Thursday, October 10, 2013

Planning And Zoning Approves Zoning Code Text Amendment

The Planning and Zoning Commission held a short meeting last night, and made only one decision.

Two applications for large subdivisions in Westfield were taken off the agenda. A 15-lot subdivision to be located at Country Club Road and Massa Tom Road was tabled, because the public hearing was not properly noticed. A 14-lot subdivision off of Mile Lane was withdrawn because it did not receive prior approval from Inland Wetlands.

The Commission considered a Zoning Code text amendment to add Section 60.02.42 – Existing Age Restricted (55 & Older) Multi Family Housing density not to exceed 24 units per acre on property having at least 2 1/2 acres or more in a Multi-Family (M) Zone. The applicant was Pondview Realty Associates, which operates government subsidized low-income senior housing, located on Butternut near its intersection with West Street. This application was continued from the August 28th P&Z meeting.

Alfred Muracca, one of the owners of the Pondview Apartments said that he currently had 52 units, but he wants to build further age-restricted apartments on approximately 3 acres of excess property. He said he particularly wants to build more housing for couples. The current Zoning Code for the M zone would make such a use non-conforming. At the August 28th meeting, Warner told the Commission that it was unlikely that there were any other properties in the M Zone to which this zoning code text change would apply.

The Commission unanimously approved the zoning code text change.


Anonymous said...

so... one application would have been approved, because the PZ commitee wasn't given enough notice to find the rubber stamp for approval. The 2nd application wasn't given approval because the inland wetlands commitee hadn't found their rubber approval stamp yet either. Do we do any actual planning in Middletown?

Anonymous said...

The existence of the "rubber stamp" accounts for the fact that a commissioner might be absent from 40% of the meetings and do no harm (or good). Perhaps the applicants are very well prepared? Perhaps the Commission is applicant "friendly" because of the possibility of litigation? This elected body of public servants are likely to be competent and hard working, right?

Anonymous said...

The text amendment only applies to already existing age restricted housing. A huge difference. Get it right before you bash.

Anonymous said...

funny (not) that the Eye has not posted that the city has prevailed in the most recent ruling by the court in the provo (i.e. blue house) vs middletown case.

Stephen Devoto said...

I am wild with curiosity over what or who a provo is, and I would love to know more about how our city attorney was able to win a lawsuit against a house (blue or otherwise). Please tell us more!

Honestly, we would like to post news about city lawsuits, submit a story and we will do so. We at the Eye are not a monolithic group and we cannot possibly cover all stories. We would love to have you as a correspondent.

Just don't expect us to publish something that only 5 insiders in a dark hole might understand, in the form of another anonymous comment. Give our readers context and your name.