Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mixed‑use 'floating zone' proposal for Green Hill parcels draws heavy public comment; hearing continued
Summary
A proposed floating mixed‑use zoning district that could be applied to large parcels (40‑acre minimum) generated extensive public concern about watershed protections, traffic, open space and potential spot zoning; the applicant agreed to revise the draft and the commission continued the hearing to September.
Get email alerts on the Development Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney Dennis Seneviva, representing KSCGH Partners LLC, presented a draft amendment to add a mixed‑use 'floating zone' to Wallingford's zoning regulations. He described the floating zone as a two‑step process: the commission adopts the floating‑zone regulations and an applicant later applies to map the floating zone to particular parcels with a master concept plan.
Seneviva emphasized the filing is a first draft and asked for more time to incorporate staff and public comments. "This is step number 1," he told the commission, noting the draft gives the commission discretion and that a future site application would include detailed traffic, drainage and architectural plans. Many commissioners pressed for clearer standards, bulk controls, watershed safeguards and explicit geographic limits.
A long line of neighbors and stakeholders urged caution. Michelle Della Poli asked the commission to confirm the watershed protections will remain intact and specifically requested that each of the four parcels near 110 Legis Road maintain at least 50% open space per lot. "Please be sure we adhere to them," she said, asking the town to document open‑space requirements per parcel. Other residents raised concerns about drainage on poorly drained soils, traffic on Route 68, potential spot zoning, notice to nearby property owners and the scale of commercial uses allowed under the draft.
Staff memos from the planning office and town engineering identified multiple issues the draft should resolve (setbacks, bulk standards, traffic and water/sewer capacity). After extensive public comment and commissioner questions about scope and phasing, the applicant agreed to revise the draft and the commission voted to continue application 5505‑26 to the September meeting for further review.

