CHESTER

Criticism surrounding a proposed development at 47 Middlesex Avenue was heard once again at a second public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on Oct. 12.

Honeycomb Real Estate Partners and Vesta Corporation presented newly revised plans for what has proved to be a divisive affordable housing application since its initial unveiling in January and through the first public hearing on the proposal on Sept. 14.

The second hearing was held in a smaller capacity at the Chester Meeting House but with no less sharp concerns from the attending audience.

Will Walter, a site development manager with Honeycomb’s civil engineering firm Benesch, presented revised site plans for the development. He said changes consider major points of concern for the project’s critics, including density. One of the buildings at the site has been reduced in size, scaling back the total number of units from 40 to 36. The site has been shifted 8 to 10 feet northward from its original position, which would allow for a “significant amount” of mature trees along the southern border of the project to remain during the construction phase, said Walter.

Stephen Ulam, senior project engineer also with Benesch, submitted to the PZC a new traffic study that was conducted in late September during morning and evening hours along Route 154. The study considered local traffic flow along the state highway and whose final capacity analyses found that “it is the professional opinion of Benesch that the construction of the proposed apartments located at 47 Middlesex Turnpike in Chester will not impede or adversely affect traffic operations on the adjacent roadway network.”

The developers will also work with St. Teresa of Calcutta Church, the former owner of the 3.3-acre parcel of land now acquired by Honeycomb and Vesta, on milling and overlaying the church’s parking lot, which the developers said they are open to using for additional parking spaces.

A second round of public testimony again saw strong criticism related to health and safety, traffic, and environmental concerns. Speakers saw that the developers’ plans had not changed significantly since the first hearing, again seeing inadequate sanitation and traffic studies and an adjacent lack of consideration regarding public health and safety in the construction phase of the project.

The new traffic study was criticized as short-sighted by Carol Riordan, whose testimony considered numerous concerns and suggestions to the PZC. Riordan said there were “egregious omissions” from the study that forgoes “a key intersection, roads, and undercounts cars that general hazardous traffic” and could entail “extraordinary risks to children and pedestrians.” She suggested the developers perform new studies that demonstrate an all-encompassing plan considering aspects of pedestrian safety to new traffic lights.

Kas and Misha Semenov-Leiva both presented ways that the development could be more attractive than its current proposal. They suggested that “the surgical division of the site into the parish parking lot and the housing development” could be united through a reimagining of “fairly empty” space. They brought up examples related to recreation and civic activities, a substitute for what could otherwise be an unappealing “wasteland of asphalt” for potential tenant families to see before their living space.

Jody Dole urged the PZC to spend more time considering alternative options for affordable housing that, unlike Honeycomb and Vesta’s, would not pose a detriment to public health and safety. Dole referenced the divisive Connecticut State Statute 8-30g and that the developers’ application can be denied given the potential risks to public health and safety.

“It has been made very clear by professional, expert engineers…that substantial health and safety dangers will certainly be caused to Chester residents and potential housing tenants by this thoughtless development,” said Dole. “By taking advantage of a flawed, outdated, unrealistic 8-30g law…the Vesta and Honeycomb ‘Limited Liability’ Corporation plan is a recipe for a health, safety, and traffic disaster.”

The public testimony can continue to submit testimony to the PZC up to a special meeting that will be held on Thursday, Oct. 26 again at the Chester Meeting House. The meeting will feature a presentation by a representative of the developers without following public comment.

According to Zoning Enforcement Officer John Guszkowski, the PZC may reach a conclusion on denial or approval of Honeycomb and Vesta’s proposal at that meeting, bearing in mind that “things get complicated for the commission’s membership” following Election Day. The next PZC public meeting after the special meeting will be held on Thursday, Nov. 9.