Middletown planning board hears strong public concern over proposed West Main/Coddington overlay, but continues review

The Middletown Planning Board on Feb. 5 opened a public hearing on three linked requests that would change the town’s future land-use map and zoning for about 15 acres at West Main Road and Coddington Highway and create a site-specific overlay district to enable a mixed-use project.

Gerard Galvin, attorney for Middletown Commons Town Center LLC, told the board the hearing was “about the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan versus the specifics of the project itself,” and said the development agreement between the town and the developer was signed in October 2024. Sean Brown, an administration official, described the item as part of a long reuse and redevelopment effort tied to Navy surplus land and federal BRAC reuse planning.

The developer’s proposal calls for a hotel with an extended-stay component, residential units (with a 10% minimum set-aside for affordable housing), retail space and a municipal/open-space parcel retained by the town. The development agreement contemplates separate 99‑year ground leases for the hotel, housing and retail parcels and anticipates real estate tax, hotel/meals tax and land‑lease revenue to the town; Brown said the town’s rough revenue estimate from the project is about $1.2 million a year.

Why it matters

The proposals would change the comprehensive-plan future land-use designation for the parcels from institutional to general business, rezone the parcels from a public/traffic‑sensitive category to a business zone, and adopt a West Main–Coddington overlay tailored to the development team’s concept. The town’s comprehensive plan and earlier West Main/Coddington studies expressly encourage redevelopment of this corridor; the overlay is intended to provide the regulatory framework for the unified project and to anticipate uses and changes over the long term.

What the board and public heard

Planning staff and the developer emphasized process steps: if the board recommends the amendments, the town council would consider them (the administration expects council review in March 2025), and if approved the developer would file a master-plan application with technical and public review that would examine traffic, stormwater, engineering and design in detail.

But much of the public comment focused on the project concept as presented and on specific overlay provisions. Speakers objected to a 75‑foot height allowance proposed in the overlay for the hotel (the developer says the hotel would be five stories), urged protection of a contiguous area of municipal open space, and pressed for an independent traffic study before making zoning changes. Representative public comments included:

- Roberta Duffy (280 Forest Avenue): “I believe that the current status of the town center is not the development the taxpayers of Middletown envisioned or made to believe would look like.”

- Melissa Welch, co‑chair of the Middletown Center Citizens Advisory Committee (speaking personally): she urged the board “to retain the public zoning for that section, that portion of the land that is to be preserved as open space for public recreation.”

- Multiple residents asked why the project now calls for a hotel and argued the 75‑foot allowance is out of scale for Middletown; others said the community originally envisioned a denser public/community center with a library and civic uses, and that the library location has since been moved off the site.

Developer and staff responses

Planner Paige Bronk, retained by the development team, said the overlay draws heavily on the town’s existing mixed‑use ordinance and related studies and is intended to be site‑specific. She told the board the comprehensive plan, prior master plans and federal reuse work support mixed‑use redevelopment of the parcels and the use of an overlay tool.

Attorney Galvin and town staff said some changes are negotiable ahead of council review. Galvin offered flexibility on height: the development team said they could reduce the hotel height if the board and public prefer a lower cap, and suggested a 60‑to‑66‑foot target depending on roof form, while noting a five‑story hotel requires substantially more than a 45‑ or 50‑foot limit to meet room and parking needs. Town staff also said the municipal parcel’s allowable uses could be further limited so that the town retains control over public‑use outcomes.

Formal actions and next steps

At the meeting the planning board opened the public hearing and then, after extensive public comment and board discussion, voted to continue the public hearing and review for administrative control and scheduling. The board continued the matter to its next regular meeting (Feb. 12, 2025) to allow the development team and staff to return with revised materials and for the board to consider refinements (for example: whether the underlying zone should be limited business rather than general business; a lower hotel height; clearer limits on municipal‑parcel uses; and a clearer treatment of contiguous open space).

Votes at a glance

- Motion to open the public hearing on the comprehensive-plan amendment, zoning map amendment and West Main–Coddington overlay: approved (motion and second recorded; board voice vote recorded as aye).

- Motion to continue the public hearing and related review to the board’s next regular meeting (Feb. 12, 2025) for control and scheduling: approved (motion and second; voice vote recorded as aye).

What remains unresolved

Key outstanding issues the board flagged for resolution before recommending final approval to the council include: whether the underlying zone should be general business or limited business; a narrower and more explicit definition of the municipal/open‑space parcel and whether a contiguous 1.5‑acre minimum should be required; whether the hotel height cap should be lowered (developers suggested they could comply with a 60–66‑foot limit depending on roof design, but said 50 feet would not accommodate the five‑story scheme without other tradeoffs); an independent traffic analysis tied to any detailed master‑plan submission; and confirmation of phasing and lease arrangements.

The planning board will take up the matter again on Feb. 12, 2025, and any formal recommendation to the Town Council would come after that review. If the council approves the zoning and comp‑plan amendments, the project would still need master‑plan approval, site engineering and permitting before any construction begins.