Woodbridge EDC presses for clarity after town approves village-district zoning changes; 60% connectivity meeting set for July 29

The Woodbridge Economic Development Commission on June 11 reviewed a Planning & Zoning village-district amendment that was filed June 4 and will become unappealable after publication, and set a public 60%‑design presentation for the connectivity project on Wednesday, July 29 at 6 p.m.

Scott (EDC member) told colleagues he found the June P&Z meeting confusing and that a latehanded amendment differentiated ‘‘transit community middle housing’’ and ‘‘mixed use’’ under HB 8002. He said the amendment appears to treat vertical mixed use (retail on the ground floor, housing above) and horizontal mixed use (adjacent residential and commercial parcels) differently and that the change could affect residential districts, including DEV2.

"They broke that out here," Scott said, urging members to "look at what they did when they broke it out, and you can make your own judgments about what you think it's gonna accomplish for the business district." He also noted the amendment as drafted may increase total units without increasing the number of deed‑restricted affordable units.

Business-owner Jim Urbano spoke during public comment and urged the commission to ask the first selectman and consultants to pause plan development until concerns are addressed. Urbano said existing trees on Amity and Bradley roads should be preserved, snow‑dumping and plowing needs must be considered, and the planned 10‑foot bike trail and a proposed island at Amity and Bradley could harm his property and effective customer parking.

"When I made the investment, it it's working well. We have 100% occupancy," Urbano said, asking that the project "apply the guidelines to the proposed project" and that utilities for new construction be placed underground where feasible.

Chair (speaker 1) said staff will take Urbano's comments back to the consultant SLR and to Mika in the first‑selectman’s office, seek clarifications about retaining walls, grade changes and utility work, and try to have a planner available for the July 29 presentation. "I will reach out to them, see if they can review it beforehand and hopefully even attend on the day," the chair said.

Members discussed what the July 29 meeting should achieve: some said the 60% session is a grant requirement and often focuses on construction staging and disruption; others urged the town to use the meeting for broader visioning and to include planning staff, DOT/SLR representatives and place‑making stakeholders so land‑use consequences can be weighed alongside engineering details. Participants also noted burying utilities is likely cost‑prohibitive under the current grant and would require separate funding.

The EDC agreed to circulate project visuals and outreach materials before the public presentation and to mail notices to a business contact list of roughly 270 addresses; members recommended town newsletter, e‑news, social channels and targeted door‑to‑door outreach to maximize turnout. The commission also discussed following up with the DOT representative named to the housing council to align traffic‑control and calming measures with land‑use choices.

The commission said it will seek answers and return to the topic prior to the July 29 meeting.