Coventry Center planned‑district rezoning draws developer presentation, council continues public hearing to Sept. 23

Coventry — The Town Council held a public hearing on an ordinance to create the “Coventry Center Plan District,” a planned‑district rezoning that would allow a mixed‑use project with about 218 multifamily units on one lot and roughly 48,000 square feet of commercial space on another.

Applicant Star Capital explained the proposed ordinance would rezone two parcels currently zoned Industrial‑1 into a project‑specific planned district. The project presented at the hearing envisions 218 multifamily rental units (mix of one‑ and two‑bedrooms) on Lot 24, and 48,000 square feet of one‑story commercial/retail buildings on Lot 23. The developer proposed a 15% set‑aside of units for deed‑restricted low‑ and moderate‑income (LMI) households; earlier drafts had discussed 18% and that change was raised at the planning commission meeting the week before the council hearing.

The developer and its fiscal consultant, Joseph Lombardo, presented a fiscal‑impact estimate produced for the applicant that used projected assessed values and included estimates of municipal and school costs. Lombardo estimated the combined property tax revenue (at today’s tax rate applied to projected assessed values) would substantially exceed estimated municipal and school costs from the project, leaving a positive net fiscal contribution in the consultant’s model. Lombardo’s model estimated about 396 new residents and roughly 11 school‑aged children from the multifamily portion, numbers the consultant described as consistent with comparable recent developments.

Planning staff and the solicitor told the council the planning commission recommended approval but that staff had not been given advance notice of the change from 18% to 15% on the planning‑commission floor, and asked for time to re‑review that change. The solicitor also noted the council had received the applicant’s fiscal impact study only that afternoon and suggested the council and administration may wish to review the consultant’s numbers and seek any necessary peer review before acting.

Traffic and site‑design consultants described driveway locations, parking counts and proposed off‑site mitigation; the traffic expert said the team had modeled multiple current and future developments to estimate cumulative impacts and described a program of off‑site improvements that could be allocated among future projects. The applicant said the project could be phased (commercial and residential on separate lots) and that rents/market assumptions underpinning the financing made a rental‑unit plan the likely path.

Affordable housing percentage: At the planning commission hearing the week before, one planning commissioner raised concerns and the 18%→15% change was discussed on the commission floor; planning staff and the solicitor said staff had not had time to vet the late change in detail. Several council members urged maximizing deed‑restricted LMI units but also said they wanted clearer documentation of the financial impacts of different LMI percentages on project feasibility. Council member Houle urged the applicant to look for small savings in the design (for example roofline treatments) to preserve more units for deed restriction.

After presentations, public comment and questions, the council voted to continue the public hearing to Sept. 23 so town staff can review the fiscal analysis and planner comments and provide a recommendation. The motion to continue passed 7‑0.

Ending: The council left the public hearing open and asked staff to review the fiscal study, the planning department’s view on the LMI percentage change, and supplementary traffic/stormwater information before the Sept. 23 continuation.

Attribution: Reporting is based on the developer presentation, comments by Planning Director Doug McClain, fiscal consultant Joseph Lombardo, traffic engineer Bob Clinton and planning staff and the town solicitor.