Downtown Crossing Crosses A Barrier

I think that what Att.Ainsworth is saying is that in the context of an LDA (where a blank public lot is given or sold to a private concern after city approval of its plans) the minimum zoning requirements for sidewalk width essentially demarcates the property line at a fixed distance from the street curb and you can't trade public property (the minimum sidewalk) for a public easement within the property line (what Mr Winstanley's averaging method asks for). I'm not sure if the attorney's point is correct, but I think that's what he's saying. In any event its not great public policy to attempt a civic space between road and building that has pinch points dramatically less than the minimum set by zoning.

15' should be an absolute minimum in an area like this, particularly next to several lanes of traffic with no on street parking. That is a basic principle of city design, and should not be a negotiating item.

I think many people will be surprised to hear that the project that the Aldermen just voted for still shows 7' sidewalks, when this issue has been raised for years by local residents.

Let's hope that this won't be overlooked when the project has to seek additional approvals. Instead of being looked at as a "detail," it should be seen as a non-negotiable requirement, like it is in the regulating zoning which most likely requires 15 feet minimums.

It is notable that the only two renderings shown of this project at every meeting are both from the perspective of College Street (Yale). What does the project look like from other angles? For residents walking from Dwight or West River? Surprised the Aldermen didn't ask for that. If they could have seen that, they might have asked for a sidewalk more than a few feet wide for instance.

It is extremely strange that such a large project would only be asked to provide two renderings-- but also quite indicative of where it is headed.

Well said robn and anonymous.

Has the tenant been announced yet? I heard weeks ago that the announcement was pending...they know who is going into this building already, so why are they waiting on releasing that information?

This is great news for New Haven and for urbanism across the country. Where I now live near Boston there is a widespread community campaign to remove segments of Route 28 in Somerville. It's an aging viaduct highway that cuts off an entire neighborhood and degrades quality of life along a wide swath of the city. It's inspiring to see another city pass a plan to boulevardize a similar highway and take a step toward walkable and vibrant urbanism.

Although the general thrust of the BD-3 effort is movement in the right direction the zoning is very conventional, badly outdated and cannot guarantee the type of street vitality everyone wants. For instance; the zone permits, by right, the same uses found in the RH-2 Zone (read them). This means a developer can buy a lot and put up a small single-family home or a subdivision of single-family homes. I don't think that's what the City had in mind.

Be that as it may the real strange language is found in Section 43(f) Yards.

First, a definition. Yard regulations regulate private open space on a lot. Yards are never public space. Apples and oranges.

Yard regulations speak about the amount of private open space on a lot. For instance, a front yard setback of 15' means the building must be at least 15' from the front property line. This creates a private front yard free and clear of any structure. Simple enough to understand.

However, Section 43(f) reads that a 15' area between the building and curb must be clear of any structures in order to have sidewalks (between the sidewalk and curb; a grammatical glitch. It has to mean "building" in order for the sentence to make sense, but even then it would be redundant).

Remember this is yard regulation and yard regulations only concern private open space between the building and lot lines. So, this regulation suggests that the front lot line is the curb, which is certainly possible, but odd. If indeed that is the intent of the language (and that's certainly how it reads) then the regulation mandates a 15' private front yard on every lot in the zone in order to provide a public amenity; sidewalks.

It seems the City has written easement-like language into a zoning regulation, effectively taking property - private front yards on every lot in the zone - for a public purpose, sidewalks, without compensation.

To repeat myself, a Yard regulation can only regulate private open space, not public spaces like sidewalks.

The proper, and legal, way to provide for sidewalks is by adjusting the public right-of-way and/or the street pavement width. Alternatively the state can transfer land to the city to provide for sidewalks. Lastly, if an owner wishes to create an easement over his/her land for public purposes, then fine. But that can't be done through zoning.

Regardless of the traffic/zoning issues, I support this. I hope it is realized the enormous benefit to New Haven, especially our students. Starting to work on this partnership part of the agreement between the developer and the school system/Gateway, and it is exciting how proactive they are. By working together with biotech and higher ed, we can leverage this to make sure even more students are ready for these jobs of the future.
-Richard Therrien
-NHPS Science Supervisor

City Hall has likely pressured the city plan commission to discount the urban design league because the developers serve Yale before the development yields tax revenue. The UDL wouldn't have leverage against CH because no formula exists in zoning regulation or the best engineering design for the width of a public right of way. If the expected foot traffic were high then regulators and designers would follow guidelines to provide for it in maximum safety; such as up to two groups of two people walking abreast with safe distance to the curb. But they do not have to; minimum safety is adequately 'amicable.' Mostly I just wish that the new tax revenue money could grow jobs in which citizens with no PhD's would flourish.

No formula exists in the zoning regulations for the public right-of-way because zoning can only regulate private property, not the public right-of-way. Civil engineering standards regulate the right-of-way; which includes pavement width, sidewalks, street lighting, tree belts and utility runs.

A property owner can grant an easement for public access over his/her property and an LDA can do the same thing, but those types of agreements are separate from zoning.

Even if the City had a unified code, one that included zoning, subdivision and civil engineering standards in one book (which would be handy), the sidewalk language in Section 43(f) - Minimum Yards - would still be misplaced. The public right-of-way simply can't be regulated by zoning, nor can public access over private property be regulated by zoning.

I don't know why that sidewalk language hasn't been removed from the proposed minimum yards regulation. It obviously belongs elsewhere.

If both an existing PRW is to be used as a new sidewalk and the PRW's width is seemingly insufficient for a new sidewalk then a zoning ordinance should exist such that it requires the city's bargaining with land owners to provide for maximum safety. Engineers' statistics merely inform to optimize creation of sidewalks – in terms of safety - for the minimum safety of a walker.

SH,

I don't know why you're insisting that Zoning Regs only apply to private property. They're used all the time to regulate treatment of the land just outside of private property lines, whether that treatment is done by city government or the adjacent private property owner (for instance, New York zoning regs include very specific rules about sidewalk furniture, cafes, tree pits, transformer vaults, etc....all related to the adjacent private property). Likewise in suburban settings, Zoning sometimes demands that builders of subdivisions build sidewalks and grant a right-of-way of easement to the public.

Hi robn,

Let me address your points in reverse order. Subdivision regulations permit public improvements such as roads, sidewalks, landscaping and utility runs within the boundary of the subdivision. I think the CT Supreme Court recently nixed public improvements outside the subdivision boundary. But in any case New Haven doesn't have subdivision regulations and this is a land transfer, not a subdivision.

I haven't read New York's zoning enabling legislation but I would guess it's not much different than any other state; they all copy from the same basic sources.

Zoning enabling statutes provide for the regulation of private property, not public rights of way. There is other authority for that. I would also guess that New York City has many different regulations including zoning and civil engineering standards under one cover for the sake of convenience.

As to this matter, I'm not trying to be difficult or picky. The language in Section 43(f) is significant. In zoning, a "Yard" is always a private yard on a lot, never the public right of way.

This section is called "Minimum Yards". Everything that follows must relate to a yard in order for the regulation to make sense. It reads that the area between the building and curb is to be clear for the purpose of public sidewalks and such. Since this is a "yard" regulation this area up to the curb must be the front yard. It can't be in the public right of way because zoning doesn't regulate the right of way. How else is this supposed to be interpreted?

Now, everyone know what the writers of the regulation mean. They are tracking the easement language in the LDA. But by putting it in a regulation called "Minimum Yards" they are changing the meaning in a significant way. They are now, apparently, calling the front yard a public right of way. Thus taking land via zoning for a public purpose.

If the curb is indeed the front property line then they can say: "The Build-To line shall be 15' behind the front property line for a building fronting on [street names]. This would create the space for the easement language in the LDA.

If the property line is the building facade then the sidewalk language is misplaced.

Either way it needs to be corrected.