Comcast Proposal Hits Snag

IKE SWETLITZ PHOTOA proposal to bring some 200 luxury apartments to the corner of Chapel and Olive streets hit a snag Wednesday night at the City Plan Commission.

The proposal—which involved converting the old Comcast building at the corner—had met with community support in concept. But the details involve approval of zoning amendments.

The City Plan Commission staff decided to revise the suggested zoning changes, but didn’t send out public notice until three hours before Wednesday night’s meeting, when they were scheduled to come up for a vote.

After commissioners and members of the public objected to the last-minute nature of the change, the developer agreed to withdraw the proposal and return to the commission next month, so people have more time to consider it.

The amendments would have paved the way for the developer, Spinnaker Residential LLC, to develop two properties on the corner of Chapel and Olive.

Spinnaker revealed plans in November to build four stories of apartments on top of ground-floor storefronts. The project in general met with public support, as it would expand a growing housing market to the no-man’s land between downtown and Wooster Square.

Stephen Studer, another attorney representing Spinnaker, said that he will return to the City Plan Commission next month with a plan that addressed concerns raised at the meeting. Residents’ and commissioners’ concerns included inadequate communication about the project, potential unintended consequences of zoning changes, and the legality of one of the proposals.

Attorney Anthony Avallone submitted two items to the City Plan Commission on behalf of Spinnaker. The first item would have amended the zoning map, moving the properties in question from a BA zone into a BD-1 zone. A BA zone allows properties to be built up to three or four stories, while a BD-1 zone allows properties to be built up to about 26 stories.

The second item, which was modified at the last minute—submitted about three hours before the meeting—would have decreased the maximum size of buildings in a BD-1 zone if the building stood adjacent to a residential area. This change would have applied to all BD-1 zones across the city, not just the area where Spinnaker wanted to build.

City Plan Commission Chair Ed Mattison said that doing all this, just to fix up a few properties, felt “like using a sledgehammer on a mosquito.” He said that he was worried more about what might happen in the future, perhaps with other properties.

“What you worry about in zoning matters especially are the unexpected results,” Mattison said after the meeting. “You know what you want to accomplish and you think this zone change will do it. But what else does it do? That’s always the question. What else does it do? It wasn’t clear to me what the answer was.”

Mattison called for more community input on the zoning issue specifically. He said that wanted to know how this zoning change would impact nearby areas. He said that he was concerned that the public comments in favor of the proposal focused on Spinnaker’s plans to develop the area, not on the zoning changes in and of themselves. The commissioners were set to vote on zoning changes, not the merit of the project.

Wooster Square Alder Aaron Greenberg, along with two other Wooster Square neighbors, spoke in favor of the proposal. One of the neighbors, Elsie Chapman, who is also the co-president of the Historic Wooster Square Association, read a letter from the association.

“We believe that Spinnaker will deliver an attractive, quality product while keeping in mind the fact that they abut a residential community,” she said. Chapman said that she has confidence Spinnaker will hold to informal agreements it has made with neighbors that the buildings will not exceed six stories.

Meanwhile, Urban Design League President Anstress Farwell and Attorney Marjorie Shansky (pictured) spoke out against approving the zoning changes. Shansky spoke on behalf of PMC Property Group, which owns the Strauss Adler building, adjacent to one of the lots on which Spinnaker wants to build. Shansky said that even though Spinnaker showed a development plan to the neighborhood, “there would be nothing holding them to that plan if this commission were to adopt this change.”

Farwell went as far to consider the possibility that, were the commission to adopt the zoning changes, the property values might increase, and another developer might come in and do something completely different with the property.

Shansky also called the proposed zoning changes were illegal—an example of “spot zoning,” setting different zoning rules for a certain small area that might benefit one owner while being at odds with the interests of adjacent owners or of the city.

“The applicant is relying on the proposed land-use map that’s sitting in our comprehensive plan of development,” Shansky said. (The map is available on page II.28 here.) It designates most of a large area—approximately the triangle bounded by Route 1, Olive Street, and the east side of the railroad tracks—as a commercial mixed-used district. Avallone’s proposal would select two parcels out of this area and put them in zone BD-1. The other properties would remain in zone BA.

“If there were ever an example out of the gate of spot zoning, it would be to say: ‘I really on this plan to support my change of this zone, but do it only for the properties I care about,’” Shansky said. “This will be in the interest of the developer and not in the best interest of the city as a whole and therefore is illegal.”

Studer disagreed with Shansky’s accusation, and Avallone disagreed with Mattison’s concerns, especially regarding lack of sufficient community input. He said that his clients did everything they needed to do to bring the proposal to this point, and that it wasn’t fair for extra requirements to be imposed ex post facto.

“We’ve gone to the neighborhood extensively. Can you ever have enough community meetings?” Avallone asked.

“Whatever the requirements are, you’ve met them,” Mattison said.

“And that’s what I’m saying to you,” Avallone said.

Studer said that the team withdrew its requests because it preferred to clear up confusion than spend time litigating. “We’ll discuss how best to respond and we’ll be back here talking to you all and to them in about 30 days,” he said.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry


posted by: anonymous on March 20, 2014  9:21am

This project should be fast tracked. Do we really need another month?

posted by: David Backeberg on March 20, 2014  10:44am

I think it’s silly to make a big deal of ‘spot zoning’. Fact of the matter is, all kinds of property owners and developers get zoning relief. For instance, Nicas got several zoning exemptions to get to their current level of build out, and wanted several more.

I would call changing the zone in and around this property more consistent and fair to others than if the developer just showed up and got ‘spot zoning relief’ for things they would want to do that would otherwise be disallowed under the zoning for the property.

Secondly, why do we think six floors should be the cap on a building less than 1000 feet from 360 State? What exact ‘character of the neighborhood’ are we trying to maintain? I would say that there is strong evidence that lots of people want to live exactly where this development is going, and 10 or 15 floors would be a better way to meet the demand for people who want to live in New Haven but cannot find housing where they want it, which is close to downtown.

Isn’t 360 State at near-100% capacity?

posted by: Stephen Harris on March 20, 2014  2:11pm

If I’m reading the story right changes to the zoning text and map were made at the last minute.

Section 8-3 of the CGS governs how zoning text and map changes are made. Making changes three hours before a meeting violates the statutory noticing requirements.

As to the merits of the change, the Commission is bound to follow its own Plan of Conservation and Development when considering zone changes. This area should not be rezoned as a downtown district. It would have the imprint of spot zoning; I think Marjorie is right.

posted by: Dwightstreeter on March 20, 2014  7:03pm

Backenberg: Are you serious?
Spot zoning is an atrocity that destroys neighborhoods because it loses its coherence, its unity of purpose.
Mattison must be joking that he values “community input”. That’s not what I witnessed when the RMS project was in front of him. He does the bidding of the City and does not look out for neighborhoods. That he may be doing that in this instance speaks to the political power of the Wooster Square residents and not the issues at hand.
Zoning is political and reflects what the powers that be want. Hang in there Wooster Sq. folk and pres for the good over the expedient.

posted by: Bradley on March 20, 2014  9:42pm

Stephen Harris is right about the process. As a result, Anonymous, the decision needs to wait another month. If the commission had not delayed action, Shansky would have been in court the next day. In the unlikely event she lost, the project still would have been delayed for months.