About 25 people attended the Nov. 21 Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z) public hearing for a proposed 12-unit apartment complex with an affordable component at 328 Meadowside Road. Six spoke in opposition to the project, expressing concern about density, water run off and traffic. No one spoke in favor of it.

James Lambert of 18 Great Meadow Drive said the city tax records show that the properties abutting or close to 335 Meadowside Road have a notation of C.I. or commercial influence, resulting in a $10,000 lower property assessment due to their proximity to that multi-unit project.

Lambert said that the project at 335 is 15 units on one acre and this project is 12 units on about half an acre.

“This is simply financial greed,” said Lambert.

Lambert said he “sees issues with water run off” because the property at 328 is elevation 67 feet at Meadowside Road and his adjacent property is elevation 56 feet.

“When the rain comes down, I don’t believe their drain will be sufficient to prevent runoff in a heavy rainfall,” said Lambert.

Adrienne D’Eramo, a resident of Oyster Bay Condominiums in the building closer to this project at 308 Meadowside Road, said there are three sump pumps in the basement of her building and she and is concerned about water runoff. In his presentation, Attorney Thomas Lynch said that there are 40 units at Oyster Bay Condominiums and she corrected him by saying there are two buildings with 36 units each.

D’Eramo also said many people walk along Meadowside Road and said there would be a safety issue with vehicles backing from the property.

Doug Graham of 300 Meadowside Road, which is the Oyster Bay building further away from this project, said he had looked at purchasing the house at 328 Meadowside Road, which he described as a “dump” and said the real estate agent said the property had drainage issues. He said the area already has traffic congestion issues and opposed adding 12 more units to the road.

Susan Glennon of 99 Carlson Drive said she has multiple concerns, including traffic, density and runoff. Glennon said, “The traffic in the immediate area is horrendous.” She said the other multi-family properties in the area are on “appropriate size pieces of property.”

Glennon said the rear of her property and the adjoining property are boggy and said the property at 328 slopes toward her property, and said runoff would be a problem when nature is replaced by asphalt and buildings.

The project is being proposed under the state’s affordable housing statute, commonly referred to by the statute number of 8-30g, which supercedes local zoning regulations. If the P&Z wishes to deny the project, it would have to prove the project poses a hazard to public health, safety or welfare, a threat that outweighs the need for affordable housing.

Area residents opposed a nearby development at 335 Meadowside Road several years ago, and that one has been built. During the June 2015 public hearing, residents asked the board to deny that project, expressing concerns about the density and traffic. In June 2015, the board approved a 15-unit project, a reduction in size from the 18-units proposed.

The city has compiled a list of affordable housing projects that may be read at  http://www.ci.milford.ct.us/sites/milfordct/files/file/file/affordable_housing_inventory_list_sept-17_.pdf