nothin New Haven Independent | Parkside Village Misses the Mark; Court…

Parkside Village Misses the Mark; Court Action Expected

Diana Stricker Photo

L-R: P&Z Commission: John Lust, Joe Vaisuo, Fred Russo, Paul Higgins, Chairman Chuck Andres and Marci Palluzzi.

The Parkside Village 1 affordable housing project was defeated at a special Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting Thursday when one aspect of the proposal failed to gain a “super majority” vote.

Prior to the vote, the attorney for the developers asked that Commissioner Fred Russo recuse himself from voting. Russo said he would not step down, and voted against the proposals.

With Permission

Branford’s Housing Authority and developers Beacon Communities LLC of Boston have been attempting to build new affordable housing to replace the dilapidated Parkside Village I.

The P&Z voted 3-2 in favor of the Parkside project Thursday, but one of the three applications — a zoning map change —did not get a super majority vote of 4-1. That meant the entire project failed.

Neighbors who oppose the project signed protest petitions that trigger a state law saying a zoning map change would need a two-thirds super majority vote. Attorneys for both sides disagree on whether protest petitions apply for state Affordable Housing 8-30g applications.

Diana Stricker Photo

Following the meeting, Town Attorney Bill Aniskovich (pictured) told the Eagle that the town will wait to see if an appeal is filed in Superior Court. There is a 15 day deadline from the time the commission’s decision is published. 

File Photo

Attorney Timothy Hollister (pictured), a partner in the Shipman & Goodwin law firm in Hartford, who represents the developers, declined comment following the meeting. He told the Eagle on Friday he could not comment on what happens next until he receives the final copies of the multi-page resolutions and has a chance to discuss matters with his clients.

During Thursday’s meeting, Town Planner Harry Smith went through the draft resolutions and made multiple changes, many dealing with grammar. Typically, final resolutions are not completed until any changes are made to the draft resolutions, and the revised documents are voted on.

Diana Stricker Photo

About 75 people attended Thursday’s meeting at Fire Headquarters. Some were supporters of the Parkside proposal, but the applause indicted most were neighbors who opposed the project.

Russo: No Recusal

Diana Stricker Photo

Compounding Thursday’s voting issues was a request that Russo(pictured), who is an alternate to the P&Z commission, recuse himself from the vote. The request was made by Attorney Hollister in an e-mail letter to the P&Z earlier this week asking that Russo recuse himself because of statements he made regarding his views on the Affordable Housing law.

From the outset of the public hearings in October, Russo has voiced opposition to the project, but he was the next alternate in the voting rotation.

Russo said Thursday he would not recuse himself. He read the following statement:  “I admit to feeling strongly about this issue. I participated in each public hearing with an open mind and I have engaged in deliberations on the same basis. I have not prejudged the case nor do I have any personal bias against the applicant or the Housing Authority. While I believe the Affordable Housing Law is unfair to communities like Branford, which has a considerable amount of affordable housing that simply does not qualify under the statute, I also believe that there was sufficient evidence on this record to support a denial. Therefore I do not intend to recuse myself and I will be voting against the applications,” he said to applause by neighbors who oppose the project.

At the Jan. 18 P&Z meeting, Russo stated: “I don’t really care what the law says. I prefer, if we had to, be challenged at the court level.”

Russo at that time said the commission is restricted by the state’s affordable housing statute, and that “Maybe we need to spend some money and go to court. I think we’re going to get shot down, but somewhere along the line, if these laws are not challenged, they’re going to be used against any community,” he said. Later during that meeting he said, “I would never, never vote for this, ever.”

Russo began voicing his objections to the project during the first hearing in October. “It was a wrong decision 40 years ago,” he said in regard to when Parkside was originally built. “We shouldn’t make the same mistake twice.”

Hollister’s Request

In his Jan. 23 letter, Hollister wrote that Russo’s remarks during the meetings “have left the applicants no choice but to request Commissioner Russo to be disqualified. One of the most fundamental requirements for any public official in general and a land use commissioner in particular is to adhere to the law, such as the Connecticut General statues.”

Hollister further wrote that “This wholesale abdication of public, legal, and civic responsibility requires the applicants to request his disqualification.”

In summing up his views, Hollister wrote that Russo’s statement that he ‘does not care’ what applicable law requires “demonstrate beyond any doubt an unwillingness to follow the law and grant the applicants their right to have their application considered and voted on in compliance with legal requirements. Commissioner Russo effectively has renounced his oath of office as to this application. We also note that in this matter, Chairman Andres, Attorneys Aniskovich and Bercury and the undersigned have explained the legal requirements for the pending application repeatedly, and in detail.”

Hollister cited state statutes and case law to support his decision to ask for Russo’s recusal.

All three applications were approved by a 3-2 vote, with Andres, John Lust and Joe Vaisuo voting yes; and Marci Palluzzi and Russo voting no. An alternate to the five-member panel was needed because commissioner Joe Chadwick recused himself since he had been a member of the Housing Authority. Paul Higgins, a second alternate, was present at Thursday’s meeting. 

Residents Waiting

The legal issues will presumably be moved to the Land Use section of Hartford Superior Court, where Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr. presides.

Meanwhile, the Parkside residents are waiting.

Diana Stricker Photo

Parkside resident Jamie Kavanaugh (pictured at left) told the Eagle Thursday: I would hope further consideration would be given to the plan based upon the reviews of the zoning board and Beacon and the Housing Authority’s positions,” he said. And that the needs of the elderly, the disabled and families with children will be met going forward, and that these people are not held hostage due to needless fears.”

Kavanaugh is president of the Parkside Village Association which was formed a year ago to represent the tenants. At a hearing in November he said the buildings are decrepit and that 40 of the 50 units are efficiency apartments that are only 250 square-feet or less.

Resolutions

We’ve had multiple public hearings and we’ve had two meetings where we’ve had lengthy discussions about the three applications,” Andres said at the beginning of Thursday’s special meeting.

Applications under state statute 8 – 30g operate under different rules that other proposals. If the commission denies the project and an appeal is filed, the commission has the burden of proof. They must show that the decision was supported by the evidence on the public record and that it was based on substantial public health or safety issues, and that those issues outweigh the need for affordable housing.

The town planner then went through the three resolutions and summarized the important provisions of each one.

The first resolution was a zoning text change, which only requires a majority vote.

The second resolution was zoning map change, which attorneys argue would or would not need a super majority.

I know the applicant took the position that the protest petitions don’t apply to applications under 8 – 30g,” Andres said, and then turned to Aniskovich. But you advised us that you found no authority to support that, and that you therefore disagree with that. Is that correct?”

Correct,” Town Attorney Aniskovich replied, indicating that for him this was a grey area of the law. Hollister maintains the zoning map issue does not require a super majority vote under the Affordable Housing Act. 

Following that vote on the map change, Andres said, That is a vote of 3 – 2 in favor, but my understanding is that the motion would therefore fail because 4 votes are required,” he said.

The third draft resolution was eight pages long and involved site plans and coastal site plans. The town planner read through 10 conditions for approval.

The first condition said The approval of this site plan and coastal site plan is conditioned upon the Commission’s rezoning of the subject property to a zoning district to which this site plan would conform.” Andres said that means the zoning map change must be approved (in this case by a 4 – 1 vote) because a state law requires housing authorities to abide by local zoning rules.

We’ve got to comply with the law,” Andres said. We had to review this law under 8 – 30g and certain standards. That’s the way we had to review it, and that’s what we’re doing,” Andres said. And they’ve got to comply with the law. They’re the Housing Authority and Housing Authority law says they are subject to zoning regulations, so that means they have to have a zone in place for any housing projects So that’s why I think the map change is integral to all that. That’s part of their law. We’re doing our law.”

Parkside Background

Branford’s Housing Authority has spent several years attempting to replace the dilapidated Parkside Village 1 affordable housing complex at 115 S. Montowese St. The three buildings are deteriorating and are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complex includes 50 small units that provide housing for low-income elderly and people with disabilities.

The Housing Authority hired a development firm, Beacon Communities LLC of Boston, to oversee the project and apply for funding. Plans call for construction of an L‑shaped building with 67 apartments, including 33 one-bedroom units, and 34 two-bedroom units. The units would house low-income people of any age, not just seniors, which the developer claims would increase the possibility of securing federal funding.

Parkside Village 1 was constructed in the early 1970’s on a 5.7 acre site that the Housing Authority owns.

Public hearings, which began in October and ended in December, drew large crowds, with many neighbors opposing the project for a variety of reasons.

Carolyn Sires, one of the neighbors who spearheaded the protest movement, was relieved after the votes were taken Thursday. Sires told the Eagle: The petitions did not allow them to get the zoning change,” she said. Our petitions were stellar.”

###

Sign up for our morning newsletter

Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.


Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

Avatar for susie the pit bull