New Haven Independent

Debate sprung up at an aldermanic briefing Thursday over one of the city’s zoning tools, the Planned Development District (PDD). Created by city statute, PDDs are designed to allow the city to carry out major development projects by overruling zoning restrictions.

A State Supreme Court decision in May ruled the city didn’t overreach its powers when it used a PDD to allow Anthony’s Ocean View in Morris Cove to expand. (Click here for background.)

But a public law passed by state legislators in June imposed restrictions on how PDDs can be used, especially in residential zones. According to the law, a PDD can’t be used to expand non-conforming use in a residential zone, like the proposed Hooker School site on Whitney Avenue. And a PDD can’t be used to ease restrictions (on density or height, for example) in a residential zone.

The law includes bizarre specifications that indicate it was crafted solely for New Haven: It applies only to cities which were incorporated in 1784, governed by a board of aldermen and mayor.

Depending on whom you ask, the new law either ties the city’s hands from using a vital zoning tool, or brings a welcome check on abuse of zoning powers.

“It strikes at the city’s fundamental zoning powers,” said City Plan chief Karyn Gilvarg.

“The whole point of this legislation is to protect residents,” countered David Cameron after the meeting. He showed up at the meeting with fellow members of the City-Wide Planned Development District Collaborative, which helped draft the state law. They hope to have input over the city’s next move.

City-hired lawyers from Shipman & Goodwin suggested the city would be lobbying state legislators to “rectify” the state law with the State Supreme Court decision.

In the meantime, Gilvarg said rules are so “foggy” that she’s discouraging developers from pursuing a PDD at all.

Star Supply

East Rock Alderman Ed Mattison criticized the new law for preventing anyone from using PDD zones on top of a residential zone: “Under the guise of legitimizing them, it in fact makes them impossible.”

One place Mattison thinks the PDD would be useful is at the Star Supply site, which developers propose to turn into 139 units of housing. Some neighbors feel it’s too dense, but without a PDD, there’s no required design review.

“We favor the development in general, but we want design standards,” said Mattison.

The site is zoned light industrial, so a PDD could be viable even under new restrictions.

Gilvarg said she spoke with developers about using a PDD for the site, but developers’ time considerations made the option unfavorable.

How About Standards?

Hill Alderman Jorge Perez agreed the PDD could be useful if it were implemented in a consistent, standardized way — instead of in a seemingly haphazard, politically driven manner.

“We should have some standards. Have you given any thought to that?” Perez asked Gilvarg.

“I’ve given a lot of thought to it. I don’t have a conclusion,” came the response.

After the meeting, members of the PDD Collaborative said they hoped the city would proceed in the way Perez suggested.

“I’d like to see what Jorge Perez said: What the city needs is standards,” said Cameron. Some said creating uniform standards would be prohibitively complex, given the variety of projects — from the Quinnipiac Terrace housing project to the Yale New-Haven Cancer Center — that have sought to use a PDD. (The hospital ended up not pursuing a PDD because of the pending legal battle).

Cameron said he believes standardization could be done — at least in some areas, such as noise, air pollution and lighting. He hoped his group could participate in such a dialogue along with the city.

Cameron’s counterparts said as much, more forcefully.

“You know what this PDD is? A parking lot,” said Susan Campion, confronting city-hired lawyers and Mattison after the meeting. Camption initiated the lawsuit that ended up in State Supreme Court, confronting city-hired lawyers and Mattison after the meeting.

Urban Design League’s Anstress Farwell (pictured in photo at the top of this article, at right, with Paulette Cohen at left) called it “offensive” that the public was barred from asking questions at the meeting, a briefing for aldermen. Farwell said she fears the city would lobby to change the state law without first trying to draft standards.

“Our concern now is that the city of New Haven might not respect what the state law says.”