KENT, Conn.—The Planning and Zoning Commission approved Planned Development District #1 (PDD) for Kent Housing Development Associates during its regular meeting Thursday night, April 9.
The PDD restricts development on the 12.5-acre site to the proposal put forward by the Associates. If the Associates cannot bring the project to fruition, the PZC would have to reverse the zoning change to allow another developer propose a project.
At present, the Associates are proposing an 80-unit, multi-family development clustered in 14 structures. The buildings would be clustered on about seven acres at the northern end of the parcel with five acres of open space to the south where water tends to flood during storms.
The PZC continued the public hearing it began March 30 until its regular April meeting to allow further comment and information to be submitted. Only a handful of residents commented Thursday, most of whom had offered testimony during the previous session.
Realtor Bonnie Bevans, who owns property adjacent to the parcel, renewed her objections to the size of the project and the parking provisions in the plan. She said that she toured other developments such as 80 North Main St., which has 85 condos; Stuart Farm and South Common, Kent Affordable Housing developments, and Brookwoods, a 17-acre development with 30 units, and concluded that the new project “is just a little too big.”
She suggested that the density for the new development should be reduced to 30 to 40 units and that the three large, three-story structures be reduced to two stories. She criticized the parking plan in the preliminary design. “Allowing space for a car-and-a-half [per unit] doesn’t make sense to me,” she said. “I understand that not everyone is parked at one time, but you can’t have half a car.”
She predicted that the private road proposed to extend Kent Green Boulevard through to Route 341 would become a “cut through” for motorists who want to avoid traffic congestion on Main Street and asked that the road be a dead end or one-way.
“Look at your own traffic study,” she urged the commission. “They are not looking at shopping, school schedules or weekend recreation. The people who live in the units will want to have picnics and events and there is just no space. You don’t want people to feel like sardines.”
Denise Morocco renewed her advocacy for renewable energy “in the midst of an extremely serious climate crisis.”
“I’m extremely concerned that the designs don’t indicate geothermal or solar,” she said. “It seems to be designed more like the 1960s to the 1980s. It seems outdated before it’s even built.”
And Joe Agli questioned what effect the addition of 80 new dwelling units would have on the infrastructure of the town, whether the school, sewer system, transfer station and the like would be able to accommodate the increase. “I would wonder if a project of this scope is feasible,” he said. “The plan is to have a high-density concentration on a smaller plot of land. Seven acres of 80 units—I don’t know.”
But Realtor Steven Pener strongly supported the project. “I won’t belabor the housing crunch,” he said. “Prices are up and inventory is almost zero. I’ve seen it play out in the schools, which are at half capacity. I’ve seen it play out in the fabric of the town. I think this lot can afford higher density. We should seriously try to green light this.”
James Millstein, managing partner in Kent Housing Development Associates, answered the public comments sequentially. He said the PZC created the housing incentive zone to encourage high-density projects to provide opportunities for people to live in Kent.
“As of right we could build 96 to 100 units over the entire 12 acres,” he said. “We are asking Planning and Zoning to approve a design plan limited it to this particular lot. This is just an interim step—we still have to go to other commissions, and we have to come back to Planning and Zoning with full information about parking and zoning and waste. But it is a limitation. If we don’t build and some developer comes back and says he wants 96 to 110 dwelling units, this district would have to be overruled.”
He stressed that the details for the project have not been worked out. “With regard to renewable energy, it’s early days,” he told Morocco. He noted that Connecticut has the second-highest energy costs in the country.
“It’s outrageous what utilities charge us,” he said, pledging to use solar or geothermal if they would be cheaper. But he added that when factors such as production, materials, installation and disposal are factored in solar may not be cheaper. “It’s not without environmental concern,” he said.
He told Bevans she was “late to the party,” in her critique of density. “As of right, we could build 96 houses, but we have chosen to go smaller, and we have chosen to leave open space.”
With the project stretching into the second year since he purchased the land, he has expressed concern about the escalation of costs that delay brings. “We started in July [2025] and we all have to understand that the reason housing is so expensive is because we have restricted supply. We have slowed down developers.”
“People who work in Kent can’t afford to live here,” he continued. “Population drives economic activity. A town cannot survive with 60 percent second homeowners. We need people to live in town, to shop in town.”
He hopes to be able to work out details and get final approvals from Planning and Zoning, Inland Wetlands and the like in the next five to six months. “This is not a final decision,” he stressed. “We’ve still got lots to do, lots of money still to spend. We’re hoping the commission will let us have this master plan on this property so we can do rest of what we need to do to get approval.”
The commission agreed. “This is an outcome we had hoped for when we made the incentive zone,” said member Darrell Cherniske. “This parcel is uniquely challenging. The reason for the zone was to attract a developer. I think the current design is thoughtfully done by taking the path of preserving a large chuck of open space.”
Member Donna Hayes endorsed Cherniske’s position, saying this is “probably the best use of that property.”
While she was zoning enforcement officer many potential developers looked at the property, she reported. “Three proposals had more units, but none were able to do what Mr. Millstein has done so far. It will be a wonderful addition to the town, the school, the vendors and property owners in town.”
