Attorney Kone (at right).
Ocean Management has taken over properties from local slumlords with the stated intent of doing better — but, at least on Chapel Street, had trouble shedding previous owners’ bad reputations.
Several Dwight neighbors turned up to Tuesday night’s Board of Zoning Appeals meeting and protested the fast-growing real estate company’s plan to expand an apartment building 1263 Chapel St. and reduce its required parking.
Commissioners did not vote on the matter, referring the matter to the City Plan Commission next week. The proposal returns to the zoning board in September.
Neighbors argued the property had been neglected by absentee landlords for the past few decades, leaving it an eyesore that brings down the rest of the neighborhood.
But Ocean Management lawyer Zev Sandman argued that principal Mendy Katz has owned the building for less than a year, is not connected to the neglectful landlords, and is not planning on continuing their bad habits.
Sandman asked for a special exception to allow nine on-site parking spaces instead of the required 12 in a transit-oriented business district, to accommodate a proposed four new apartments in the basement of a four-story building. The 12-unit multistory building already provides 12 parking spaces on the Dwight Street side.
With the four new apartments, the developer needs to shrink the number of parking spaces to allot space for a required buffer area, handicapped parking space and a new outside amenity space.
According to the zoning staff report, a previous owner of the property asked in 1989 for a special exception to allow 12 parking spaces where 15 are required in order to add three additional apartments to the building. That request was denied because “parking conditions at that time (1989) were very constrained,” the report reads.
Katz recently bought about 100 properties from slumlord and prominent nephrologist Jianchao Xu, who promised and failed to keep inhabited buildings from falling apart. Ocean about 500 properties acquired since investor Shmuel Aizenberg formed the company in February 2014.
Four neighbors showed up Tuesday night to speak in opposition to the plan for 1263 Chapel St..
Corrine Blackmer said she worries this landlord — Ocean Management — would continue the same practices and that four new apartments “would make the problems measurably worse.” Already, the landscaping is an eyesore for the rest of the neighborhood. “Absentee landlords don’t care,” she said. “Tenants are forced to fend for themselves.”
Aliyya Swaby Photo
Sandman.
Twenty-five-year owner of neighboring property 170 – 176 Dwight St., David Krassner, argued the basement apartments are inherently dangerous to the health of their residents. Plus, he said, parking is already congested on and off the street throughout the neighborhood, meaning many people will have even fewer options for places to leave their cars.
“This particular building has been a visible and poorly-managed absentee landlord property for the entire 27 years I have spent renovating and improving 170 – 176 Dwight St.,” he said. “Approval of this project would, literally, be a disaster waiting to happen.”
Krassner’s lawyer, Carolyn Kone, presented commissioners with thick bound books filled with legal arguments as to why commissioners should not hear, or should ultimately deny, the proposal for fewer parking spaces. She said the zoning meeting had not properly been noticed at the Chapel Street building, a claim Sandman denied.
Kohn said Sandman “failed to show anything particular that would allow [commissioners] to comply with the special exception.”
Commission Chair Ben Trachten pointed out that the board was not supposed to take legal concerns into account, and had to hear the proposal.
Krassner.
Friends of the Dwight Historic District also submitted a letter expressing concern about the proposal. “The applicant uses the increase of the 4 below grade apartments to improve the amount of affordable apartments to the public. Basement apartments will certainly be more of a stigmatism and should not be encouraged for a developer so he or she can make more money on the less fortunate,” the letter reads.
The letter, signed by six “Friends,” lists several reasons the board should deny the special exception: The parking loss would harm the neighborhood, the change in design would not keep the character of the neighborhood, walkability would be harmed, the approval would create a bad precedent, and the proposed two-way street on Dwight Street would create an even narrower road, reducing parking further.
Dwight Alder Frank Douglass submitted a letter opposing the project. “The project will eliminate parking in an area that is already struggling to accommodate current residents,” he wrote.
We’re new and improved, Sandman argued on behalf of Katz. Additionally, Ocean Management can put in four apartments as of right, meaning all discussion about the decision’s prudence is null.
The area is walkable, in a district that generally allows fewer parking spaces with developments, because many people, including Yale students, in the area do not own cars.
And Ocean Management plans to be a good landlord, sending someone to the property every two weeks for an inspection, Katz stated.
“We’re not putting hundreds of thousands of dollars” into the project for nothing, he told the Independent after the meeting. “We don’t make money that way. If we were interested in making money, we would’ve sold it the next day.”
Kone said Ocean Management bought the building in the winter and hasn’t shown an improvement. “They’ve certainly had plenty of time,” she said.
"This particular building has been a visible and poorly-managed absentee landlord property for the entire 27 years I have spent renovating and improving 170-176 Dwight St.," [Kassner] said. "Approval of this project would, literally, be a disaster waiting to happen."
How is this objection any different from PMC's legal objections to Spinnaker at the Comcast site or David Adam Realty / Noel Petra at the Union St. site? It appears more like Mr. Kassner would prefer less competition, and his nakedly biased statements should be discarded.
"Basement apartments will certainly be more of a stigmatism and should not be encouraged for a developer so he or she can make more money on the less fortunate," the letter reads.
Firstly, 'stigmatism' is an affliction of the eye. Secondly, I've lived in a basement apartment. It was quite, comfortable, my heating and electric bills were low and it was a easy to move in to and later move out of. It might have just as many advantages as disadvantages. The entire notion that those who might live there would be 'stigmatised' is utterly preposterous. Who would shun them and why would they care?
Moreover, still cannot for the life of me understand why is it considered evil in this town to make more money than it costs you to do something? Besides doesn't excess economic profit affords owner the opportunity to better maintain the property they have? Or did our collective short term memory loss cause us to forget that our BOA here in New Haven is facilitating for this purpose?:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/bcj_tax_break/