TPZ considers Luciani Street permit, Community Center café, and response to new state housing law

The Woodbridge Town Plan and Zoning (TPZ) Commission held a lengthy regular meeting on May 4 that touched on several major land-use and planning issues facing the town, including an extended debate over a Luciani Street earth-removal permit extension, approval of a zoning interpretation allowing café service at the Community & Cultural Center, and the beginning of the commission’s formal response to Connecticut’s newly adopted housing legislation (see agenda).

The meeting reflected the increasingly interconnected nature of development, infrastructure, housing policy, and economic planning in town, with commissioners repeatedly seeking to balance local concerns against evolving state requirements and broader long-term planning questions.

Luciani Street permit extension draws lengthy TPZ debate

The commission spent a significant portion of the meeting discussing a request related to ongoing earth removal and site work activity at 110 Luciani Street, ultimately approving a limited 90-day extension tied to additional engineering review and continued oversight. The existing permit had been scheduled to expire May 31, 2026. 

During the discussion, commissioners debated whether the request should be characterized as a renewal or an extension, ultimately focusing on what additional information would be needed before considering any longer-term continuation of the approval.

The applicant, Darius Iswaskiewicz, stated during the meeting that he felt he was being treated differently from other developers and contractors operating in town. At several points, discussion became tense as commissioners questioned him about the pace of progress and outstanding issues associated with the site.

The applicant has also appeared before the Inland Wetlands Agency this year in connection with two separate proposals at 27 Beecher Road: a farming-related application and a proposed affordable housing apartment development that continues to draw significant public turnout and attention (see previous articles from January and April).

A central issue during the TPZ discussion involved drainage disputes with neighboring properties. Iswaskiewicz referenced underground pipes and ongoing discussions involving neighboring property owners, attorneys, and town departments. 

Commissioners also pressed the applicant on statements in earlier correspondence indicating there had been “no changes” to site conditions, noting that substantial foundation work had already been completed on the property. Iswaskiewicz responded that the foundation work had been separately disclosed in prior communications with town staff, and the discussion then moved on to broader drainage and engineering issues.

The commission ultimately approved a limited 90-day extension, with the matter expected to return for additional review later this summer after updated documentation is submitted.

Commissioners emphasized that their goal was not to stop the project, but to ensure completion in a manner consistent with approved plans and drainage requirements while protecting neighboring properties. TPZ Chairman Jeff Kennedy encouraged the applicant to use the coming weeks to resolve drainage issues and provide updated engineering and survey documentation.

Approval of café interpretation for Community & Cultural Center

The commission then turned to the working-session portion of its agenda by considering and ultimately approving a zoning interpretation allowing café service to move forward at the Community & Cultural Center, concluding that the proposed operation qualifies as an accessory municipal use rather than a standalone commercial restaurant.

Discussion focused heavily on the limited nature of the proposed operation and whether it constituted a commercial use otherwise prohibited within the residential zone where the building is located.

During questioning by commissioners, Sandy Stein, a member of the Building Committee for the project, stated there would be no commercial kitchen installed at the facility, no food prepared onsite other than beverages, and no ovens, stoves, or dishwashers within the building. Instead, the operation would rely on pre-prepared food supplied by an outside vendor yet to be selected.

Commissioners repeatedly cited those operational limitations as an important factor in concluding that the use remained accessory to the broader municipal and community function of the building rather than functioning as a traditional restaurant. The discussion also returned attention to the original planning approvals associated with the Community & Cultural Center project itself.

In May 2023, under the administration of then-First Selectman Beth Heller, the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to refer a portion of the proposed Community & Cultural Center site plan to TPZ for an 8-24 review. The referral involved only parcel 1 on the project diagram — consisting primarily of the former firehouse, its parking and drop-off area, and adjacent outdoor gathering space in the Grove — and did not include the improvements contemplated for the Meetinghouse Lane frontage of the Library and Center Building labeled parcel 2 and 3. Those additional elements were excluded from that specific 8-24 action at that time due to a determination by the Selectmen that insufficient funding was available for those aspects of the project (see diagram below and May 10, 2023 BOS meeting minutes).

Under Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-24, municipalities generally must refer certain proposals involving the acquisition, sale, lease, location, relocation, or substantial improvement of municipal property to the local planning and zoning commission for a report before final action is taken. The process is intended to ensure that significant municipal land-use decisions are reviewed for consistency with local planning objectives and zoning considerations before implementation.

Earlier legal guidance circulated prior to the TPZ meeting had suggested that a standalone for-profit café use on town property could require both a zoning regulation amendment and potentially an additional 8-24 review if tied to a lease or substantial improvement of municipal property. During the meeting, however, the commission instead decided to adopt a narrower interpretation treating the café as an accessory municipal use, avoiding the need for a formal zoning amendment process. The vote for approval was unanimous.

Stein noted that an RFP process for café vendors had already been conducted and that several vendors are currently being evaluated with a selection expected soon.

Regulations in response to new state housing law

The second major work-session topic before the commission involved an extended discussion on Connecticut Public Act 25-1, the newly adopted state housing legislation that will require municipalities to allow certain forms of residential development in areas previously reserved primarily for commercial uses.

Town Planner Mike D’Amato and the commission spent more than an hour discussing how the new law could affect Woodbridge’s zoning regulations, particularly within the town’s business district and other commercial areas.

The discussion reflected both uncertainty and concern as commissioners worked through the implications of legislation that several members described as complex, rapidly enacted, and likely to require significant local regulatory changes ahead of the state’s July 1, 2026 implementation deadline

D’Amato explained that the law will require municipalities to permit residential uses in certain commercial areas and sharply limits the ability of towns to regulate residential density through traditional zoning mechanisms once qualifying housing types are proposed for these areas.

Much of the discussion focused on how Woodbridge might revise its regulations in a way that maintains local design standards and planning oversight while still complying with the state mandate. D’Amato described a likely shift toward more form-based zoning concepts, where towns retain some control over building scale, appearance, setbacks, landscaping, circulation, and site layout, even as use restrictions become more constrained under state law.

Commissioners repeatedly returned to concerns about preserving the town’s already limited commercial tax base while also complying with state housing mandates. One commissioner noted that Woodbridge derives much of its tax revenue from residential property and questioned whether increasing opportunities for residential conversion within commercial districts could further reduce available business space. Discussion included references to underutilized commercial properties, mixed-use redevelopment potential, and the possibility of adding residential units above existing retail spaces within the business district.

Although much of the discussion centered on the future of Woodbridge’s commercial districts, economic development, and preservation of the town’s tax base, no formal input from the Economic Development Commission was referenced publicly during the meeting. The town is currently preparing to fund a new part-time economic development position in the proposed FY2027 budget, though the position has not yet been filled and funding has not yet received final approval.

The discussion also underscored the challenge of aligning the town’s broader long-range planning framework with rapidly evolving state housing mandates. While commissioners repeatedly discussed commercial district viability, mixed-use development, parking and dimensional standards, and possible consolidation of portions of the town’s business-district regulations, no specific guidance from the town’s recently adopted Plan of Conservation and Development appeared to frame the discussion.

Although zoning regulations can be amended without first revising a POCD, members acknowledged the compressed timeline created by the state’s implementation deadline and the need for additional public explanation as draft regulations continue to take shape.

June 1 public hearing scheduled for zoning regulation updates

Although the commission did not take final action on the proposed regulation changes, members voted to schedule a public hearing for June 1 to continue formal review of amendments related to Public Act 25-1.

Commissioners and staff also discussed the need to provide clearer explanatory materials to the public regarding what changes are being proposed, why the accelerated timeline is being driven by state requirements, and which aspects of local zoning authority would remain unchanged under the draft regulations.

Commissioners acknowledged that the proposal is continuing to evolve and discussed the possibility that the public hearing could remain open beyond June 1 if additional revisions or state guidance emerge before the July implementation deadline.

Discussion of alternate-member procedures surfaces during approval of minutes

As the meeting neared conclusion, the commission’s review of prior meeting minutes evolved into a broader procedural discussion regarding the role and participation of alternate members during hearings, deliberations, and voting on land-use applications.

Alternate member Robert Wiznia objected to portions of the draft of the December 18 meeting minutes, arguing they did not fully reflect his earlier concerns regarding the repeated seating of another alternate member during proceedings tied to the 804 Fountain Street application. As Wiznia was not seated as an Alternate for the May 4 meeting — and therefore could not make a motion to amend the minutes — a seated commissioner instead proposed amended language to add that Wiznia had “expressed concern regarding the process that has been followed to seat alternates,” which the commission voted to incorporate into the approved minutes. 

The discussion then turned into a broader exchange involving commissioners and town counsel regarding when alternates may speak, ask questions, deliberate, or otherwise participate in applications when they are not formally seated as voting members. Commissioners referenced differing practices used in past years, including situations where alternates had participated throughout lengthy hearings even when not seated.

Town Attorney Nick Bamonte advised that alternates who are not formally seated should not participate in final deliberations on applications, while acknowledging that commissions may adopt different procedural approaches regarding how alternates are assigned to long-running matters. Several commissioners indicated the issue warrants additional consideration in future discussions in order to establish a clearer and more consistent process going forward.

TPZ meetings are open to the public and recordings can be viewed on the town’s YouTube channel, WGATV79. Click below to watch the full May 4, 2026 meeting recording.