Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Orange Terrace Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown council denies Orange Terrace subdivision after months of debate
Summary
The Middletown Common Council voted to deny a proposed subdivision for Orange Terrace after residents and council members raised concerns about lot sizes and a proposed retaining wall; the applicant said it followed zoning board approvals and offered revised plans.
The Middletown Common Council voted to deny a proposed subdivision on Orange Terrace Wednesday after weeks of public testimony and competing technical briefs.
Mayor Robert DeStefano and several council members said the applicant submitted amended site plans after the public hearing and that the plans lacked basic dimensions and engineering detail. Residents told the council that most homes on Orange Terrace were built on 75‑foot lots and said allowing smaller lots would change the neighborhood’s character. ‘‘It really would destroy the neighborhood,’’ said Peter Broker, a resident of 27 Orange Terrace.
Neil D. Frishberg, attorney for the applicant, told the council the developer had followed the Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision granting a four‑lot subdivision with area variances. ‘‘We followed the rules. We satisfied everything in your code,’’ Frishberg said, and asked the council to either approve the revised plan with a 4‑foot retaining wall or adjourn to let the public comment on that limited change. Frishberg also said the applicant agreed to extend the decision deadline to Dec. 24.
Mayor DeStefano cited a Fusco Engineering memo that flagged an 11‑foot retaining wall and said the revised site plan later submitted lacked lot dimensions and drainage information. In the transcript he said portions of the applicant’s presentation were ‘‘BS,’’ language he used while challenging the applicant’s interpretation of prior correspondence. The mayor urged the council to deny the application and send the matter back for engineering review and possible additional public input.
After brief debate, Alderman Ray sponsored a resolution denying the subdivision; Alderman Johnson seconded it. The roll call recorded a majority of ‘‘Aye’’ votes with Council President Rodriguez recorded as abstaining; the motion carried and the resolution was adopted. The council did not adopt the applicant’s revised plan; the applicant may return to the Planning Board or submit corrected plans per council direction.
The council’s action preserves the Planning Board’s negative referral and leaves open engineering review of retaining‑wall design and drainage before any future approval.
— The Common Council adopted the resolution denying the subdivision; the applicant retains procedural options to revise and resubmit.
