Middletown planning board gives final continuance on traffic-focused subdivision, sets Oct. 8 deadline

The Town of Middletown Planning Board continued two agenda items concerning proposed subdivisions to the board's Oct. 8 meeting and set a condition that one application would not receive another continuance.

Board members debated whether to allow another postponement for a subdivision that has been before the board for months. Planning staff said Crossman Engineering had submitted comments on Aug. 18 and the applicant had asked for more time to respond; the applicant's attorney told staff the engineer was still preparing responses and expected to be ready for the next meeting. Planning board member Leon, however, said the applicant had previously failed to address traffic questions raised by board members and Crossman Engineering “in any meaningful manner” and argued the board should follow its continuance policy and not grant another delay.

The board balanced those views and voted to continue item 4a to the Oct. 8 meeting on the condition that the applicant provide its traffic study responses in time for the packet and that no further continuances be granted. The motion passed by voice vote; the chair recorded an aye.

Item 4b, also absent its project representative, was continued to Oct. 8 after staff reported ongoing communications between the property owner and a potential tenant. The board was told that, if the applicant remained unprepared, the applicant could withdraw at the next meeting.

Why it matters: Board members said the continuances have delayed resolution of projects that raise traffic and land-use concerns. One member said the project subject to item 4a has been on the agenda for about seven months and that the board has the option under its policy to drop items that extend past the six-month mark.

Board and staff comments: Planning staff (Ron) said Crossman Engineering’s letter was dated Aug. 18 and that the applicant had requested additional time to have its consultant respond. Leon said earlier continuances had not produced thorough responses and said the board should enforce its policy. Another board member suggested the applicant should include regional, known future development in any traffic study so impacts are considered in context; staff said the town's broader traffic study is not yet available and therefore applicants must rely on current guidance.

What the board decided: The board - Continued item 4a to Oct. 8, subject to the condition that it would not be continued again and that the applicant submit study responses for the next packet; and - Continued item 4b to Oct. 8, noting the request was based on ongoing negotiations between the owner and a prospective tenant.

Next steps: Applicants for both items must provide updated materials in time for the Oct. 8 packet or risk withdrawal or denial. The board said staff will post plot diagrams with administrative subdivision approvals in the online packet going forward at the request of board members.

Ending note: The board recorded the continuances by voice vote; the chair voted aye on the motions.