New Haven Independent

Posted by: east rock resident | February 27, 2007 10:39 AM

I appreciate Alderman lamar's viewpoint that the PDD process was the best way for a neighborhood to decide what it wanted to see and to then hold a developer to that higher standard, but he overlooks just how frequently the City abused the process and steamrolled irresponsible development through. Alderman Lamar talks about what we have lost as the only real power a neighborhood had to truly influence a developer to create a project that a community wanted to see, and he is right that we have usurped some of our own power, but it was the only way to prevent DeStefano from continuing to push through stupid development. In an ideal world, Alderman Lamar is right, the PDD would be a great tool for neighborhoods to have, but we don't live in that ideal world, we live in DeStefano's New Haven. He might have a better ideal for what the PDD function could have been, but everytime he talks about how great of a tool it was, he ends up sounding just like another tool of the DeStefano machine. Roland, let it go, your friends in the DeStefano machine crushed any positive impacts you think that the PDD's could have had. You think your coming from the right place on this, but what you would have occur would be bad for New haven.

Posted by: ROBN | February 27, 2007 1:20 PM

Alderperson Lemar's should look closer to home and not be so bullish about local control. His East Rock neighborhood recently acquired a parking lot next to Nica's market, dramatically altering the residential fabric of that neighborhood (in a bad way...the lot is an eyesore and should be removed). Solving a traffic problem by destroying greenspace (or rendering useless a buildable residential lot) is no way to "manage" a neighborhood. This is a crystal clear example of local control gone bad. Instead of making a decision based upon the interests of the neighborhood as a whole, the city's decision benefitted only a single private business.

Posted by: Not the point | February 27, 2007 2:07 PM

East Rock Resident & Robn -

I agree with you that Roland is on the wrong side of this, but you are completly misrepresenting his view, as far as I understand it. He is neither backing the administration or saying that the parking lot next to Nica's is a good thing. In fact, he is saying the opposite - that the only way a neighborhood can protect itself from its own outdated zoning ordinance, or from the Board of Zoning Appeals politically motivated decisions or from the will of the administration, is through the power of the PDD. And he is right from a theoretical standppoint - in theory, the PDD should be his type of neighborhoods savior as everything we love about East Rock is technically illegal under the City 's own zoning ordinance and I think he sees the PDD as the most legitimate option to create neighborhood sensitive development. Where he is off base is in assuming that his neighbors or local community groups have the power to fight against the wishes of the BZA or John DeStefano. Roland sees the example of Nica's parking lot as the perfect example of what happens when you allow the current zoning ordinance and the BZA process to govern development - he is right that a type of planned development district would have created a better outcome, he is right that if a PDD had been applied to Nica's, we would have gotten much better development that was more neighborhood friendly and he is right in most regards about the positive attributes of the PDD. Where he is grossly and dangerously wrong is in his assessment that we should continue to grant this City the authority to safeguard our rights and properly administer the use of the PDD. His conceptual position is undermined by the reality of the situation.

Posted by: -- | February 27, 2007 3:12 PM

why is it that the sidewalk in front of Nicas is still being used as a driveway?

Posted by: Edwards street | February 27, 2007 4:52 PM

This is great stuff! The New Haven Indepedent's uncomfortable love affair with Roland Lemar being coupled with Lemar's attempts to empower those whiny East Rockers leads to the inevitable liberal conclusion. The Whiny East Rockers using their access to the media to eviscerate their most effective champion because he has a "theoretical" difference of opinion. I love New Haven.

Posted by: Esbe | February 27, 2007 4:59 PM

Wow, I have to say that I am completely confused by this issue. I can certainly see the argument that we want standards and public input into PDDs. If this process in the ends gives us a more transparent PDD process then that's great.

But in the meantime, there is nothing here, I gather, that would prevent the city from simply re-zoning whole areas, which is much worse than a PDD.

To avoid a PDD, the new Yale-NH hospital building involved a re-zoning that gives the public much less control over current and future uses.

And can't the city build the new Hooker School simply by re-zoning a huge swath of Whitney? And do you think that's actually better?

Similarly, Nica's parking lot did *not* involve a PDD, an alternative that would have involved *more* public input.

Zoning is too crude a tool, but if that is all the city has to use, it is going to use it, as we already see. The city has to change over time, and that requires something like a PDD -- isn't that why legislators from other cities apparently refused to make the law apply to their own cities and towns?

Maybe I am missing something big here -- I am sure that you will all enlighten me.

Posted by: learning zoning the hard way | February 27, 2007 9:15 PM

When is the City going fill the zoning position at city plan?

Posted by: Bruce | February 28, 2007 8:31 AM

While this is getting a bit off topic, I'm glad Nica's put in that parking lot. I called all the East Rock aldermen and asked them to help approve that lot. I was sick and tired of standing in the middle of the street because of all of the cars and delivery trucks parking in my bus stop every morning. Traffic was becoming hazardous in front of that store and it badly needed more parking. I don't think it looks bad at all. It looks like a grocery with a parking lot.

Posted by: Evan | February 28, 2007 11:01 AM

I think Bruce hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of people I've run into (especially those with young children) are excited about the lot.

Posted by: Chrissy Bonanno | February 28, 2007 11:51 AM

I want to clarify a few things in regard to the City of New Haven's position on this debate. While the collaborative argues the new state law offers New Haven neighborhoods the same protections as neighborhoods in Bridgeport and elsewhere, in fact it singles New Haven out as the only community in the entire state which is so limited. PDDs are a common place zoning tool in many other municipalities and some of those that do not currently have the ability to create flexible mixed use zoning are currently seeking it to enable mixed use development, and often affordable housing.

The recent proposal to re-develop the Star Supply site is instructive. The site is large enough to be a PDD, but the developers were reluctant to use the flexible zoning tool because of the amendment. A small portion of the site is in a residential zone and could potentially have limited the entire 3 acre site to residential only at low density, not allowing the mixed uses - including retail, and art gallery and restaurants, the developers sought to continue the neighborhood and community retail services found along State Street. The portion of residentially zoned land also would have limited the increase in density needed to make the project financially feasible (and by the way support transit in the area, allow environmental cleanup of the site, and avoid greenfield development -known as sprawl- elsewhere inthe region).

The developers applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (5 members) , and had only one public hearing in much tighter time frame than the PDD provides; instead of two public hearings, one at the City Plan Commission (7 members) and one at the Board of Alderman (30 members), as required in the PDD process. Architectural design review is not normally part of the process for BZA applications, nor is a traffic study, which is required of all PDD applicants. Clearly a simpler, shorter process for the developer, but much less ability for the neighborhood to comment on all aspects of the project.

Posted by: robn | February 28, 2007 2:27 PM

Bruce and Evan,

Nica's chose East Rock neighborhood, not the other way around. They shouldn't have be granteed something that harms the historic character of the neighborhood becuase their customers have bad double parking habits. I agree that the traffic problem was a problem (and still is to some extent), but that is a problem that can solved by better traffic enforcement, not more asphalt. Its also a problem that could be solved if locals who leave work drive HOME first and then walk back 10 or 15 minutes to Nicas for groceries.

Posted by: maureen nowak | February 28, 2007 3:07 PM

In a perfect world, a PDD is a great zoning tool.
But New Haven is a one party town, there is no
"due process" or true debate by it's aldermen when it comes to zoning issues. The "due process" is more like "follow the leader syndrome". The new law, Public Act 06-128, is the only protection neighborhoods have against the misuse of the PDD by this administration. Let us thank Susan Campion and a few others that have stopped the destruction of New Haven's neighborhoods.

Posted by: Steve | February 28, 2007 4:07 PM

This response is directed to Chrissy Bonanno and Roland Lemar. Let me begin by stating for the record, that Public Act 128, aka "THE LAW", was supported by the entire New Haven Delegation. The State Legisative Body unanimously approved this legislation in response to hours of public testimony that clearly made the case, that Mayor and the city administrative officals where abusing the zoning powers granted to them by the State.

PA 128 was signed into law on May 12, 2006. The City Administration nor the Board of Alderman have chosen to come forward to address the need for changing Section 65 of the Zoning Regulations. They have chosen NOT to open a public dialogue to create new standards and parameters of PDD"s. Once again, they refuse to listen to the direction from the State Legislature and the voices of it's residential neighorhoods. The hope is that, the previous abuse of land owners of New Haven is over.

The PDD has been a good zoning tool when used by those who respected the rights of home owners, neighborhoods and community. This administration has used the PDD to strike backroom deals with the few and ignore public input from those who are most affected by thier blind approvals. Chrissy and Roland would have you lend an ear to their pleading of the need for this tool but will not speak to the abuses that the same old powers still support and favor. Star Supply was not a victim of this PDD legislation and if you argue it was then you have to accept that the PDD tool is no longer available, in that case, because of the City's land use abuses.

Rather than come to tables and begin conversations of how we should shape and preserve our neighborhoods and communities, the City's focuses on challenging this law in the legal arena. They think nothing of spending $500,000 on outside legal fees, funded by our tax dollars.

Has Chrissy Bonanno or Roland Lemar ever asked you what was important to you in your neighborhood, what are the most important characteristics and texture of your street? How they could best represent your views in land use issues, if asked, would they would feel the same way to the an outcry from another community that was being bulldozed for the sake of a filling a business owners pockets.

The "LAND USE BULLIES" are crying foul because they have been called on "Abuses of Power".

Posted by: east rock resident | March 1, 2007 10:14 AM

Steve- Good points, but don't shoot the wrong messenger.

Roland isn't the bad guy on this (I'm not sure about Chrissy) Roland always asks about the neighborhoods input and views on a particular development and I'm pretty sure that if he were the one administering the PDD, we would be much better of. But he's not and he can't keep his City Hall buddies in line, so we are forced to confront him on that part of this debate. I will partially agree with the sentiment of Edwards Street in his above post- publiclly attacking Roland on this is dumb- he is one of the few allies we have downtown and we are just pissed that we can't convince him to see our side on this issue. He isn't the problem, he is actually right if you think about this from the standpoint of responsible public policy. He is wrong when you recognize how often those in New Haven abuse the power.

Posted by: Jonathan Knisely | March 2, 2007 1:05 PM

John DeStefano's administration serially abused residential neighborhoods with the PDD process. The administrative restraints that existed to protect neighborhoods were clearly inadequate with the folks appointed by hizzoner to the City Plan Commission and elected to the Board of Aldermen.

The School Construction Program is examplary. They are willing to do whatever, wherever, for the sake of the children. Destroy a residential neighborhood to put a new school in--they saw no problem with that. Shoehorn a colossal school onto a site too small for the building footprint, necessitating a change in the city zoning map and zoning text--they had no problem with it, and neither did the yes-men and women on the City Plan Commission and the Board of Aldermen.

Traffic plans need to be approved for a misconceived PDD-requiring project? Find a compliant firm to 'do a study' and then state that there'll be no impact. The firm knows that if they want more New Haven business, they've got to toe the line.

That's why the city's keys to the PDD process were taken away by the state legislature. You guys couldn't be trusted with the process. It is so similar to what we have witnessed over the past 6 years in Washington, DC, with our elected representatives (are you listening, Mr. Lieberman?) being unwilling to heed the voices of the voters, and to serve as a counterbalance to unchecked executive power.

In following the Star Supply development issues, it might have been nice to have had a different process to use than the one that was followed, but, the playing field changed.

The city should stop wasting time, money, and effort trying to repeal Public Act 06-128 until they can show that they can behave like rational adults. Having more than one political party would be a boon in a situation like this...but it isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

Plaudits to Representative Megna and the rest of the New Haven delegation for getting this vital check on the abusive powers of the New Haven city government. Bouquets to Susan Campion, too.