Diana Li Photo
Shansky warns Wednesday evening against “spot zoning”
A developer has moved closer to gaining approval to convert the Comcast building at Olive and Chapel streets to 200 luxury apartments, part of a housing renaissance transforming the no-man’s land between Wooster Square and downtown.
The approval came during from the City Plan Commission, which voted unanimously Wednesday night to approve two requests from Spinnaker Residential LLC for zoning changes needed to build the project. The request, which has the support of the neighborhood’s alders and many neighbors, now goes to the Board of Alders for final approval
Spinnaker originally came to the commission for approval of the project in March, then decided to withdraw its proposal and return because city staff and the applicant agreed that some of the proposed changes and additions to the text amendment under discussion had not been described in the legal notice. That hold-up led to the special City Plan meeting at City Hall Wednesday night with only the developer’s two items on the agenda.
The first was an application to change the zoning from two parcels in question from BA, General Business, to BD‑1, Central Business/Residence, enabling mixed-use buildings and denser residential development.
The second was a request for amendments to the zoning ordinance itself, including a limitation that buildings in BD‑1 zones adjacent to residential zones (RS‑1, RS‑2, RM‑1, or RM‑2) be limited to 70 feet in height and a floor area ratio (or “FAR”) of 3.0 from the current requirement of 6.0. FAR is a measure of how big buildings can be with respect to lot size; a higher FAR allows bigger buildings.
These amendments were proposed to allay concerns that changing the zone to BD‑1 would create towering buildings that would overshadow nearby residential developments.
Some Reservations
Mattison and Marchand.
All of the commissioners voted to support both amendments, though some expressed reservations.
Attorney Marjorie Shansky argued that changing the zoning designation for these two parcels of land constituted illegal “spot zoning”: changing the rules in the interest of a specific development at the expense of the rest of the city.
Shansky reminded City Plan Chairman Ed Mattison of his comments at a prior meeting, when he said he was concerned that passing the amendments because of these two parcels would be “using a sledgehammer on a mosquito” and that the zoning amendments might have unintended consequences. New Haven Urban Design League President Anstress Farwell (pictured) also testified that these two parcels of land should not be viewed “in isolation.”
“I am very torn. I don’t like rezoning parcels of land,” said Mattison. “But the good we can do now is better than the perfect we ought to do. … I have reluctantly decided that I am going to vote yes.”
Mattison echoed a criticism Shansky raised that granting this change would open the floodgates to future projects applying for exceptions and rule changes, to the point where zoning rules were rendered useless. He also agreed with the concern that Rev. Alex Dyer of the Episcopal Church of St. Paul and St. James on Olive Street raised: That the new development would generate traffic concerns in an already congested area.
Commissioners DiAdamo and Mattison.
However, other commissioners agreed with the developers that the zoning amendments with the included limits are acceptable. Commissioner Adam Marchand, who’s also a Westville alder, said that the limits of 3.0 of FAR and 70 feet in height were sufficient to make him comfortable approving the amendments.
“I think the extension of the BD‑1 zone is quite in line with recent direction in city policy in encouraged mixed-use, intensified development, and residential development. This is the direction we’re going in,” Marchand said. “Frankly, I don’t have a better proposal at this point, so unless further comments from colleagues cause me to change my mind, I’m planning on voting in favor of these two items.”
Of the 11 additional parcels that would be affected by the zoning amendments (located on Howe and Dwight streets) 10 of them are already built on and thus would not be impacted by the new change.
Reviving The Wooster Square-Downtown Link
Vince McDermott explains the zoning changes to the commission.
Mark Forlenza, a principal of Spinnaker Residential, listed six different meetings the developer have had with community members from last November through April to discuss concerns and design specifics.
“The message we got from the neighborhood was that there wasn’t a good connection from the Wooster Square area back to downtown, and that because of the lack of development due to the site existing under a BA zone designation, it was an unsafe area,” Forlenza said. “It’s rare that a developer’s vision matches with that of the city and nearby residents, but this is an instance of that.”
Commissioners, including Leslie Radcliffe and Mattison, cited comments from the public about Spinnaker’s willingness to work with neighbors and cooperate when developing plans for the apartment buildings when explaining their affirmative votes for the amendments.
New Downtown/East Rock Alder Abigail Roth testified in favor of the project. She said that she heard no opposition when she sent an email detailing the zoning changes to over 700 of her constituents. Also present at the meeting was Wooster Square Alder Aaron Greenberg, who previously testified in favor of the project.
Chapman: “Let’s get this finally done.”
Elsie Chapman and Charlie Murphy, two other neighbors, testified in favor of the amendments, arguing that the project was needed for the community and would bring development and life to an area that is otherwise lacking.
Just like Smoothie and just like the Union Street Dog Park, this project will bring necessary eyes on the street (Chapel Street). Everyone walking to and from downtown and the train station will be safer because of this project.