Vessel Technologies submitted a site plan application on Nov. 4, 2025 for a multi-family development at 29 Highland Street in West Hartford that has been denied by the town planner based.

By Ronni Newton

A site plan application submitted by Vessel Technologies to the Town of West Hartford on Nov. 4, 2025, requesting approval to construct a multifamily development at 29 Highland Street, was denied by Town Planner Todd Dumais on Jan. 16, 2026.

The Nov. 4 site plan application, made pursuant to Section 8-30g of the Connecticut General Statutes, was for the construction of two five-story buildings, with a total of 120 apartment units at the 29 Highland Street property for which Vessel has a purchase and sale contract in place that is contingent on approval of the project. Pursuant to 8-30g requirements, the plans indicated that 30% of the units (36 units) would be deed-restricted as affordable housing to those earning 80% or less than the area median income (AMI).

On April 29, 2025, Vessel Technologies withdrew its initial application for a project requesting rezoning and creation of a Special Development District that in its final iteration proposed 108 units of multifamily housing at that same 29 Highland Street property. The application was withdrawn just hours before what would been the fourth installment of a public hearing on the proposal. That application, also made pursuant to 8-30g, would have included 32 deed-restricted units of affordable housing.

The most recent Vessel application was submitted as a site plan, rather than a Special Development District, and therefore was subject to administrative approval by the Town Planner’s Office rather than the SDD process requiring a public hearing and Town Council approval.

Denial of the Nov. 4, 2025 site plan application was made on several grounds, and the 10-page letter from Dumais, dated Jan. 16, 2026, contains hundreds of pages of back-up data and correspondence, including information related to consideration of the previous application.

“The Town Planner’s decision on this application followed a careful and comprehensive review against applicable land use regulations, health and safety standards, and state and local requirements,” Town Manager Rick Ledwith said late Friday in a statement in response to a request for comment from We-Ha.com. “West Hartford has a well-established and demonstrated commitment to supporting affordable housing, as reflected in the Town’s approval of multiple affordable and mixed-income developments in recent years. That commitment remains unwavering, and the Town continues to strongly support the development of affordable housing at this location. At the same time, the Town has a responsibility to ensure that every housing development meets fundamental standards for health and safety that protect future residents and the broader community.”

The major grounds for denial are elaborated on in depth in Dumais’ Jan. 16 letter – a copy of which was obtained by We-Ha.com through a Freedom of Information request – and state that the application does not qualify as a set-aside development under 8-30g, and it is not in compliance with zoning ordinances and therefore is ineligible for site plan approval. Even if it were to be determined that the application qualified for the protections of 8-30g, and deemed eligible for site plan approval, Dumais said in his letter, “denial would nevertheless be required to protect substantial public interests in health, safety, and other matters that clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing and cannot be protected by reasonable changes.”

8-30g?

The application does not qualify as an “affordable housing development” under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g, West Hartford officials state, because there is an absence in the application of detailed floor plans indicating that the buildings contain what would legally be considered dwelling units, which include “permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.”

While there were bathroom facilities indicated in the prior application by Vessel – the one that was withdrawn in April 2025 – the State Building Inspector and State Fire Marshal advised Vessel in a letter dated July 15, 2025, that the design violated State Building Code because the egress between the front of the unit and rear of the unit passed through a “hallway” in between portions of the bathroom facilities. Copies of that letter were sent to building departments in all Connecticut towns where Vessel had a project under construction or an active application – although not to West Hartford because there was not an active application in July. A copy of that letter was obtained by We-Ha.com from the state Department of Administrative Services (DAS) through an FOI request.

Aimee Krauss, director of health for the West Hartford-Bloomfield Health District, stated in her review of the application that in accordance with town code, a “bathroom or water closet compartment shall not be used as the only passageway to any habitable room, hall, basement or cellar or to the exterior of the dwelling unit.”

In the application submitted to West Hartford on Nov. 4, there are also no permanent provisions shown in the plans for cooking, which are required in a dwelling unit.

In addition, Dumais wrote, the site plan application fails to “demonstrate sanitary sewer adequacy and capacity.” In the application that was withdrawn in April 2025, the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) had provided feedback, submitted by Vessel as part of that application, that noted “sewer capacity is insufficient absent specified inflow and infiltration reductions by the Applicant at its expense,” but Dumais’ Jan. 16 denial letter states that there has not been any updated analysis provided and the most recent application is for a “more intensive use” since there are a greater number of proposed units.

“Accordingly, while § 8-30g limits municipal discretion once a qualifying application is established, it does not compel approval of an application that, on its face, fails to demonstrate the existence of habitable dwelling units or that raises unresolved and material questions concerning basic code compliance, constructability, and public health and safety. An application that omits essential information necessary to determine whether statutory prerequisites are met does not qualify for the protections of § 8-30g and may properly be denied on that basis alone,” Dumais’ letter states.

Zone change requirement

The 29 Highland Street property is zoned RI, and while Dumais notes in his letter that under state statute a zone change is not required “in order to secure approval of a site plan for a qualifying affordable housing development,” the most recent application by Vessel does not qualify for those 8-30g protections.

“Accordingly, § 177-42.B of the Town Code requires that site plan approval may be granted only where ‘the requirements of the zoning chapter are met in fact.’ The Application does not comply with the requirements of the Residence-Institutional (RI) District, including but not limited to the provisions identified below, and is therefore ineligible for site plan approval and denial of this Application is warranted.” The most signficant of identified provisions is that multifamily dwellings are not permitted in that zone.

Denial due to unresolved health and safety concerns

Even if the application qualified under 8-30g, and otherwise met the criteria in West Hartford’s town code as being eligible for site plan approval, Dumais said “denial would nevertheless be required” due to significant health and safety concerns that had not been addressed, and which outweigh the need for affordable housing.

When the previous application was withdrawn in April 2025, town staff had expressed concern about the ability of Vessel to meet Connecticut’s fire safety and fire prevention codes – particularly with respect to corridors and stairwells – due to the modular and prefabricated construction process that may limit design modifications.

Dumais notes that the July 15, 2025 letter from DAS, signed by State Fire Marshal Lauri Volkert and State Building Inspector Omarys Vasqyez, “identifies “’discrepancies, omissions, and inconsistencies that raise questions regarding code compliance and constructability’ with respect to similar Vessel projects proposed in other municipalities.”

The Nov. 4 site plan application relies on those same designs and construction methods as being used in other towns, and no specific information about how those issues – which Dumais said are “not theoretical” – are being addressed was provided to the town in the site plan application, he said.

In a document entitled “The Vessel Building and our Development Approach” accompanying the Nov. 4 application, which was submitted by Jason A. Klein, a partner with Stamford-based Carmody, Torrance, Sandak, Hennessey LLP, who is now representing Vessel, it was noted that other Vessel projects “based on a similar but not identical design” had received building permits in other towns, and stated that subsequently issues raised by DAS in July “have been addressed either through modifications to the code or technical/interior modifications to the building design” without leading to “any increases in building massing, height or coverage, or number of apartments. This process of plan review, comment, and adjustment is conducted with respect to every new construction project and ultimately leads to agreement as to a final, better building design.” The document submitted on behalf of Vessel further states that the project “will of course comply with all applicable code to the satisfaction of West Hartford’s and the State of Connecticut’s code officials. In no instance would these technical refinements lead to an increase in building massing, height or density.”

The letter from DAS on July 15 was prompted by a request from the Town of Cheshire’s building official to the Office of the State Building Inspector and Office of the State Fire Marshal for review of several questions specific to the Vessel Technologies development at 10 Realty Drive. Dumais states in his letter that Cheshire’s building official has issued a “Stop All Work” order.

Cheshire Building Official Thomas Lozier confirmed to We-Ha.com in a phone conversation that as indicated on the town’s website, “everything is on hold now” with the exception of two electrical permits for generators. “We are working closely with the owner [Vessel] to resolve any outstanding issues to get the project back on track,” Lozier said, adding that any further requests for comment would need to be referred to the town manager or attorney.

Cheshire first issued permits in 2023, and years later there are still unresolved issues that Dumais said “raises substantial questions as to whether the Applicant’s prefabricated construction system can be implemented in a safe and code-compliant manner, or will necessitate significant design changes.”

Dumais said Vessel withdrew the earlier application without addressing fire safety issues, including significant concern about the open flooring in the corridors, and many of the town’s concerns have been substantiated by DAS and have not yet been addressed.

West Hartford Fire Chief Greg Priest stated in a memo accompanying Dumais’ denial letter that when Vessel withdrew its previous application, there were unresolved fire safety concerns. The withdrawal of that application stated in part that “[t]his withdrawal is submitted after much deliberation and in respect of valuable insights received from the Town’s administrative staff. The Applicant believes the proposed development will benefit from additional time to consider and improve upon certain design elements of its proposal.”

Priest said in his Jan. 16, 2026 memo: “Therefore, because my original concerns were not resolved, they remain not only relevant but also heightened by the addition of a floor, increased occupancy, and the lack of additional detail in the application. This is especially relevant in the context of their assertion in their withdrawal that they would be improving upon certain design elements.”

Due to the complexity of the issues and the unique building construction, the towns sought and obtained a review of the Nov. 4 application as well as previously submitted information and information from the State Fire Marshal and State Building Inspector, by an unbiased third-party expert, SLS Boston Design (Socotec).

The consultant validated Priest’s concerns regarding the open floor design, noting that “An arrangement that allows direct communication between the egress corridors on each level thus allowing smoke and heat movement freely is contrary to the goals and objectives of not only the state code requirements, but requirements in any code that deals with occupant life safety.”

Because the floors “communicate” in the open floor design, there remain concerns about areas of refuge for occupants who cannot evacuate in the event of a fire.

Concerns remain that despite Vessel’s statement that the building would be “fully-sprinklered,” the application does not provide detail or address exposure of a sprinkler system to freezing temperatures or the adequacy of water pressure to upper floors. Priest also has concerns that the application does not address such as storage areas for micro-mobility devices that rely on lithium-ion batteries, which create fire hazards, and continued concerns related to wall assemblies, site layout, and interior environmental conditions.

Priest, in noting his continued significant concerns with the Vessel application related to fire and life safety, stated that his office received an update Friday from DAS in response to an open Freedom of Information request that his office had submitted. That information had not been directly requested by We-Ha.com, but was provided as one of the attachments to Dumais’ denial letter and was referenced by Priest. The update, an email to Vessel from State Building Official Omarys C. Vasquez dated Jan. 14, 2026, states, “‘During this process, the documentation submitted to date has been inconsistent and, in several instances, incomplete and lacking critical information necessary for a comprehensive code review. These deficiencies have limited our ability, and quite possibly the ability of the local code officials, ot efficiently evaluate the proposed work for compliance with the applicable codes.”

Traffic and other concerns

Town Engineer Greg Sommer and Assistant Town Engineer Julie Rivera, in a staff memo dated Jan. 16 attached to Dumais’ letter, highlight several concerns not addressed by the application including a need to upgrade the traffic signal at Farmington Avenue and Highland Street to accommodate increased pedestrian activity and for the traffic impact study to identify, assess, and address traffic conditions during the arrival and dismissal periods at Bristow Middle School, which is across the street from 29 Highland.

Future plans

The most recent reporting, which is for 2024, indicates that 8.04% of West Hartford’s housing stock is “affordable, but that does not include projects that were completed in 2025, including the 44 units at The Camelot and additional units at West Hartford Fellowship Housing, and it’s expected that the percentage indicated in the Affordable Housing Appeals List will rise to roughly 9%. Units that have been approved, even if under construction, are not included, but once they are completed and granted certificates of occupancy the total will be roughly 10% of the town’s housing stock, Dumais said in an April 28, 2025 email.

In his Jan. 16, 2026 denial of Vessel’s application, Dumais states that he agrees with Vessel’s attorney, Jason Klein, that the 29 Highland Street property “would be a strong location for multifamily residential development based on several contextual factors, including that it is not located within a historic district, is directly adjacent to an existing multifamily residential property, and is in close proximity to downtown West Hartford and existing mass transit.” Dumais states that concerns, however, remain with this application which, if they could be addressed at all, “would materially postpone – rather than advance – the delivery of affordable housing at this location.”

West Hartford will soon reach, and exceed, the threshold of 10% affordable housing that requires a municipality to be subject to statute 8-30g, Dumais said.

Approval of the Vessel application would “materially frustrate” the town’s plans to advance affordable housing at 29 Highland due to the “substantial public health and safety concerns,” Dumais said.

In concluding the denial letter, he stated, “For the foregoing reasons, the Application is denied. Each ground stated herein constitutes an independent and sufficient basis for denial. Moreover, even to the extent that any individual public health, safety, or other concerns identified in the record could be mitigated in isolation, the cumulative scope, number, interrelated nature, and seriousness of those concerns are so substantial that no practicable condition, modification, or mitigation measure exists that would adequately protect those public interests.”

The denial was transmitted to Vessel’s representative, Jason A. Klein, a partner with Stamford-based Carmody, Torrance, Sandak, Hennessey LLP, on Friday afternoon. While there has been no official indication of next steps, a company spokesperson for Vessel told We-Ha.com, “Vessel is intent on partnering with West Hartford in good faith to bring this community forward.”

The spokesperson indicated that Vessel will take the next 15 days “to digest the town’s letter, respond, and continue to move forward.”

Klein sent a letter to Dumais dated Jan. 14, 2026, as Vessel was awaiting the town’s decision on the site plan application, that he said was intended to “memorialize the complete history associated with Vessel’s proposed redevelopment of the Property so that the record accurately reflect both the chronology of events and the good-faith efforts undertaken throughout this process.”

While much of the chronology is also reflected documents attached to Dumais’ denial letter, Vessel and town staff are at odds regarding some of the issues, including that it’s speculative to assume Vessel will not comply with fire codes. “The prohibition against relying on speculation of future harm is not limited to the context of an affordable housing development filed pursuant to the Statute [8-30g],” Klein’s letter states.

Klein also states that Vessel “reiterated its willingness to meet at the Town’s convenience and to respond promptly to any feedback or requested revisions” to the site plan application while it was under review, but had not as of that date “received any subsequent substantive feedback.”

Vessel continues to pursue projects throughout the state, including in Simsbury, Avon, and Rocky Hill, and earlier this month reached a court-approved settlement with the Town of Bethel for a development that was smaller than originally proposed.

“We’re excited to have reached an agreement with the Town of Bethel on plans for a new Vessel development, reflecting a true partnership to tackle the housing crisis while thoughtfully honoring the character and beauty of one of America’s classic historic communities,” Vessel Executive Vice President Josh Levy said in a statement shared with We-Ha.com. “Planning and Zoning Commissions play an essential role in shaping the future of their communities, and Bethel’s Commission acted with openness, foresight, and conviction in working with us to make this agreement possible. Over several months of constructive dialogue, the Commission clarified the community’s values, and Vessel adapted our plan to honor them. We look forward to delivering homes to teachers, healthcare workers, first responders, service professionals, and young people who want to live in Bethel.”

The Town of West Hartford will in the future look to amend the process of review of any future site plan applications that are subject section 8-30g of the Connecticut General Statutes. A proposed ordinance, received by the Town Council at its Jan. 13, 2026 meeting and set for public hearing on Feb. 24, 2026 at 7:15 p.m., will require Town Council review of any site plan application submitted under 8-30g that does not conform to existing zoning.

The ordinance that will be considered states, in part, that the Town Council, “as the elected governing body, is better positioned to weigh these broader policy considerations, ensure public transparency, and determine whether a denial is necessary to protect substantial public interests in health and safety or that public interests clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing.”

Like what you see here? Click here to subscribe to We-Ha’s newsletter so you’ll always be in the know about what’s happening in West Hartford! Click the blue button below to become a supporter of We-Ha.com and our efforts to continue producing quality journalism.