Pawson Neighbors Protest Housing Plan at P&Z Hearing

Pawson Road neighbors say it’s wrong to build multi-family homes, under the guise of affordable housing, on a half-acre property that is prone to coastal flooding. They also object to the owner’s alternate request to build a single- family home on the site, which has been deemed an unbuildable lot.

About 90 people crowded into the meeting room Thursday at the Canoe Brook Senior Center for a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission. They applauded State Rep. Lonnie Reed, (D-Branford) when she said similar situations are happening elsewhere in the state and efforts are underway to enact legislation to clarify the state’s affordable housing act.

Reed said the proposed bill would refine and clarify the statute. ​“There’s a feeling in a lot of communities… that this statute is being misused as a weapon to intimidate municipalities, to intimidate zoning boards and commissions,” Reed told the crowd Thursday.

Arsalan Altaf, manager at Sam’s Food Stores in Rocky Hill and the owner of the Branford property, has requested a special exception to construct two buildings with six residential units at 239 Pawson Road under the state’s affordable housing statute CGS 8 – 30g. According to the statute, 30 percent of housing must be designated as affordable — in this case it would be two of the six units. No decision was reached Thursday, and the hearing will continue at the next regularly scheduled meeting, which is Sept. 1.

Altaf’s attorney said some of the assertions that were made during the hearing do not apply. He said he will respond to the various reports and comments when the public hearing resumes Sept. 1. Atlaf attended the hearing but did not speak.

A separate public hearing was scheduled before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) Tuesday for Altaf’s request for several variances to build a single-family residence on the same lot. A few hours before that hearing, Altaf asked that it be tabled until the August 16 meeting.

Altaf, whose residence is listed as Middletown on corporation papers, purchased the site from Patricia W. Northrop in September 2015 for $35,000 through his Pawson Point LLC. He incorporated the company the same month. The property is assessed at $49,000 and appraised at $71,100. In January 2015, Northrop requested variances to build a home on the property, but the ZBA denied the variances.

In addition to residents, an attorney for the neighbors testified during the two-hour hearing, as did a coastal expert. The town planner outlined a 12-page staff report, and a three-page letter was presented from an environmental analyst with the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). The property comes under DEEP jurisdiction because it has coastal wetlands, rather than inland wetlands.

Changing the State Statute

State Rep. Reed said she previously lived in Pawson Park for about 30 years and is familiar with the challenges of the area.

Other municipalities, such as Milford, have been struggling with applications for large affordable housing units on small sites. Reed said part of the problem is the state’s 1990 affordable housing statute that basically allows developers to override local zoning regulations.

Reed said the House of Representative passed House Bill 5363 this past year to update the statute, but the session ended before the Senate was able to vote on the bill. 

She said the bill will be re-introduced in the coming session. ​“The reason is not only to protect neighbors, but to protect people who are being exploited by having the statute misused,” Reed said. ​“I think one of the things going on here … is that the real objective is to get that single home in there, so this statute is being used as a weapon to try to make that compromise. So stand firm, do what you feel is right and we’ll do what we can on the state level.”

“A Different Set of Rules”

At the start of the hearing, P&Z chair Chuck Andres (center) explained that projects under the state statute for affordable housing differ from regular applications. “It’s a different set of rules. By state law, simple non-compliance with the zoning regulations is not necessarily grounds for denial,” Andres said, adding that a project can be denied if substantial issues of public health, safety and welfare outweigh the need for affordable housing. 

Andres noted that Altaf has simultaneous requests before the ZBA and P&Z for two different projects. He asked Altaf’s attorney which one the owner prefers. 

“Pawson Point LLC intends to develop the property—period,” said Altaf’s attorney, Kevin J. Curseaden, adding that he can’t say which is preferred.

Curseaden is a partner in the firm of Carroll, Curseaden & Moore LLC of Milford.  He also represents Charles Weber and Al Secondino in their plans to build six commercial businesses near Costco on a 44-acre Planned Development District at Exit 56.

Curseaden (pictured) said Branford’s Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) determined in 2015 that the site is not a building lot. ​“I don’t agree with the conclusion,” he said.

The affordable housing plans call for two buildings, one with four units and one with two units. All would have two bedrooms. 

Curseaden said he believes the housing plan being proposed meets the standard of the state statute. 

Robert Pryor (pictured), an engineer with Land Tech Consultants in Westport, representing Altaf, displayed a basic layout of the plans. Land Tech was one of the consultants who represented the Branford Land Trust during the Costco hearings. 

​“We were tasked with coming up with a plan that would maximize the number of units that we could physically fit on this site,” Pryor said. He said the olive green color to the right on the drawing (see above photo) shows the area of the land that is tidal wetlands. ​“A significant portion of the property is tidal wetlands,” he said.

The property is adjacent to 20 acres of open space land owned by the State of Connecticut, and an easement to the state property runs through Altaf’s property. The site is about 200 feet from the Branford River.

“Affordable” and Inexpensive — Not the Same Thing

“Affordable housing doesn’t necessarily mean inexpensive housing,” Andres said. He said the state statute only considers ​“deed-restricted” housing or federally-assisted housing when it calculates how much affordable housing a town has.

“One of the criticisms of the affordable housing statute is that it’s sort of misnamed, because you can have lots of inexpensive housing that is rented at the 80 percent or 60 percent level, but unless it’s deed-restricted, it doesn’t count. There have been efforts to amend the statute over the last decades….but it’s still on the books,” Andres said.

In an affordable housing project, the state statute requires that 15 percent of the units must be deed-restricted for a household earning 80 or less of the of the area/statewide median income, whichever is less; and another 15 percent of the units must be deed-restricted for a household earning 60 percent or less of the area/statewide median income.

Town Planner Harry Smith (pictured) discussed the amount of affordable housing in Branford. He is pictured above holding a map relating to the town’s natural resources. 

Smith said the South Central Regional Council of Governments shows that in 2015 Branford had 22 percent of homes that met the criteria of affordable housing for the 80 percent mark; and 12 percent at 50 percent of median incomes. The median household income for Branford was listed at $71,058.

However, Smith said that according to the state statute’s definition requiring deed-restricted or federally-assisted housing, Branford only has 3.46 percent of housing that qualifies.

A municipality that has 10 percent or more affordable housing, according to state statute definitions, can be exempt from some of the statute’s requirements.

The Public Speaks

Attorney Joseph B. Schwartz, (seated at left) who represents abutting neighbors Stephen and Patricia Small discussed the premises he made in an 8‑page letter he submitted to the commission. Schwartz, an attorney with Murtha Cullina LLP of Hartford, said this case is very similar to a recent one in East Lyme where a developer wanted to build affordable housing on a property abutting Long Island Sound. The East Lyme zoning commission denied the request stating that it did not comply with policies of the Coastal Management Act. The State Superior Court upheld the commission’s denial.

“It’s not so much what’s proposed, it’s where the lot is located,” Schwartz said. If you look at the pictures and if anyone has been out to the site, you’ll see how small the lot really is, and how much the tidal wetlands take over the property, and how steep the left corner of the property is. And I don’t think there’s anything the owner of the property can do to modify this application to address the commission’s concerns,” he said.

Schwartz listed several reasons why the commission could deny the project, including the necessity ​“to protect the public interest in preserving the policies of the Coastal Management Act (CMA), specifically preserving and protecting the coastal boundaries that abut the property.” He noted the applicability of the CMA to the affordable housing act, citing case law. 

Schwartz also submitted a 14-page environmental review of the property from Jennifer O’Donnell of Coastal Ocean Analytics in Noank. O’Donnell, who was hired by the Smalls, has a Ph.D. in engineering and more than 30 years of experience in coastal processes and protection.

“The house is too close to the wetlands,” O’Donnell told the crowd Thursday as she discussed the plans. ​“Coastal flooding is currently a problem; it is not going to get better. It’s going to get worse.”

O’Donnell said it’s important to consider the rationality of putting low-income housing in a flood zone. She said DEEP recommends a buffer of 100 feet around coastal wetlands, and the proposed building is within 1 foot of the wetlands.

“Nobody wants waves hitting the sides of their building,” O’Donnell said.

“We are increasing hazards to the property, increasing the probability of erosion, we’re increasing the damage to the wetlands, and we’re increasing hazards to people,” she said.

Neighbor Patricia Small (pictured), who lives at 235 Pawson Road, submitted petitions to the commission that were signed by residents. ​“We’re very concerned with the impact of any development to this property,” she said, listing concerns about coastal resources, pollution, erosion, flooding, and narrow roads. ​“This development is not only dangerous to current residents in the neighborhood but also to anyone living in the proposed development,” Small said.

Several neighbors talked about how Tropical Storm Irene nearly isolated the Pawson Park/Indian Neck peninsula when portions of Linden Avenue, the only access road, were partially washed out.

Neighbor Patrick Monroe said that during Irene and Super Storm Sandy, the site in question was ​“completely flooded.”

Ed Mayhew, who lives nearby, talked about the history of the neighborhood, which started as a religious campground years ago. ​“When it comes to affordable housing, we have a responsibility to help those people who are more challenged than we are, whether that’s economically or developmentally, or physically.”

Mayhew said the lot is not suitable for housing, but a developer wants to put disadvantaged people there. ​“What kind of a statement are we making to those who need more help, when we say they can live on land that the rest of us wouldn’t?”

Don Conklin, a member of the Representative Town Meeting who represents the Pawson Park area, said he went to look at the property. ​“If you go and look at this property, common sense should tell you there is no way you should want to develop it,” he said.

Pam Roy, who does not live in the Pawson Park area, said she finds the plans ​“outrageous and ridiculous.” She said what affects one part of town, affects everyone. ​“It’s not just the neighborhood, it’s the whole town. We need to protect Branford from irresponsible development,” she said.

Town Planner: Application Incomplete

Town Planner Smith said critical information is missing from the application, particularly regarding soils and stormwater runoff. The town has requested soil borings that would reveal the extent of the tidal wetlands. ​“That tidal wetland boundary may extend further upland,” he said.

Smith also said that the application does not meet zoning regulations in ​“numerous respects,” and is not consistent with the current Plan of Conservation and Development. For example, he said the foundation of one building would be about one foot from tidal wetlands, and another would be about one foot from property lines.

However, state statute permits affordable housing applications to supersede zoning regulations unless it can be proven that there is ​“substantial public interest in health, safety or other matters which the commission may legally consider, such public interest clearly outweighs the need for affordable housing; and public interests cannot be protected by reasonable changes of the affordable housing development.”

Smith presented a 12-page staff report on the project, and discussed a letter from the DEEP.

He said Town Engineer Janice Plaziak raised several concerns. ​“Her professional opinion as a professional engineer is that it would be difficult or impossible to construct this development as proposed without intruding into the tidal wetlands or trespassing on the neighboring property.”

Smith displayed a map from the town engineer that shows the extent of flooding in the area. ​“The sole access to this development would be under water” in a major storm, he said. The property is in the FEMA special flood hazard area.

As for public safety, Smith said the Fire Marshal Shaun Heffernan filed a report outlining his concerns about the limited access for fire trucks and emergency equipment.

Smith also cited a report from John Gaucher of DEEP’s Office of Long Island Sound Programs, who reviewed the proposal for consistency with the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA).

Gaucher’s report stated: ​“Placing six units in a flood hazard area immediately adjacent to tidal wetlands neither minimizes hazards to life and property nor minimizes adverse impacts upon adjacent coastal systems and resources,” as required by the CCMA.

“While the application as referred to us is incomplete, as designed it appears inconsistent with several CCMA and state permitting policies, most of which are caused by the development being proposed immediately adjacent to tidal wetlands in a coastal flood hazard area.” Gaucher said relocating or redesigning the development further from the tidal wetlands or reducing the number of unit could resolve some of the issues.

Commissioners’ Concerns

Commissioner Joe Chadwick said the project is ​“so completely out of character with anything around it. It amazes me.” He said he thinks ​“this is like some sort of gambit” that the owner is using to ​“start with this to get something else.”

Chadwick, who also serves on the town’s Housing Authority, said issues regarding the state’s affordable housing statute have been frequently discussed at the housing authority. ​“One of our biggest fears was that developers would use the statute as a lever to build things that really shouldn’t be built,” Chadwick said.

“What is the rational for building there,” asked Commissioner Fred Russo as he commented on the size of the project compared to the size of the lot. ​“You’re putting a huge project on an undersized lot,” he said.

###