Stonington — Wednesday night's public forum on a new proposal for the Campbell Grain site in downtown Pawcatuck turned chaotic with First Selectman Danielle Chesebrough and State Sen. Heather Somers, R-18th District, chastising opponents of the project who interrupted speakers and shouted at the developers’ representatives.

WinnDevelopment of Boston held the meeting to get community feedback on the redesign of the development as a 55+ age restricted community. The proposal reduces the square footage of the building by 25%, to 90,000 square feet, addresses concerns about the building’s appearance, maintains 91 of the original 92 proposed parking spaces and reduces the number of units from 82 to 70, most or all of which will be affordable housing, which is housing that is affordable to people who earn 80% or less of the area median income.

Last fall residents rejected a tax break for Winn’s first proposal which called for 82 apartments, some of which would be deemed affordable. the new proposal does not request a tax break.

An hour into the contentious meeting, Chesebrough, who spoke when residents asked to hear from a town representative, pleaded with the crowd.

“I’ll just please ask you guys: civility, kindness, compassion,” Chesebrough said.

She said people have the right to their opinions, and they can disagree, but “we don’t have to be mean to each other. You don’t have to yell at people who come back (to the town), who were brave enough to come back down here. It’s been embarrassing.”

Residents also requested a comment from Somers, who was interrupted numerous times, and chided the crowd saying, “Can you let me finish please? Let’s have some civility and let me finish.”

The majority of the meeting was marked by opponents angrily sharing concerns about the location of the development and charging the development would generate excessive traffic, lacks parking, and would create safety concerns.

One resident expressed concern that “the poor” from across the state would move to the development, and another worried that crime would rise due to economically disadvantaged individuals living in the 55+ community.

They also expressed frustration that Pawcatuck is the location for most of the affordable housing in Stonington.

Chesebrough explained that many other areas of town are not feasible for affordable housing because they lack sewers and land values are so expensive that developers are priced out of affordable housing projects. She added the town has little control over the projects approved under state affordable housing regulations.

She said that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision to cut the town’s proposed 33-page affordable housing plan to five pages, eliminated a housing trust fund that would have given the town more control over affordable housing projects.

Winn representatives did answer questions the residents asked and revealed that the development would be 70-100% affordable housing, with rent scaled based on income. A single individual earning 30% of the area’s median income, $23,000 annually, would pay $600 per month for a one-bedroom unit, and, at 80% of median income, $63,000 per year, rent would be $1,500 per month.

Additionally, the new plan eliminated all three-bedroom units, and initially would reserved a minimum of 50 units for Stonington residents.

Residents said they worried that the development would take away on-street parking for local businesses. But Winn representatives said not only would the development have enough parking for its residents, but part of the lot nearest Coggswell Street would be available for business parking during the day. His would increase the amount of parking currently available downtown.

They also addressed concerns about traffic, saying that by changing the project to a 55+ community, they project a significant reduction in traffic due to many residents being retired. They explained their experience is based on other properties they operate, where many residents will not own a vehicle at all.

The project would generate about $1.4 million in taxes for the town over 10 years compared to the $30,000 it would in its undeveloped state.

Opponents continued to suggest Winn find a different site, and repeatedly stated that they do not want Winn to develop the property. Numerous speakers made clear that the original plan already has a permit, granted in 2020, which appeared to surprise many opponents, who asked if they could take the project to a referendum. When told they could not, many became angry and protested their lack of say in the process.

A slide in Winn’s presentation, that detailed two possible outcomes, made clear what the stakes are for residents. In one, Winn develops the property. In the second, Winn abandons the project and a new developer buys the property and develops the already approved 82-unit building.

“if they don’t buy it, someone else could, and they could not give you the courtesy of being here, they could just go through planning and zoning and build what they want because it’s fully permitted,” Somers said.