Parkside Village Zoning Changes Face Obstacles

More than 100 neighbors, some respectful, some rude, challenged plans to redevelop Parkside Village 1 last week, saying a massive new building 40 feet high was out of sync with the neighborhood both in scale and design.

Dissent against the proposed plan to redevelop the low-income senior housing project came not only from a well-organized group of neighbors, but from a few Planning & Zoning commissioners as well as by Harry Smith, the town planner. Smith seemed disheartened by the scale and scope of the proposed changes, which requires that Parkside 1 buildings be demolished and rebuilt. He said the proposed new housing was ​“more akin to a commercial building.”

Built in the early 1970’s, Parkside Village, an affordable housing complex, has long been a part of a small neighborhood on South Montewese Street near Foote Park and the Sliney ball fields, properties owned by the town and overseen by the Parks and Rec Department.

The P&Z public hearing began Thursday evening at Canoe Brook Senior Center, where the commission typically meets, but when the room filled to overflowing, P&Z Chairman Chuck Andres told the large audience the hearing would be moved to the community room at Fire Headquarters. The hearing was not televised for local BCTV television audiences. 

Doug Denes, the chair of the Housing Authority, told the audience that the housing authority was created more than four decades ago by the town to oversee Parkside 1 and 2. Occupants of the buildings include low-income adults over the age of 62 and disabled adults who qualify for housing under federal guidelines. If a Planned Development District (PDD), which is sought, is adopted it would eliminate age restrictions. Only Parkside 1 will be demolished and rebuilt with larger apartments and improved services, including computer, fitness and wellness centers.

In an interview yesterday, Denes said that he and members of the housing authority are reviewing all the comments from the first public hearing. “We are going to respond on Oct. 6 (the date of the next public hearing) regarding the comments and questions coming from the town planner, the fire marshal, the commissioners and the community. We are taking them all very seriously and appreciate everybody’s thoughts and concerns. We want to be good neighbors and we really do hope on behalf of the people that this project will happen.” 

During the nearly four hour hearing, the P&Z commission listened carefully to ten speakers and to Smith, who with his staff put together a nine-page report on the proposed project along with detailed maps. Plans for a new and improved Parkside Village have been discussed for about four years by the housing authority. 

Smith Outlines Concerns

“No matter what you do to the architectural treatment and I recognize great efforts have been expended in that direction, this is still a very large building for the context of the area,” Smith (pictured) said. He described the “L” shaped building, as containing 71-units. It would be three stories and 40 feet high and a “very large building…” He said it was “out of character” with the current zoning requirements for the area. Eighty-nine spaces would be allocated for parking. Newman Architects of New Haven is the architecture firm for the project.

In addition, the major changes for the new development include opening the senior and disabled population to any age group and to some higher income families, specifically those whose maximum income could not exceed $42,000. 

To undertake this project, whose costs were not outlined, requires modifications to the current zoning regulations that would enable a state housing low income tax credit program and a private developer without which the Housing Authority says it could not undertake the project.  If the P&Z approves the project, the developer and the housing authority will go to Hartford in early November to submit a tax credit application for the affordable housing project. 

To achieve that end, the housing authority and developer need to establish a PDD, an overlay, so to speak, that overrides current zoning. But Smith noted in the report that the P&Z has “great discretion when considering applications to establish PDDs.” 

He also said he had concerns about the PDD size. “It is unclear what this PDD is,” he said. “There are other options,” he noted. He also said there was a flood plain issue, which was “not shown on the plan. It should be.”

Smith told the P&Z that the November deadline for Beacon Communities, LLC, the Boston development company which will lease the land from the housing authority to apply for tax credit financing from the state Department of Housing, is unfortunate. 

“So that really takes it out of sync with planning efforts for Foote Park and the adjoining town property,” Smith told the P&Z.  Smith is also concerned about increasing the density, noting the PDD allowances are way beyond the current zoning requirements.  He said some concerns were raised by the fire marshal and noted that Branford’s Plan of Conservation and Development recommends occupants have access to public transit. 

He reminded the commission that Branford’s PDD guidelines “highly discourages PDDs for the sole purpose of increasing residential density.”  He told the commission that “you’re going to have to decide whether this is solely for that purpose or not.”

Dara Kovel, the president of Beacon Communities, told the commission the proposed plans are aimed at creating “a very modern and well-designed structure. This property has survived on very little resources over its 40 years and this development would allow it to be fully-staffed, more well-managed and better maintained and a better place for people to live.”

The Public Speaks

Sally Brown (pictured), who lives in the Great Oaks Condos across the street from the proposed project, was the first speaker to address the P&Z.  “We have only really understood the extent of this development in the last two weeks,” she said referring to two recent meetings the housing authority held to describe the project.  Brown lives in the Great Oaks Condos, built in 1981. It lies directly across the street from Parkside, which was built in 1974. 

Brown submitted a petition to the P&Z opposing the creation of a new PDD. The petition represents 95 percent of all the Great Oaks condo owners who live within the 500 feet of the PDD for Parkside Village, she said.

If approved the petition will mandate a supermajority vote for the P&Z, which means the commission will need one more person than a simple majority to approve the project. 

That means that four out of five instead of three out of five P&Z members will have to vote to adopt the Master Plan and the PDD. One of the P&Z’s regular members, Joe Chadwick, recused himself from voting because he serves on the board of the housing authority and is the organization’s treasurer. He announced his recusal at the meeting but stayed to listen to the public hearing.

Another P&Z member, Joe Higgins, who serves as an alternate, announced he had attended a recent housing authority meeting where Parkside was discussed with neighbors. He said he thought he should recuse himself. But those in the housing authority urged him to stay and he did. 

“Bubble Gum and Duct Tape”

Denes, who has chaired the housing authority for more than 20 years, told the P&Z audience that “oversight of finances and day-to-day issues are handled through our property manager, Merritt properties. When we have a chance we engage in long-term planning. We have always been a low-key non-partisan board with a shared vision of doing the right thing for our tenants and for Branford.”

“Over the years there have been numerous problems,” he said, describing problems with windows, roofs, structural damage and the fact that the entire facility, while aimed at seniors and the disabled is not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“We have held this property together on bubble gum and duct tape,” he said, adding “we have done it for years. But despite our best efforts, it wasn’t going to work in the long term. We were fighting a losing battle.”

So the housing authority decided to seek outside advice to try to change the housing conditions under which the occupants live their lives.

Denes said the authority realized that it needed to partner “with a developer experienced in low income housing tax credits…this is the only way forward. Building on site has several benefits. We avoid a lengthy complicated and futile search for another site. And by owning the land we continue to be in control of what happens on the property. Essentially we will continue to own the property; we will lease it to Beacon Properties to build the building. That means we will remain active partners. But a commitment to low- income housing is a permanent commitment to our operation.”

How Tenants Live

One of Merritt Properties employees, Cheryl Daniw, told the audience that the studios were so small that that many potential residents have turned them down. The size, she told the audience, was 381 square feet. There is no bedroom, just one room with a kitchen. “For them, this is all they have to call their home,” she said. Merritt currently oversees Parkside Village. 

A number of Parkside residents attended the hearing and some planned to speak but Daniw said they left because “they were upset by the disparaging statements” others made about them.

One neighbor, Carolyn Sires, said that she had spent the last two weeks living “Beacon,” as she called it, investigating the company and its responses to her calls. They weren’t any, she said.

Sires, who was holding print-outs of police reports, told the audience that she found there were over 250 police calls from Parkside Village to the police department, describing incidents of vandalism, breaking windows, harassment, theft, public intoxication and indecency. One person had 13 incidents, she said.

Daniw addressed some of Sires’s issues, saying sometimes the only way a renter may be moved is if there is documentation of behavioral problems. Hence, the police are called.

Commissioners Voice Concern

The P&Z commission posed a number of questions during the public hearing.

Commissioner John Lust said he worried about whether the property will remain deed restricted as affordable housing. “Will that be sustained?” he asked.

Commissioner Marci Palluzzi said she was concerned about the additional traffic along South Montewese Street, a narrow road used by runners and bicyclists. 

At one point, Commissioner Fred Russo asked what “is true height of the building? Is it a flat roof or pitched roof? What is the actual height from ground to peak of the roof?” Smith told him it was 40 feet high when it should be 30 at maximum.

“You have a massive structure, very high and not compatible to anything in the neighborhood.” Russo said.

The audience burst into applause.
###

edit