Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown planners continue hearing on zoning overhaul to comply with new state housing law
Summary
Planning staff presented comprehensive zoning text and map amendments to implement Public Act 25‑1 (housing growth), including a new 'mixed use middle housing' use (2–9 units), summary review standards, an optional affordability requirement for 6–9 unit projects, and a downtown parking‑management overlay; the hearing was continued to June 24 for further review.
The Middletown Planning & Zoning Commission on June 10 heard a detailed presentation and took public comment on zoning text and map amendments intended to comply with Public Act 25‑1, the state’s recent housing growth legislation. Director Mary Kazakowski presented the draft Z‑26‑4 package, described it as both a compliance and an update exercise, and emphasized that the commission would take public feedback and continue the hearing to the next meeting.
Key proposal elements presented by Kazakowski included a new defined use, "mixed use middle housing," to allow buildings with 2 to 9 dwelling units (for example duplexes, triplexes and cottage clusters) in mixed‑use and commercial zones, subject to a summary site‑plan review. "The new law shall require either middle housing or mixed use development in mixed use zones and commercial zones," Kazakowski said, summarizing state mandates and the local approach.
The draft creates standards for the new use (site‑plan summary review; ability to require consultant studies at applicant cost if public health or safety impacts are suspected; a 100‑square‑foot usable outdoor space requirement per unit) and proposes an affordability incentive/requirement: for mixed‑use middle housing developments of six to nine units, at least one unit would be deed‑restricted as affordable at 80% of area median income and would need a marketing and affordability plan.
The amendments also address parking. Under the state law, municipalities may not require on‑site parking for most residential developments of 16 units or fewer unless the property falls inside a parking‑management overlay district; the draft creates such a district (the "parking management district") covering about 3.99% of the city, generally along the Washington Street corridor and downtown, where targeted parking requirements could apply to mitigate local impacts. Kazakowski told the commission an applicant could alternatively submit a parking‑needs assessment prepared by a transportation professional and provided standards for what such assessments should include.
Commissioners raised concerns about accessibility for residents with disabilities if parking requirements are relaxed. Commissioner Emery asked how the code would ensure that people who need accessible parking would not be effectively excluded by developments that provide no on‑site spaces. "If we don't require parking, how can we ensure that we have housing that is available for people with disability and that need ADA accommodations?" Emery asked. Kazakowski said that the state law constrains zoning requirements on parking and suggested building, fire or health codes might address some accessibility requirements; she agreed to follow up with the consultant and RiverCOG for clarification.
The public hearing was continued to the commission’s next meeting on June 24 to allow further map refinement and consultant follow‑up; commissioners expressed intent to vote promptly thereafter to meet the state statute’s implementation timeline.
