New Haven Independent

The “it” referred to in these competing claims is a small but controversial change in a zoning ordinance related to parking lots and garages, which was debated at Wednesday’s public hearing of the City Plan Commission.

The proposed change would require a new special permit for developers putting in parking lots or structures for 200 or more spaces. Born of New Haveners’ ongoing distress and obsession with parking and the effect of new garages on established neighborhoods, the amendment to the law was written by Board of Aldermen President Carl Goldfield and presented to the commissioners by Karyn Gilvarg (pictured above), chief of the City Plan Department.

“It simply states,” said Gilvarg, “that in addition to a site plan review, which is currently required, with a public hearing being optional, that we have a new special permit. By means of the permit, we’re requiring that, for example, a traffic study be done, which is not currently part of the law, and that community input be honored. These are often large structures we’re talking about, and the amendments ask that the developers consider issues such as aesthetic impact on a neighborhood as well, among other factors.”

“But in my view,” testified Jim Segaloff, an attorney who frequently represents developers, “the proposed legislation places a new and onerous burden on developers. There are six conditions that have to be met, and the language is murky too.”

Among the conditions Segaloff pointed out and termed onerous, as he leafed through the pages, was item “H” in a list of “A” to “I.” “I” states that “use and site design will not have a detrimental effect on property values…”

Another of the conditions, he complained, refers to the parking structure being “compatible” with the surrounding area.

“Look,” he said, “how many people love parking garages? How many find them aesthetically pleasing? They can be nice, but… really. The language here is such that people who have invested money in a project, and may even have built a building, will now encounter objections from a lot of new quarters. Right now the process, with the site review, and working with City Plan, and even with the state, whose monitoring does kick in with very many garage projects, is sufficient. What they’re proposing here opens up a whole new front of potential objections. Developers like to know what to expect. Such surprises can be upsetting, and chilling.”

One such developer, who was waiting in the wings outside the aldermanic meeting rooms while his lawyer, Segaloff, presented his case, is William Smith. Smith is the director of development and construction for Intercontinental Developers, Inc, which, along with partners, owns 17 parcels of land in the area bounded by Howard, Legion, Sylvan, and Ward streets in the Hill. Intercontinental is also the developer of “Lot E” at North Frontage, Legion, and Dwight.

“We’ve invested already about $10 million in New Haven to purchase these properties,” Smith said, “and we think the regulations are just fine as they are. In addition to the city’s site plan review, which is considerable, there already is oversight from the state, through STC (State Traffic Control), which kicks in whenever a project is 100,000 square feet or offers 200 new parking spaces. With these new proposals, we’re going to have two agencies, the state and now here, asking for traffic studies and who knows what else.”

“Look,” elaborated Smith, whose company has built projects in downtown Providence among other places, “look around the medical area, for example. I count about 7,200 parking spaces, and many of those on the surface, lots. That’s taking up a significant amount of land that could be used for tax-paying development, mixed use and provide a lot of income for the city, if we can get the parking in new elevated structures. It just makes so much sense, but if there are all these objections from the community ….and, by the way, for our projects on Legion Avenue we have had long talks with [Alderwoman] Jackie James, and to suggest that there’s no community input isn’t so. We want to make money, of course, but we want to make the community satisfied as well.”

Segaloff went on to say that the non-profit builder of city parking facilities, the New Haven Parking Authority, might have the same concerns. William Kilpatrick, executive director of the authority (pictured between Smith and Segaloff), indeed asked Gilvarg if the regulations applied to him. The answer came in the affirmative.

Was Kilpatrick’s response in line with the private developers’? “I’ll withhold opinion,” he answered, “at the present time.”

Segaloff, however, wasn’t withholding his opinion. Polite, full of praise for the professionalism of Gilvarg and city staff, Segaloff nevertheless was sounding the first notes of alarm if the amendments were passed as written. “Building a parking garage is not a cheap business. It costs approximately $18,000 to $20,000 per spot is the way it works out. And people may not love them, but people are crying out for garages. In fact, the Howard and Legion areas have been identified by city studies themselves as good sites to help alleviate the problem. I mean I was visiting someone at the hospital yesterday, and I drove around for 20 minutes looking for a spot. If building a garage is now going to require a special permit, clients such as Intercontinental, who came to New Haven not expecting anything like this, may have second thoughts, and go elsewhere.”

Smith agreed, and more. “This legislation could effect not just us but every large project in the city. If you build a market, for instance, and then your parking for it is denied, that’s serious. Our investors would definitely have thought differently about New Haven had we known something like this was in the works.”

Chicken Little-ism Unmasked?

Gilvarg pooh-poohed such draconian predictions.

“First of all,” she said, “other municipalities are far more restrictive than we are. Our regulations in this regard are simply wide open. STC often doesn’t kick in if the project, for example, is far enough away from a major highway, so this is needed. They’re right, of course, about the need to get rid of all those surface lots, a consolidation, and for the land to generate taxable income for the city, but don’t the neighborhoods have a right for input?”

In the end, Gilvarg expressed gratitude for points Segaloff had made about the need to clarify language and to remove some of the ambiguity of the conditions. “We’ll certainly tweak the language, but if they think the Board of Aldermen is going to walk away from neighborhood concerns and neighborhood input connected to these large parking structures, they’re mistaken.”

Once rewritten, the amendment will have to go through various levels of scrutiny, including BOA committees. Gilvarg asked for the hearing process to be kept open, which pleased Segaloff. But the parking garage gauntlet had been thrown.