveways into one reduced existing access points.

City staff and outside reviewers identified no outstanding engineering, fire, police, wetlands, or sewer objections; a third‑party traffic peer review raised standard questions about sightlines and truck turning radii but reported no unresolved safety issues. The city’s planning staff detailed that the combined lots total about 1.44 acres, the buildings would provide 90 parking spaces (including under-building parking), and the height would be roughly 54 feet. A prior application for the site had proposed fewer units; the applicant said the current design responds to the board’s earlier concerns and to affordability requirements.

During the public hearing, speakers offered both support and concerns: residents and local business owners praised the project’s housing and economic benefits, while others expressed concern about height, neighborhood character and precedent. The commission discussed statutory limits on denial of 8-30g applications and focused its deliberations on public‑safety considerations; the chair said he had not heard public-safety issues sufficient to deny the application. Commissioners then moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to approve the site plan under CGS §8-30g.

The approval includes standard conditions noted by staff and will be followed by any required permits from state agencies and site-construction approvals; the applicant will also execute the statutory deed restriction and an affordability administrator will manage compliance with income-qualification and marketing requirements.