Board declines to approve 34 Buick Avenue 8‑30g proposal after hours of testimony

The board’s July 7 meeting featured an extended, often emotional public hearing on a proposed 53‑unit multifamily development at 34 Buick Avenue filed under Connecticut’s 8‑30g affordable housing statute.

Applicant representatives — developer Dan Thornburg, attorney Kevin Crusaid, and a team of engineers and planners — presented materials and asserted that the project met life, health and safety standards and included an affordability plan with deed restrictions covering 30% of units (roughly 16 units) for 40 years under the 8‑30g formula. The project team described site improvements including widening Buick Avenue to a uniform 20‑foot paved width, permeable paver stormwater treatment, drainage improvements, and emergency‑vehicle access designed to meet the fire marshal’s requirements.

City staff raised multiple outstanding concerns. Planning staff highlighted that the application relied on use of adjacent land (owned by a third party) for roadway and drainage improvements and said the applicant had not submitted documentation proving permission to use that land. The city engineer’s review (June 16, 2026) listed a series of recommended revisions and outstanding items; staff said some responses were provided the afternoon of the meeting but that the city engineer had not yet confirmed whether those responses were adequate.

Traffic and safety were focal points of public testimony. The applicant’s traffic expert, Steve Mitchell, said the project’s trip generation is small (about 22 AM peak hour and 28 PM peak hour trips) and that standard capacity analyses show no material change to intersection level of service; numerous residents disputed that finding and described frequent backups, speeding, wrong‑way driving on Governors Avenue, and repeated crashes in the study area.

After more than two dozen residents spoke — both in favor and against — and the applicant team offered rebuttal, the board closed the public hearing. A motion to approve the site plan was made and seconded; following discussion the motion failed on a recorded vote. Chair Quish and multiple board members expressed support for affordable housing in general but cited unresolved technical and safety issues and the volume of new evidence presented late in the process as reasons for denying the motion.

Because the board’s motion to approve failed, the application did not receive board approval at the July 7 meeting; the record includes staff concerns about property rights for the proposed roadway improvements, outstanding city engineer review items, and a police/traffic commission recommendation that raised safety reservations.