Middletown planning board recommends zoning overlay for West Main–Coddington project, sets conditions

The Middletown Planning Board on a unanimous vote recommended that the Town Council approve a future-land-use map amendment, a zoning-map amendment and a new zoning overlay for the proposed West Main–Coddington mixed‑use project, while attaching multiple conditions for council review.

The recommendation responds to a petition from the applicant (identified in filings as Middletown Commons Town Center LLC / Huddl Town Center LLC) to redesignate the site from institutional to limited business (traffic sensitive), to change the zoning of the leased portion from public to limited business, and to adopt a bespoke Middletown Center overlay district. The board’s recommendation is conditioned on a set of changes the applicant agreed to in the meeting and on additional conditions the board will forward to the council.

Why it matters: The overlay would set the specific permitted uses, design rules, and standards that will govern a roughly 15‑acre development parcel that the town selected through an RFI process. The overlay and map changes are advisory recommendations; the Town Council must hold a public hearing and make final decisions. The planning board also made any recommendation contingent on removal of deed restrictions tied to the town recreation parcel (referred to as Potsey Field) before zoning changes become effective.

Most important outcomes and unresolved items - Recommendation and conditions: The board voted to recommend (1) a change to the comprehensive plan future‑land‑use map (Map L‑4) to redesignate the subject property to limited business (traffic sensitive); (2) a zoning‑map amendment for the development parcel from public (traffic sensitive) to limited (traffic sensitive) with a portion to remain public; and (3) establishment of a Middletown Center Overlay District. The overlay recommendation was made “subject to the adoption of each of the recommended conditions,” the motion says; the board instructed staff to forward agreed edits and the list of outstanding conditions to the council.

- Changes the applicant said it would accept: The applicant’s attorney, Gerard Galvin, told the board the team provided a revised draft after the April 3 meeting addressing many items. During the special meeting the applicant agreed to multiple clarifications and edits the board requested, including clarifying that the overlay will supply a dedicated column in the town’s use table (Section 6.02) and agreeing to allow antennas 6 feet or less if shielded from view. The applicant also agreed to retain a municipal parcel (public open space) rather than rezoning the entire site.

- Key unresolved or conditional items the board will forward to the council: landscaping/open‑space minimums for the leased area (board sought a requirement that at least 10% of the leased land be dedicated to public/common landscaped/open space, exclusive of perimeter buffers and the municipal parcel); the size and placement of gateway signage (board proposed restricting most commercial freestanding signs to 100 sq. ft. and 16 ft height for the primary entrance while preserving a landscaped monument at the corner); whether restaurants that serve alcohol should be allowed by right or require special‑use review (several members urged keeping that use as special permit); drive‑through windows (board discussion left bank drive‑through windows more likely allowed while other drive‑throughs were recommended to require special‑use review or conditions and a traffic study); and workforce housing targets (the board proposed workforce housing percentages but the applicant declined to commit).

What the board and applicant said Gerard Galvin, attorney for the applicant, said the team had revised the overlay to reflect many board requests, raised the affordable set‑aside from 10% to 12% (which the applicant said equals 18 units under their current residential proposal) and requested certainty for certain commercial uses to obtain financing. Planner Paige Bronk confirmed that where the overlay is silent, the limited business district rules would apply and that a new column in Section 6.02 would be created if the overlay is adopted.

Board members pressed the applicant on specifics. Planning board member Huddler (phonetic spelling in transcript) pressed for language requiring pedestrian‑friendly, town‑commons character inside the leased development as well as within the municipal parcel. Members also questioned whether medical centers or hospitals should be allowed by right (the meeting moved toward allowing clinics and medical offices by right while carving out full hospitals) and sought to exclude outdoor pickleball courts by naming “pickleball” in a parenthetical exclusion for accessory court games, citing likely noise conflicts with nearby residences.

Design, landscaping and signage debates Board members asked the applicant to expand the planned gateway landscaping at the corner of West Main and Coddington. The applicant’s team said they could increase the proposed 600‑sq.‑ft. landscaped corner area and indicated they could commit to roughly 2,000–3,000 sq. ft. as a starting point while leaving final sizing to engineering and master‑plan review. The group negotiated signage allowances: the board pushed to limit freestanding commercial signs to sizes and heights closer to the town’s limited business standards; the applicant argued consolidated larger pylon signs are needed to identify multiple tenants across a large development. The board ultimately directed the signage sizes and other items be listed as conditions to forward to the council.

Affordable and workforce housing The applicant agreed to raise the affordable housing percentage from 10% to 12% (the applicant said that percentage would generate 18 units under the current residential mix). Several board members proposed adding a separate workforce housing target (units at 80–120% of area median income), but that proposal did not gain consensus and the applicant declined to accept the workforce set‑aside as a binding condition.

Infrastructure, studies and next steps Board members emphasized traffic and utility impacts. The applicant said traffic, stormwater, landscaping and sign plans will be addressed at the master‑plan and technical review stages; the board noted the town’s existing ability to require independent technical review of applicant studies when appropriate. The board’s package of recommended edits and conditions will be transmitted to the Town Council, which will hold the formal public hearing(s) and decide whether to adopt the comp‑plan amendment, zoning‑map change and overlay ordinance.

Ending The planning board concluded the special meeting after taking the three recommendation votes; each motion passed and the board directed staff to forward the revised overlay text, the applicant’s concessions, and the list of outstanding draft conditions to the Town Council for its public hearings and final action.