New Haven Independent

The exchange took place at a contentious hearing of the City Plan Commission. The hearing pitted preservationist residents against expansionist businessmen over a proposed zoning change that would limit industrial development along the historic Quinnipiac riverfront.

The heat rose enough to defer a vote on the proposal.

Rhodeen spoke in favor of the zoning ordinance map amendment, proposed by fellow Alderman (and City Plan commissioner) Joe Jolly and supported by neighbors out to protect the “historic aspect” of the area. The amendment would change a strip of Quinnipiac Avenue properties from the development-permissive Heavy Industrial (IH) to the more restrictive Marine Commercial (BC) zone — a big step toward “protecting the historic nature of the neighborhood,” Rhodeen said.

Opponents said it would limit the development of businesses key to the local economy, and called it unfair.

“You’ve got me locked in there, between a rock and a hard place,” protested Melillo. He said if he can’t let his industry-bordered riverfront property to a heavy industry tenant, he wouldn’t be able to let it at all. “It would probably sit empty and abandoned and be worse off for the city.” He said he resented the city’s “dumping the change” on people like him without getting business input, and objected to the weight given to the voices of residents brand new to the area.

“You can sell. You’re a capitalist!” said Rhodeen, whose parents fought an expansion of the Ferry Street bridge in the name of historic preservation 30 years ago.

“We’ve owned this property since the ’60s. Who was here first?”

“The Indians were here first, but they weren’t heavy industrial!”

At issue were four specific properties spanning from 392 to 466 Quinnipiac Ave. and including Buckeye pipeline facility and the five-month-old Gateway Terminal facility, along with Melillo’s parcel, said to host a car towing and storage yard and an abandoned house. These plots were picked for rezoning because they meet two criteria: They fall both within the designated Quinnipiac Historic District, and on the waterfront. The proposed change is in line with a years-old Comprehensive Plan of Development based on noise and environmental concerns from neighborhood groups, and a city goal of keeping industrial in balance with residential uses of the historic area.

“So it’s not like we dreamed it up because we were mad at anyone,” said City Plan chief Karyn Gilvarg.

Gilvarg summarized the nut of the zoning argument as between business-owners protesting what they saw as a narrowing of their property rights on the one hand, and residents trying to bring these properties into a “more harmonious relationship” with the neighborhood, on the other. Upriver from Gateway, the Quinnipiac Avenue waterfront is already zoned BC for mixed residential and “water-dependent uses,” like small marinas and oystering facilities.

Rhodeen wasn’t alone in testifying his “complete support for this zoning change” which would “continue to protect the historic nature of the neighborhood” in line with the “clear expectations set for waterfront development by this engaged community.” Other neighbors like Chris Ozyck stood up to “yea” the proposed amendment and “nay” industrial expansion they said would trod on historic sanctity, threaten the upriver estuary, and spoil the singular beauty of this waterfront spot.

Neighbors weren’t out to boot anyone already in place. A change to the BC zone would limit expansion and exclude heavy industry newcomers, but not shut down current businesses, Gilvarg explained. “All of those pre-existing non-conforming uses” would be able to continue, business as usual. “We can’t make them go away by changing the zone. If you were there before, you have a right to remain.”

Business representatives like Kari Olson and Roy Haase for Buckeye Pipeline weren’t appeased. They do an important business, they testified, pumping 30,000 barrels of petroleum from off of barges and tankers in the Quinnipiac River all through central Connecticut and on up to Springfield, Mass. Attorney Olson announced the company’s stance in opposition to the zoning change which “would have an absolutely devastating impact on Buckeye and the vital services it provides.” Calling the Quinnipiac site the “key to the entire pipeline system,” Haase insisted that the company might indeed need to expand one day in response to home heating oil demand. It may need to ramp up leak detection and sulfur-content control. Olson and Haase suggested the city make a special exception for possible Buckeye facility expansion.

But on what grounds? On questions from the commission whether Buckeye was representing itself as a private business or a utility for public consumption, spokesmen were elusive: “It’s a private line, but considered a public utility,” Haase said. The dance seemed an effort to avoid going on record as either a public utility — and signing on for accompanying protections and rules — or not. City Plan has a table of “use categories,” and a “special exception” is a precise classification for uses not analogous to anything on the table. Buckeye dodginess looked like hesitance to commit to a specific use category and its specific stipulations, before company strategy could be hammered out.

Marjorie Shansky (pictured), the lawyer for 430 and 466 Quinnipiac Ave. owner Crosby Realty, made another plug for industry. These Quinnipiac Avenue businesses “are part of the economic base of the city,” she argued, and to restrict growth with “the move of these properties to non-conformity is of dire consequence.”

It was Shansky who made the “procedural observation” that few of the committee members who heard testimony at the first hearing on the issue April 19th were present again Wednesday. “So will you be tabling this issue for later?” Her wish came true: the debate over the zone change will continue at the commission’s next meeting on May 17th.