Middletown council approves zoning overlay and comp-plan amendments after heated public hearing over Potsey Field and hotel plan

MIDDLETOWN — The Middletown Town Council voted to adopt three second-reading measures that will change the town's comprehensive plan map, rezone several town-owned parcels on West Main Road to limited business, and add a West Main–Coddington overlay district that supporters say will enable redevelopment and generate recurring revenue for town services.

The votes followed a packed public hearing where residents, affordable-housing advocates and local business owners traded arguments over a downsized development that would place a branded extended-stay hotel on Lot 7 (the former Navy Lodge) while the town would retain control of adjacent northern parcels and Potsey Field. Gerard Galvin, representing MCTC LLC, opened the presentation by saying the developer had substantially reduced the project's initial scope and that Potsey Field "is specifically protected in the overlay" and "remains fully under town control." He said the town could expect roughly $785,000–$850,000 a year in recurring revenue from the ground lease and related taxes.

The hearing included a planning analysis from Paige Bronk, who cited comp-plan language and earlier studies dating to 2011 that recommended mixed-use redevelopment at the West Main–Coddington site. Supporters from the local hospitality sector also spoke, saying a hotel would produce jobs and fill a persistent need for extended-stay lodging serving Naval Station Newport and related training commands.

Opponents described a different picture. Members of the Middletown Affordable Housing Committee and dozens of residents urged the council to delay any rezoning until the town completes fresh planning and a competitive procurement process. Lawrence Frank, speaking for the affordable-housing committee, said the town never issued an RFP after the RFI and that the current overlay appeared written for a private mixed-use plan that has since been pared down. "This zoning code was prepared in close coordination with the developer for a project that has been abandoned," he said, and urged the council to reject the overlay.

Residents repeatedly raised Potsey Field as a focal point. Carol Cummings and others demanded permanent protections for the recreation field, which many described as a veterans' memorial. "That green land must be kept green always," Cummings said. Several speakers cited a notarized petition with more than 2,000 signatures opposing the hotel-focused plan and asked the council to return the revised proposal to the Planning Board for public review.

Developer counsel Gerard Galvin pushed back: he read a letter from a U.S. Navy commander (provided by email) describing recurring, year-round demand for extended-stay lodging to support Navy schools and training in the Newport area, and reiterated that Potsey Field would remain publicly zoned and preserved under the overlay. He also noted the draft overlay had increased the town's affordable-housing minimum to 20% to attract housing developers for the northern parcels.

Council discussion reflected the split in the audience. Several councilors said they supported the overlay as a pragmatic way to capture revenue for capital needs such as the town's new library and to reduce pressure on taxpayers. Others said the proposal had materially changed since earlier planning-board reviews and argued the revised plan needed additional design review, financial impact studies and public vetting. "We saved Potsey Field" was a recurring theme, but so was concern that rezoning now would lock in a development path without fully addressing housing, traffic, and procurement questions.

Councilors then voted separately on the three items: to adopt the comprehensive-plan amendment, the zoning map change to LBA, and the zoning-code amendment establishing Article 31 (the overlay). Each motion passed by voice vote; the clerk recorded the votes as carried by the council but no roll-call tallies were read into the record.

The solicitor advised that if the motions pass the developer would move next to detailed land-development approvals, including technical-review, master-plan and preliminary-plan review and any required state permits. Several councilors and members of the public asked that future reviews include updated financial analyses, traffic assessments and clearer procurement documentation.

The council adjourned after a final exchange in which multiple members acknowledged the controversy and urged continued public engagement. Several councilors told residents the votes were not the end of the process and suggested the town would still have discretion over uses and future development on the northern parcels.