New Haven Independent

To build a huge new housing project in West Rock, developers propose using a powerful zoning tool that has been a bone of fierce contention between the city and activist neighbors for eight years.

In 2006, the fight went all the way to the state Supreme Court. It resulted in the passage of a law written just for New Haven.

The question now is how to interpret that law, and what the city will do to finally address a matter that has been stewing on the back burner.

Activist Anstress Farwell (left in photo) and City Plan Director Karyn Gilvarg (right) presented differing responses to those questions, which were raised as an ambitious new proposal landed in front of the City Plan Commission.

Commissioners heard details on Wednesday night of a plan to build 463 new homes in two connected developments in the West Rock neighborhood. The Rockview and Brookside housing developments, several years in the works, will take the place of the ancient and unpopular barracks-style housing projects that were recently torn down.

The plan is a joint venture among the city, the Housing Authority of New Haven, and a private company, Michaels Development. In order to make it happen, the developers are proposing a Planned Development District (PDD), a tool that allows the city to create unique zoning requirements tailored to specific development projects.

The City Plan Commission did not vote on the proposal on Wednesday, tabling it until next month given the complexity of the plan.

The West Rock PDD is the first of two that will test the city. Yale University submitted a PDD proposal last week for the construction of a new School of Management building on Whitney Avenue.

Planned Development Districts have a fraught history in New Haven. The city met with staunch opposition in 2001 when it approved a PDD for Anthony’s Ocean View restaurant in Morris Cove, which sought to expand its catering business by tearing down a half-dozen nearby houses. Neighbors filed suit, arguing that the PDD rules were too vague, that the city was creating a new zoning district for a single property owner, and that the city lacked the legal authority to create such districts. The neighbors won in Appellate Court in 2004, but that decision was overturned by the State Supreme Court in 2006.

Then the state legislature got involved. It passing a law in 2006 that applied only to cities “incorporated in 1784” that are governed by “a mayor and board of aldermen” — i.e., New Haven. The law stated that the city “shall establish standards” for PDDs. Read the law, Public Act No. 06-128, here.

According to legal opinions obtained by the city, the wording of the law does not compel the city to change its ordinances or regulations. According to Anstress Farwell, the city planning activist who led the charge on Anthony’s Ocean View, the law compels the city to come up with clear standards governing all PDDs in the city.

In 2008, Karyn Gilvarg, head of the City Plan Department, drafted amendments to city zoning ordinances covering PDDs. Farwell’s non-profit organization, the Urban Design League, hired a planner to offer revisions to Gilvarg’s draft. The matter came before the City Plan Commission in June 2008 and was tabled. It has appeared as a tabled item on every City Plan Commission agenda since then, while no PDDs had been proposed in New Haven.

Until Wednesday night — when a new PDD proposal opened the legal can of worms all over again.

The Project

The proposal, called “The West Rock Development Of The Brookside and Rockview Development Communities,” lays out a plan for the construction of 357 rental apartments, 38 homeowner apartments, and 38 elderly housing apartments. The project’s 90 buildings would occupy the 97 acres where the former Rockview and Brookside housing projects once stood.

Peter Wood, a representative of Michaels Development, said on Wednesday night that the project could take as long as ten years to complete. The City Plan Commission approved the first phase of the plan in March.

On Wednesday night, a cohort of project representatives addressed commissioners for over an hour about all aspects of the project. An engineer spoke about stormwater drainage, wetlands impact, and traffic and parking considerations. Two architects talked about the layout of the developments and the five different architectural styles to be used.

Housing authority chief Karen DuBois-Walton explained how important the development is. “This is the biggest project that the housing authority has undertaken,” she said. The total price tag will likely be greater than $200 million, she said.

Attorney Greg Pepe spoke about why a PDD is appropriate for the project. According to Section 65 of the Zoning Ordinance, a PDD must meet four criteria: consistency with the city’s comprehensive plan, demonstration of an appropriate and integrated use, creation of stable and desirable environments, and allocation of open space. Both Pepe and city Deputy Director of Zoning Tom Talbot explained that the project does meet all four objectives.

Gilvarg later said that a PDD is appropriate for the project because of the many restrictions presented by the area’s base RM-1 Zoning. That zoning type is geared toward “suburban” areas, with large lots, she said. It wouldn’t be suitable for the “new urbanism” style of the proposed development, she said.

Commission Chairman Ed Mattison sought assurances from the developers that the new housing projects would not fail, as previous ones had, in his opinion. “Give me your assessment of why it was so unsuccessful and how this is going to be better,” he said.

DuBois-Walton responded by first talking about the natural beauty of the area and the plans to house residents of various income levels together in the new projects. The development will also have “higher quality design in terms of how you create your neighborhood,” she said. The plans call for a variety of architectural styles and house colors to create an architecturally diverse neighborhood, much like the new Quinnipiac Terrace.

Farwell Objects

“We have some concerns about the use of the PDD,” said Farwell, standing to speak during the public comment period. While the West Rock development is an “extremely important and well thought-out project,” it is “moving forward before the city has responded” to the state law passed in 2006, she said.

Farwell distributed a copy of the relevant law, along with a letter from her organization stating that since the city has not created regulations for PDDs, it “fails to fulfill the public interest in having clear, fair, and uniform zoning standards.”

Such regulations are necessary, the letter states, because “the city’s PDD standards were so vague as to be arbitrary,” leading to a history of PDDs in New Haven that has been “dismal.”

Despite these criticisms, Farwell said that she was heartened by assurances from an afternoon meeting with Gilvarg and the mayor’s chief of staff, Sean Matteson. She said that she had been told that the draft amendments, which have languished on the City Plan Commission agenda for more than a year, will be un-tabled.

“I understand that the process will open up,” she said. “I hope that it’s a collaborative process.”

The commissioners acknowledged her comments.

Define “Standards”

As the commission moved on to the next agenda item, several interpretations of the 2006 state law were offered in the hallway outside.

“The law says we must have standards and we have standards,” said attorney John Ward (pictured), special counsel for economic development. Section 65 of the Zoning Ordinance covers PDDs, the city is therefore in full compliance with the law, Ward argued. He said he didn’t know why the law existed in the first place. “I don’t know. I didn’t write it.”

Gilvarg saw it slightly differently. The “standards” to which the state law refers are written anew with every PDD, she explained. Each PDD includes new standards that the city enacts to meet the four criteria of a PDD. The city is creating standards for PDDs each time it creates a PDD, and thereby obeying the law, Gilvarg argued.

Farwell later called Gilvarg’s interpretation a “circular argument.”

A debate ensued in the hallway, with Farwell calling for clearer regulations, and Gilvarg arguing that the city needed to have flexibility.

“The regulations are so vague as to be arbitrary,” said Farwell.

“The Supreme Court found that not to be true,” said Gilvarg

“If things are too vague it makes it hard to work out,” said Farwell.

“That’s what the commission is for,” said Gilvarg. The Zoning Ordinance is like the Constitution, she said, “a living document,” that is interpreted differently as society changes.

The PDD option is “a tool that can be used in all sorts of ways,” Farwell said. A lot of PDD projects in New Haven “have been weak ones,” she said.

Gilvarg disagreed vehemently.

The standards need to be clear, Farwell said.

“The standards need to fluctuate,” GIlvarg countered.

Farwell said that she’d like to see standards where things are more spelled out, where terms like “architectural character” and “architectural quality” are defined. Historic preservation and neighborhood walkability should be addressed, she said.

Gilvarg said that she had no objections to these notions “on [their] face.” But the standards should not be too restrictive, she argued, otherwise what is the point of a PDD, a tool intended to allow zoning regulations to be written to address a wide variety of unique circumstances?

Gilvarg acknowledged that she had committed to un-tabling the PDD agenda item and taking up the drafting of new PDD regulations. She declined to say how long it might take to do so.

The matter has been sitting on the agenda for a year because of a staffing shortage in her department, she said. “I’ve lost five staff in four years. I had no zoning director in 2007 or 2008.” Writing ordinance amendments is difficult and time-consuming, she said. “It’s very technical.”

Gilvarg said that she would consider the suggested revisions that Farwell’s consultant had suggested in June 2008, but that they had some weaknesses. “He had some good recommendations, but some fundamental misunderstandings,” Gilvarg said. For example, the consultant didn’t understand the difference between a PDU and a PDD, she explained.

“I don’t agree with that,” said Farwell.