Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting – August 26, 2026

The Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on August 26, 2026, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers and via WebEx. The primary agenda item was a continued public hearing on a petition by Wesleyan University to rezone multiple parcels on Church Street, High Street, and William Street from the Downtown Village District (DVD) to the Institutional Development District (ID), with one parcel rezoned to the MXC zone. After extensive public testimony and commission deliberation, the petition was unanimously denied.

Public Comments & Testimony

• The public hearing drew approximately 20 speakers, including Wesleyan students, faculty, residents of the Traverse Square neighborhood, and community advocates. Every speaker opposed the rezoning.
• Jennifer Alexander (110 Washington Street) argued that the DVD zone has successfully protected the historic fabric and warned that rezoning would strip the Design Review and Preservation Board (DRPB) of its authority.
• Brendan Barry (Wesleyan student) criticized the lack of specific project commitments, calling the rezoning a "blank check" that would allow Wesleyan to build oversized structures inconsistent with the neighborhood.
• Melissa Shulke (3 Hubbard Street) cited a local example of unfulfilled development promises and urged protection of the village district.
• Diana Martinez (143 Prospect Street) accused Wesleyan of ignoring community input and pointed to past failures, such as the closure of Green Street Learning Center, and demanded a binding community benefits agreement.
• Aria Dancing Honey (72B Home Avenue), a Wesleyan student and Traverse Square program coordinator, highlighted community distrust and asked for denial.
• Maya Nelson (Wesleyan student) testified about negative impacts on Traverse Square families, including increased noise, dust, and health risks from demolition.
• Renee Treber (10 Coval Hill Road, Portland) noted that the DVD provides vital community review that would be lost.
• Rowan Angela Raudebush (Wesleyan student) raised environmental and health concerns, particularly lead dust from demolition of 1970s buildings.
• Krishna Winston (655 Bow Lane) emphasized historic preservation and the value of older homes.
• S. Stokes (Wesleyan student) argued that the DVD holds Wesleyan accountable and that the university has acted in bad faith on labor and community issues.
• Steve Beeblitz (Glastonbury) pointed out that the four houses on William Street are restorable and urged their preservation.
• Sam Bretschneider (Wesleyan student) opposed the rezoning as inconsistent with the POCD and harmful to Traverse Square.
• Lucas Holman (Wesleyan student, student government) called the proposal a surrender of city control to a non-taxpaying institution.
• Catherine Johnson (161 College Street) argued that the ID zone would allow a five-story dorm incompatible with the scale of the neighborhood.
• Yael (recent Wesleyan graduate) described how Wesleyan's development has not benefited the community and urged retention of DVD oversight.
• Ed McKeon (76 Pearl Street) worried about long-term change in leadership and the loss of protective zoning.
• Liam Dorian (Wesleyan student) asked the commission to reject the rezoning without binding community benefits.
• Saul FairhealthCon (49 Home Avenue, Wesleyan student) requested a denial without prejudice and demanded a project labor agreement and community benefits.
• Blythe Lavin (Wesleyan student) stated students do not want to live in dorms built without community support.
• Evie Lee (41 Lawn Ave, Wesleyan student and union member) cited lack of transparency and Wesleyan's budget cuts to community programs.
• Hannah Frank (35 Foss Hill Drive) emphasized the unequal relationship and asked for denial.
• Coco Raleigh (185 High Street) argued that the rezoning would enable development without meaningful community input, especially for Traverse Square.
• Casey Dunning Soray (Wesleyan student) said Wesleyan does not consider student or community needs in major decisions.
• Uma Sinderham (49 Brinyard Avenue) urged denial until binding agreements are in place.
• Trevor Brooks (227 Pine Street) cited Wesleyan's past funding cuts to community partnerships.
• Several other online speakers echoed similar concerns.

Wesleyan representatives (Jesse Langer, Jeff Murphy) presented a slide deck and responded to criticism, arguing the rezoning would allow for a 200-bed replacement project, streetscape improvements, and that the ID zone still permits site plan review and public hearings. They acknowledged not having a specific project yet and noted they had engaged with some community groups.

Discussion Items

• Director Kozikowski advised the commission on the legal framework for zone map amendments, noting 11 criteria under Section 7.3.2, and reminded them that the decision cannot be conditioned and that they have 65 days to decide.
• Commissioner Eckstrom (Vice Chair) stated the rezoning is not in line with the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) and that the DVD zone has served its purpose; he would not support the change.
• Commissioner Pattavina (Chair) echoed Eckstrom, saying the proposal does not advance community connections and is inconsistent with the POCD.
• Commissioner Monarca said the rezoning does not benefit the historic value of the area.
• Commissioner Regan emphasized protecting the DVD to preserve commission powers.
• Commissioner McAvoy noted Wesleyan should work within existing zones.
• Commissioner Cunningham stated the applicant did not meet the burden for a zone change and requested more community outreach.
• Commissioner Szynkowicz concurred that the sweeping change was not in the spirit of the original village district.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on Z2026-5 (Petition for Zoning Map Amendment): The commission held a roll-call vote on a motion to approve the rezoning. The motion failed unanimously (7 opposed, 0 in favor). All voting members (Chairman Pattavina, Vice Chair Eckstrom, Commissioners Monarca, Regan, Szynkowicz, Cunningham, McEvoy) voted nay.
• The public hearing was closed before the vote, and the application was denied.
• Other Business: The minutes of the August 12, 2026 meeting were approved with one abstention. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 PM.