Commission continues hearing on 56‑unit Huntington Affordable District after residents raise notice, utilities and parking concerns

Chair Virginia Harger opened a continuation of the public hearing for application 2434 on Feb. 19, 2025, describing the filing as an 8‑30g planned development district proposal by BWIS LLC for 5.42 acres at 390 Shelton Avenue to build 56 residential units, including 30% deed‑restricted affordable units.

Developer Bill Griffin presented site plans and elevations and said the scheme uses the same road layout previously approved for a 16‑lot subdivision but replaces single‑family lots with 50 townhouses and six ranch‑style units. Griffin said the units are roughly 1,500 square feet with garages and that the project meets the bulk standards and setback requirements he is requesting.

The commission and residents focused on several material issues. Commissioners asked for a legal opinion about whether provisions in the developer's statement of uses — which state that one in every three units will be offered as affordable and that affordable units will be deed‑restricted and indistinguishable in finish — comply with Connecticut General Statute 8‑30g; Chair Harger asked the applicant to provide the relevant statutory citation.

Residents and intervenors raised procedural and substantive objections. Tom Harvinson said mailed hearing notices and site‑plan revisions raised questions about timely notification and pointed to a Feb. 18 revision that appears to show water and sewer access through permanently protected open space. Harvinson asked town planners and counsel to review whether the zoning change and use application should have been filed separately and whether creating a zoning district that applies to a single parcel amounts to spot zoning. Attorney Michael Leventhal argued the applicant had not met notice requirements and submitted proof of mailing late to the file.

Commissioners and public commenters also disputed parking counts and the proposed method for distributing affordable units. The applicant acknowledged the concerns, said he would recheck parking calculations and provide statutory support for the deed‑restriction approach, and noted prior approvals for 16 houses remained on the record. Chair Harger asked staff to check uploaded materials and to confirm when mailed notices were delivered to city files.

Because multiple open questions remain — including utility access, the mailing/notice record, parking totals shown on different sheets, and statutory compliance under 8‑30g — the commission voted unanimously to continue the public hearing. Commissioner Tseke moved to continue and Commissioner Kelly seconded; the motion passed 6–0. The record remains open for new materials and public comment at the next hearing.

The commission made no final determination on zoning or approval at the Feb. 19 meeting. The next hearing date will be set when the applicant supplies requested clarifications and staff verifies notice and plan uploads.