Branford Eagle

Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Developer Seeks Zoning Change for Workforce Housing

by Diana Stricker | Oct 5, 2009 10:35 am

(11) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Housing

gould%20plans012.jpg A plan to build 52 “workforce” homes on Gould Lane in Branford is being proposed by a Rhode Island developer in conjunction with the AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust. It would be the first housing project in the state financed by the union’s pension fund.

“This proposal is unique,” said attorney Christopher Smith, who represents the developer and owner, Stonestreet Corp. of East Providence, R.I. He explained that the homes would be built with union money, by union construction workers, and marketed to working class families. “This is true starter-home, workforce housing,” Smith said.

gould%20plans005.jpg Paul Barrett (pictured), Northeast regional marketing director for the AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust, said the union has been looking for investment projects in the state. “It would allow us to bring pension funds to Connecticut for the first time,” Barrett said.

However, the project faces several hurdles, including a zoning change that would allow more homes to be built on smaller lots. The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) held a public hearing Thursday night on Stonestreet’s request to rezone a 25-acre parcel at 47 Gould Lane, located about a half-mile from Leetes Island Road, near Exit 56.

The property is currently zoned R-4, which allows a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, meaning that 24 homes could be built on the Gould Lane parcel. The developer is requesting a change to R-1, which allows a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a potential of three times as many homes.

Smith, an attorney with Shipman & Goodwin of Hartford, said about 30 to 40 percent of the site cannot be developed because of wetlands and steep slopes. “It’s not a tripling of the density… it would be a doubling,” he said. The 52 single-family homes would feature three or four bedrooms and range in price from $350,000 to $375,000.

Ellsworth McGuigan, who chairs the P&Z, asked why the developer didn’t submit the proposal as a Planned Development District (PDD) which links zoning changes to specific site plans. McGuigan said some positive ideas were presented during the hearing, but he is concerned that the project could change once the land is rezoned.

“Why not present it together so the zone change is tied to the proposal?” McGuigan asked. “I feel safer with something like that,” he said in regard to a PDD. “There doesn’t seem to be a guarantee that this (proposed project) would occur with a zone change.”

Commissioner Charles Andres, however, said he has some reservations about the PDD concept if it allows too much flexibility.

Site plans, which have not yet been submitted, must be approved by P&Z.

Local environmentalist Bill Horne, who was the only member of the public to offer comment, asked the commission to deny the zoning change. Horne said a “simple zone change” would not prevent the developer or any subsequent developer from “pushing it to the max” in terms of housing units and density.

“There are a lot of things that need to be done if this is going to work,” Horne said.

Smith told the commission that the developer is looking for guidance and would consider other options for the zoning format. “If the preference is a PDD …that’s certainly something Stonestreet could do,” he said.

After conferring briefly with Stonestreet officials, Smith offered another alternative that would place stipulations and conditions on the zoning change. For example, Smith said the developer would agree to tying the zoning change to a maximum of 52 single-family homes and no duplexes.

“You would have the protection you’re looking for,” Smith said, adding that Stonestreet would present the site plans for approval in a specified time. “If you don’t approve something in a set period of time, the zone change would be null and void.”

Smith said the development team and the union believe the homes will be marketable. “That’s where, hopefully, the market is going to be,” he said in regard to the price and size of the homes. “People are not going to be building McMansions.”

When asked by Commissioner Andres if the developer would consider building 24 homes, as permitted under the current zoning, Smith said it would not be “financially feasible.”

Christopher Reynolds, vice president of Stonestreet, outlined the firm’s development history. He said the company’s proposal and the collaboration with the AFL-CIO make sense in challenging financial times.

Timothy Fay, president of Stonestreet, attended the meeting but did not address the commission.

“There is really a need for this kind of housing,” said John Olson, president of the Connecticut chapter of the AFL-CIO. He told the commission that preference would be given for union members to purchase homes, but that sales would be open to everyone.

Barrett, the union’s regional marketing director for the investment fund, concurred with Olson. “There are no restrictions,” Barrett said in regard to home ownership. “It’s open to the general public.”

Richard Stoecker, assistant town planner, outlined the staff report which noted that the town’s newly enacted Plan of Conservation and Development does not show Gould Lane as an area of dense housing.

gould%20plans019.jpg “It (the zone change) is just creating a higher density for the lot, with some question marks,” Stoecker (pictured left next to Chairman McGuigan) said.

At the conclusion of the two-hour hearing, Chairman McGuigan said the commission will review the documents and discuss the proposal at the Oct. 15 meeting.

According to town records, 47 Gould Lane was purchased in 2003 by Gould Lane Holdings LLC, which has a mailing address of 400 Totoket Road, North Branford. According to the state’s corporation site, Stone Street Capital LLC, of Providence RI, is listed as a principal of Gould Lane Holdings LLC.

The 400 Totoket Road address for Gould Lane Holdings LLC is listed on the North Branford site as a 1770 farm house owned by River Farm LLC, which is owned by the Joseph Spezzano family.

During the hearing, Stonestreet’s Reynolds told the commission, “We invested in this property about six years ago… and recently we took control of the LLC (that owns the Gould Lane property).”

During an interview after the hearing, Reynolds said Joseph Spezzano was previously in charge of the LLC, and Stonestreet was a “minority partner.” Reynolds said Spezzano was doing some farming on the Gould Lane site, but Stonestreet took control of the LLC about six months ago and that Spezzano is no longer in the partnership.

Branford’s Inland Wetlands Commission had concerns about 47 Gould Lane several months ago when sediment was reportedly washing into the wetlands.

Reynolds said Stonestreet hired an engineering firm to remediate the wetlands situation. Dean Gustafson, and engineer with VHB in Middletown, reported to the Inland Wetlands Commission in June regarding a remediation and restoration plan for the wetlands.

Any housing project slated for the Gould Lane parcel would need approval by the Inland Wetlands Commission.

Other projects are slated for public hearings at the Oct. 15 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Those projects include the Brushy Hill Plaza expansion and renovations; and a new Clancy Funeral Home at 244 N. Main St.

###

Comments

posted by: Connecticut Man1 on October 5, 2009 11:53am

Just curious how many “working class families” can afford “starter homes” that “range in price from $350,000 to $375,000”? Not many in this economy.

posted by: Norton Street on October 5, 2009 12:02pm

Since when is $350,000 a working class house price?

Everything about this project is stupid. STOP DEVELOPING CAR DEPENDENT HOUSING CLUSTERS. If someones car decides not to start in the morning what are the options? There are no options in a development like this. Is there a corner store within walking distance for children or do they need to be driven to the shopping center just to get a candy bar?

The average American family spends $5000 a year to own a car, including gas, repairs, insurance, etc. If people lived in walkable neighborhoods and either got rid of their car or rarely used it, that $5000 could go towards a mortgage. With an extra $5000 a year, people could buy $50,000 more of a house than they could have if they were car dependent.
This proposal is the opposite of “unique”, it is no different than any other post 1950s suburban housing development.
This developer needs to his hands on some Brown & Von Beren floor plans and build some homes on empty lots in Newhallville.

posted by: Mary on October 6, 2009 7:09am

Starter homes priced at $350,000 ? You can buy a house near the center, the busline and the train station for a lot less than that. We don’t need more McMansions but I’m not sure we need dense development like this either - especially at that selling price.

posted by: johnh on October 6, 2009 12:08pm

Branford’s track record with PDDs leaves a lot to be desired. It is a wonderful concept in theory, but has led many a developer on a fool’s errand as they try and guess what the Commission wants. Then, when there is public outcry (as there always is), the Land Use agencies fold like cheap suits, and the legal fights begin….

posted by: David LaCroix on October 6, 2009 1:09pm

My concern with any type of development in Branford is how it impacts town infrastructure (police, fire, ambulance,schools, etc). Ultimately affecting quality of life, not to mention taxes.

posted by: jawbone on October 6, 2009 3:55pm

Looks to me as though the people of Branford are about to get scammed.
This smells to me to be moderately high income development for people that desire (and can afford) smallish mc’mansions on postage stamp sized lots.
As everyone can tell you, what’s left of the working class cannot afford $350-375k.
This is exactly the opposite direction this country should be going.

posted by: terrapin on October 6, 2009 7:34pm

This is just complete nonsense. Cluster zoning or semi-detached homes in close proximity to the central business district and public transit would be a step forward. Affordable housing is not housing approaching $400,000, no matter how low mortgage rates are right now.

This sort of development goes on everywhere, it is just a way for developers to do an end-around on existing zoning regulations and build a lot more homes on the same parcel. It’s just another car-centric suburban development being dressed up as “worker housing”.

posted by: gail on October 7, 2009 9:02am

build your development in RI…...Branford doesn’t need more housing. But the liberal party of dims will let them in and futher ruin the town. They should have put a stop years and years ago to all the condos. Poor, poor town planning by a bunch of politicians only looking to reap the benefits.

posted by: Pat Santoro on October 7, 2009 10:23am

A new eminent domain case, good thing we have a triple A bond rating so we can borrow enough money to pay off all the developers. Let’s see, will this be another Love Canal or could be, might be or is contaminated land. Boy,
Attorney Clandestine will have a field day with this case.

posted by: TheVin on October 9, 2009 2:41pm

Just another money scam by the BHO supporting DNC contributing AFL-CIO. Doesn’t Branford vote in democrats every election cycle? I’m just saying….

posted by: Gilbert Kelman on October 14, 2009 10:45am

52 additional workforce three bedroom homes might just equal an additional 156 school students in nearby local schools plus additions to the towns sewer plant.Pretty expensive population growth for the local taxpayers to absorb.

New Haven Independent Login Form