Planning & Zoning Commission hears mixed views on 14-unit affordable housing proposal
By Peter Barhydt
A proposal to construct a 14-unit affordable housing development at 30 Parade Hill Road drew extensive public comment during a recent Planning & Zoning Commission hearing, with residents raising concerns about traffic, safety and neighborhood compatibility.
The application, submitted by GHF Parade Hill Road LLC, seeks site plan approval under Connecticut General Statutes 8-30g to build a three-story residential structure on a property located in the B Residence and Half Acre zones.
According to the applicant’s attorney, Amy Souchuns, the development would include a mix of two- and three-bedroom units, with some reserved for tenants using housing vouchers. The project qualifies as assisted housing due to both the voucher component and a sales and use tax exemption.
Project engineers and consultants presented details on site design, drainage, traffic and building features.
The plan calls for demolition of an existing single-family home and construction of a 14-unit building with 16 parking spaces, including one ADA-compliant space. The development would also include a playground area, refuse enclosure and new utilities.
The applicant’s engineer said stormwater systems are designed to reduce runoff compared to existing conditions and meet state and local requirements. The site has no inland wetlands and is outside flood hazard areas, though runoff ultimately flows toward the Five Mile River.
A traffic study projected limited impact, estimating five vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and six in the afternoon peak hour. The study concluded that nearby intersections would continue to operate at Level of Service A, with minimal delays.
The plan also includes a right-turn-only exit from the driveway due to limited sightlines to the south.
During public comment, residents raised concerns about existing traffic conditions on Parade Hill Road and the potential impact of additional vehicles.
Tim Anderson, a Parade Hill resident, said the proposal “raises serious site-specific public health, safety and welfare issues” and suggested the commission consider reducing the number of units.
Several speakers described Parade Hill Road as narrow and heavily traveled, citing truck traffic, speeding vehicles and limited visibility. Some questioned whether the traffic study reflected current conditions or seasonal changes.
An EMS volunteer expressed concerns about emergency access and building design, particularly the absence of an elevator. The speaker said transporting patients down flights of stairs could present safety risks for both residents and emergency personnel.
Parking was another frequently cited issue. The proposal includes 16 spaces for 14 units, with the applicant indicating tenants would be limited to one vehicle per unit. Residents questioned how visitor parking and deliveries would be handled and whether overflow parking would occur on nearby streets.
Other speakers raised concerns about pedestrian safety, noting the lack of sidewalks and the presence of school bus stops, walkers and cyclists in the area.
Residents also discussed drainage conditions, with some reporting standing water on the property after heavy rain or snowmelt. The applicant’s engineer stated that the proposed system would manage stormwater and reduce runoff rates.
Additional concerns included building scale, proximity to neighboring homes, screening and landscaping. Some residents said the proposed plantings would not provide sufficient visual buffering or withstand local deer activity.
A representative from Homes with Hope, a nonprofit housing organization in Westport, spoke in support of affordable housing and described a similar project in that town. She said demand for such housing is high and cited an example where 380 applicants applied for 19 units.
She also noted that residents in that development work in a variety of jobs and that the housing has been well received.
Commission members asked some follow-up questions but did not deliberate on the application. Chairman Daniel Radman said the hearing would continue at a future meeting due to time constraints.
The public hearing remains open, and additional testimony and written comments may be submitted before the commission takes further action.
