Vast University Rezoning Proposal Rejected by Zoning Commission 

Following backlash from Middletown residents, a University proposal to rezone 17 parcels on three city streets failed over the summer. 

The proposal, presented to Middletown residents over the course of two meetings, would have allowed the University to demolish Low Rise and construct a larger replacement, and maintain the option to renovate or reconstruct High Rise. It was also intended to extend living spaces across the three streets in an effort to mitigate the campus housing shortage, particularly for sophomores and juniors. 

The plan, which would have reallocated 11 acres, was proffered to prevent forced triples and to extend campus through the development of several green spaces and quads. It would have relocated 40 student beds from elsewhere on campus, and would have affected University properties on William, Church, and High Streets.

The proposal was rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 26, 2026 in a clean 7–0 vote.

The University’s Proposal

The proposal suggested rezoning parcels of University land. The majority of University properties are designated as Institutional Development (ID) areas, which permit buildings up to five stories or 75 feet. Downtown Village District (DVD) areas, however, permit building a maximum of three stories or 36 feet. High and Low Rise, which are zoned as DVD, are notable exceptions to the usual limitations of the area, having preceded the designation of the zone as it currently stands.

Existing regulations currently permit the construction of one- and two-family buildings, churches, and public libraries, and the expansion of High Rise and Low Rise up to double their current size, according to Middletown zoning code. The current zoning standards are intended to protect historic properties of the city. The plan to replace Low Rise involved rezoning multiple parcels from DVD to ID and one parcel from DVD to Mixed Use Commercial.

In a memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Middletown Planning Director Marek Kozikowski said that the University intended to expand residential options and community spaces.

“The preliminary concept includes renovated or replacement student housing, improved accessibility, changes to surface parking, landscaped common areas, pedestrian connections, and possible improvements along William Street,” he said.

All parcels that would have been subject to rezoning were already University-owned, according to the continuance plan presented at the second meeting. Certain properties owned by the University, such as 44 Hamlin Street, cannot be used for educational purposes without the change in zoning.

The proposal sought to align itself with Middletown’s 2030 Plan of Conservation and Development, which outlines four principles that any new development should subscribe to: ensuring that Middletown is thriving, vibrant, connected, and sustainable. The Planning and Zoning Commission determines which projects it approves based on each proposal’s commitment to upholding these principles.

The last major investment in dorm spaces was in 2005, with the construction of Fauver Apartments and Bennet Hall on Foss Hill Drive.

Assistant Planning and Zoning Commissioner Emily McEvoy ’22 said that she and other commissioners, along with the Design Review and Preservation Board, were first introduced to the plan in early July 2026, when University Campus Planner Jeff Murphy took them on a tour of the area to which the changes would apply. McEvoy described the proposal at that stage as a loose proof of concept rather than a fully realized plan.

Throughout July, signs inviting public comment were erected in the affected neighborhoods and the abutting Traverse Square community, a federally subsidized public housing development. The initial meeting on July 23 drew around 30 residents, who provided comments largely critical of the development. The meeting ended at 11 p.m. and considerable public input remained, so a second meeting was scheduled for just over a month later, when the Commission ultimately rejected the proposal. 

The first proposal included plans for the potential demolition of several historic buildings; in the second, those plans were scrapped, and the presentation focused on addressing resident complaints. 

However, the project fell prey to a kind of circular logic: the University is not concretely bound to any promises it makes in its concept maps, and the Commission was unwilling to approve the project and risk the University walking back its promises, since the Commission holds no power over construction once the zone is approved. 

City Pushback

The unanimous rejection of the proposal is a condemnation of the University’s lack of financial and social connection with the city, according to Middletown residents. Mayor Gene Nocera said that tension has boiled over in the past few years, a sentiment which McEvoy echoed.

During the two meetings open for public comment, Middletown residents described the project as a “burden” and “land grab.”

“We were in discussion with the mayor’s office and members of his administration about this plan, about which they were very enthusiastic when we met with them privately,” University President Michael Roth ’78 said. “So, it came as somewhat of a surprise that at the hearing about planning and zoning, they discussed planning and zoning less, and instead discussed other things, like whether workers should be paid a certain amount or if they should be in a union or not, which is not really relevant to the zoning issue.”

Nocera clarified that he supported the plan’s goals and the benefits that the reconfigured green space would provide to the city, but expressed concern with the pressure that city redevelopment and the potential loss of taxable properties could put on the city budget.

“I don’t want the University to feel that the city doesn’t recognize the enormous benefits that we receive from the University being part of our community, as all our citizens, I think, understand,” Nocera said. “But we are at different times now, and we’re both trying to look for ways that the community benefits from our coexistence.”

In May 2026, the Middletown Common Council approved a tax hike of five percent, which council members attributed to inflation and spending pressures. Property taxes comprise the largest share of the city’s revenue. 

“You have that triangulation,” Nocera said. “Property tax increases…you have inflation up around seven percent. You have health benefits at ten, fifteen percent, maybe even higher in some communities. So it’s a tremendous stress on cities now.”

Middletown residents have had a history of discontent with the town-gown relationship. The University’s status as a tax-exempt nonprofit has drawn ire from residents who believe that the University does not contribute to the city enough. Some have advocated for voluntary contributions from the University to the city in lieu of taxes. 

According to Nocera, he proposed that the University pledge $120,000 to support programming at the Oddfellows Playhouse during the last budget cycle, which he said “didn’t materialize.”

There was concern from residents about lost revenue should the University choose to demolish any properties after approval: a concern which McEvoy also expressed. 

“The University continues to explore options for replacing Low Rise and will host a series of student information sessions over the coming semester,” Murphy wrote in a statement to The Argus.  

According to Murphy, the University’s proposal was shared with the Middletown Housing Authority, the Middletown Chamber of Commerce, the Design Review and Preservation Board, and Nocera, as well as the Middletown YMCA, Chabad, the Jewett Center for Community Partnerships, and “a group of neighbors.”

The majority of responses to the plan were concerned not with the project itself but with a perceived lack of community benefits, equitable labor standards, or further engagement with the local community. Middletown residents expressed frustration with a lack of opportunity for public input prior to the hearing.

University students joined residents in voicing reservations about the University’s hiring practices and the absence of union labor for new construction projects. 50 members of the United Student Labor Action Coalition (USLAC) testified or wrote letters against the proposal, citing the University’s “poor” labor practices.

“We need new dorms, but not at the expense of the health, safety, and dignity of the surrounding community,” USLAC member Saul Ferholt-Kahn ’27 said. “Wesleyan has a responsibility to end the exploitation of non-union construction workers, and an opportunity to write a new chapter in its relationship with Middletown.” 

Notably, at the second meeting, Kozikowski and Murphy specified that the Commission should not consider financial contributions and investments or union labor usage when evaluating the application, which McEvoy reiterated in her conversation with The Argus. Conditional decisions are expressly beyond the purview of the Commission and are illegal.

The proposal’s rejection by the Planning and Zoning Commission was unanimous.

“It’s not clear that rezoning is the necessity to meet the need that Wesleyan is talking about of more, newer and improved housing,” McEvoy said.

McEvoy emphasized that the Commission is looking for the University to present an option that is more closely aligned with the 2030 Plan of Conservation and Development.

“We envision a Middletown that is connected [with the University],” McEvoy said. “We want that connection principle to be met, [whether] it’s a rezoning, or if it’s a build using the current regulations. I think they need to demonstrate that commitment to connectivity that they haven’t yet…. The funny thing about the plan is that it actually connected people in their public engagement against Wesleyan’s plan rather than for it, and that was what was really ironic.” 

Future Plans

Following the rejection in August, uncertainty remains regarding the future of the development plan.

“I think that site could use improvement and it would be a great thing, not just for Wesleyan students but for the city,” Roth said. “If the city doesn’t see it that way, then we can’t do it there.”

Roth indicated that there was no official timeline on the project, though proposal documents submitted to the Commission established a goal of construction as early as summer 2029, with occupancy expected by the fall of 2031.

No further conversations have happened between the city and the University since August, according to Nocera.  

“We need to get together and talk,” Nocera said. “I think there’s solutions that can then materialize with the city and the University working together on projects that are beneficial [for] both sides.”

There are limited but remaining spaces in the current ID zone that can be developed. Given that any buildings established prior to the current DVD regulations remain permitted, High and Low Rise can still be redeveloped and have no obligation to conform to the three-story height restrictions. 

In one of the slides presented to Middletown residents, the University depicted an alternative plan that would work within the confines of High and Low Rise expansion, with the buildings pictured as rising to between 56 and 67 feet in height. This alternative would, per the slides, seem inconsistent with Middletown’s goal of reducing city density around the neighboring Traverse Square area.

Crucially, no buildings can be designed until a buildable site is approved. Should the zoning codes be amended, the University intends to partner with the Public Works Department and Middletown Public Transit to develop bus stops and public infrastructure.

As of now, the University is reviewing future options.

Aarushi Bahadur can be reached at abahadur@wesleyan.edu.