New Haven Independent

So said Susan Campion (at left in file photo), one of the leaders of the citywide movement for protection of residential property owners, after Wednesday night’s City Plan Commission meeting.

At the CPC’s sparsely attended monthly gathering, the long-awaited opinion arrived from the city’s corporation counsel as to whether Public Act No. 06-128 and its language have authority over city zoning laws.

Law No. 06-128 requires the city to establish standards for PDDs, or planned development districts. PDDs are legal instruments created by the city to aid development, usually through overcoming zoning restrictions. They’ve been controversial; in some neighborhoods people feel PDDs become an excuse to allow developers to bypass legitimate public restrictions.

The debate was spawned by the expansion of Anthony’s Ocean View Restaurant parking lot, which galvanized citizens to form the Citywide Planned Development Collaborative. The group championed the creation of 06-128 and its inclusion in the rewrites to Section 65 of the zoning ordinance. That rewrite is currently being undertaken by City Plan staff to smooth the path of economic development in the city.

The law was passed in June with the help of the state’s legislative delegation, with notable leadership from State Representative Robert Megna . It passed following a State Supreme Court decision of a month prior that upheld the city’s contention that its conduct in the case of Anthony’s in creating a PDD was lawful.

Over the months and years of debate in the matter at various city forums, a number of officials, including those charged with the city’s ecnomic development policies, have opposed the new law or its inclusion in the city’s codes. Deputy Economic Development DIrector, Chrissy Bonanno, for example, has said the city’s ordinances as they currently exist have protections enough and sufficient scrutiny of PDDs.

But citizen activists such as Susan Campion contended that 06-128 should be binding and its language included in city code because it specifically protects against the expansion of a non-conforming use (like a parking lot in a residential neighborhood) and makes for a more stringent public review process.

For six months the commissioners have been awaiting a legal opinion before proceeding with their recommendations to the Board of Aldermen. That opinion arrived Wednesday night.

The corporation counsel’s subcontracted attorneys, from the Hartford firm of Robinson & Cole, essentially agreed with Campion. They presented their findings to the commissioners as part of the ongoing public hearing on the rewriting of section 65 and other zoning ordinances.

That opinion reads in part: “… no planned development district may be approved which would permit a use or authorize the expansion of a preexisting non-conforming use where the underlying zone is a residential zone.”

City Plan chief, Karyn Gilvarg, said, in an email following the meeting, that she thinks “the opinion speaks for itself.”

She added that “PDDs have been and will continue to be an important tool for mixed use development, now popularly known as sustainable, responsible growth, and/or transit-oriented, affordable housing, and adaptive reuse of historic building development.”

Campion said of the ruling that there were no fireworks, but an important page has been turned. She reiterated that her organization’s aims are not only to protect residential property owners but also, through thoughtful PDDs, to help the city forge ahead in its economic development.

“The city is in a far different place than we were four years ago,” she said. “With the foreclosures and public safety issues, the city is in a grave financial crisis, and there has never been a better time for the will and commitment of city residents to engage and move ahead. And this will help enormously.”

Next steps? The hearing continues. Campion said she would like to see, in the next phase, CPC staff engage in a discussion of her organization’s own draft of the applicable zoning ordinances, now that 06-128’s language has authority.

Gilvarg added: “The commission chair did say they would schedule further public testimony at a future date.”