Paul Bass Photo
Naamani at 500 Central.
Left, current facade on Burton Street. Right, proposed, expanded facade on Burton.
(Updated) A family’s effort to turn a rescued “zombie” mansion in Westville into five apartments stumbled, as neighbors convinced the zoning board the plan would change the neighborhood’s character for the worse.
Three neighbors showed up at the Board of Zoning Appeals in the Hall of Records Tuesday night to argue the once-foreclosed mansion at 500 Central Ave. at the corner of Burton Street should continue to comprise four apartments and an office space, instead of being developed into five residential units.
Siding with neighbors, zoning commissioners unanimously denied the owner’s request to put in a fifth apartment. The owner was willing to give up permission a previous owner won, to locate a law office on the first floor.
New owner Esra Tara Naamani spent frustrating months convincing Bank of America to sell her the mansion, which had fallen into “zombie foreclosure,” meaning the owner had defaulted but the bank avoided completing foreclosure proceedings or maintaining the property. With the help of local anti-blight Livable City Initiative (LCI) officials, she made the sale and proceeded to start extensive renovations to a structure that had deteriorated perilously close to a state beyond repair. (She recounted in this story the saga of wrestling with faceless bankers and other challenges to obtain the abandoned house.)
She requested variances from the zoning board to allow a lot area of 3,326 square feet per unit instead of 3,500 square feet and to allow a side wall height of 39.5 feet instead of the maximum 20 feet for a five-unit residence. Currently the house has four apartments and one office space allowed by variance request in 2004. Esra said she planned to move her elderly in-laws, her own family (for part of the year; they live in Turkey); and two relatives into the four apartments; the fifth apartment would be rented out to help cover the cost of renovation.
Aliyya Swaby Photo
Pellegrino at the hearing.
Naamani’s lawyer, Bernard Pellegrino, said that the variances would allow the owner to carry out a complete historical restoration and renovation of the property, which was built in the 1800s, and to make room for the fifth apartment.
A large building addition is proposed to the south and west of the existing structure, which necessitates the side wall height variance for 39.5 feet. An expanded three-space driveway will provide parking along Burton Street and two parking spaces accessible from a new curb cut on Central Avenue.
He argued that state case law shows the owner can swap a use not permitted by zoning — the office space in the fifth unit — for one that is permitted — a residential apartment.
Left, existing floor plan. Right, proposed expanded floor plan.
Commissioners asked for the opinion of Roderick Williams of the city’s corporation counsel’s office. Williams disagreed with Pellegrino’s interpretation of the law. Case law applies to properties at which the uses are changed by the city, not by past or current owners, Williams said.
Neighbors said they were happy the mansion was finally being renovated, instead of remaining in a state of financial limbo. But they feared the expansion to a fifth apartment would change the character of the neighborhood and take away parking spaces from neighbors.
Hadley.
Mary Hadley, who lives on Burton Street, said she objects specifically to the idea of having five apartments in the building because of the increased residential density and lack of parking she foresaw. In one dwelling unit, “most folks have two cars,” she said.
Rudolph Farricelli, also a Burton Street neighbor, said raising the side wall would singlehandedly “change the character of the neighborhood.” He said the owner had not proven any hardship that would make the changes a necessity.
Lager.
Linda Lager, a state Superior Court judge who lives across the street from the mansion on Burton Street, said she was “delighted” to see someone was renovating the house but she had “significant concerns” about the proposal. The house and lot will be among the largest in the area, she said, which is a “significant change of character.”
Lager said the owner’s “desire to have a fantastic, wonderful living space” for her family was not grounds for the zoning board granting the variance. “There’s no unusual exceptional hardship besides the owner’s desire to have something nicer and better and bigger.”
The new use of the fifth unit should “make it better,” not worse, she said, arguing an apartment would be a worse use for the neighborhood.
Zoning staff recommended commissioners deny the requests. The owner may keep the four units and office space as of right, without returning to the board.
Oh, please. What a shame and an embarrassment for my old neighborhood. I've spent a lot of time on that block and have never, ever observed a parking shortage. As I understand it, the owner isn't even proposing to change the exterior design of the house much, if at all. The surrounding neighborhood has a real mix of single- and multi-family properties, so the assertion that splitting the mansion up will change neighborhood character is disingenuous at best. As for Mary Hadley's assertion that most apartments come with two cars, the Census' American Community Survey says that 52.4% of working New Haveners have access to zero or one car. Opponents of the zoning change are gambling on the idea that denying the change won't hold up the renovation. Apparently they'd prefer the risk of the continued existence of an eyesore that's been that way for what, 10 years to letting a few more people live in the wonderful neighborhood I grew up in. I wonder, what is the opposition really about?