P&Z Takes Up Ballfields Parking & Rescinding Exit 56 Dev’t Extension

The Town of Branford has come up with a plan to provide safer access and more parking at the Sliney ballfields by extending Melrose Avenue.  This could incidentally create an opportunity for emergency access to the rear of the proposed Parkside 1 housing complex.

Alex Palluzzi Jr., director of Parks and Recreation, outlined plans at Thursday’s meeting of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission.

The commissioners also discussed two letters asking them to rescind a decision made in late July that extended the timeframe for the Exit 56 Planned Development District (PDD) and Master Plan that once included a Costco warehouse store. Costco and the other members of the PDD withdrew their applications from the Inland Wetlands Commission in April 2016, days before the commission was to vote.  If the IWC had approved the plans, they would have gone on to the P&Z.

In other news, a public hearing scheduled last Thursday was cancelled after the owners of the Stony Creek Brewery withdrew plans for a boutique hotel on Indian Neck Avenue. The town planner said he expects the plans will be resubmitted sometime in October.

Parking Woes at Sliney Ballfields

“This has been a problem for 30 years,” said Palluzzi as he talked about parking problems at the Sliney ballfields. He said the parking situation has become “pretty much a free-for-all” with cars parked illegally when all the spaces were filled. That situation sometimes led to emergency lanes being blocked.

The fields, which are used for Little League baseball and soccer, are located along South Montowese Street, adjacent to the Parkside Village complex. They are also adjacent to Foote Memorial Park, which the town acquired two years ago.

Palluzzi said the new plans would add about 50 parking spaces to the approximate 70 existing spaces at Sliney. There would be six handicapped spaces, and an area for drop-offs and pick-ups. Most importantly, the plans would address emergency access to the playing fields. The proposal would also improve traffic flow and improve stormwater drainage.

Palluzzi said now that the town owns the adjacent Foote Park, it is possible to do the road improvements. A new two-way road would branch off Melrose Avenue, go through Sliney and connect to Foote Park.

“This creates good flow through the entire property,” said Fire Marshal Shawn Heffernan, who attended the meeting. He said the plan is designed to address Sliney Fields safety issues. He said it could also alleviate overflow parking from Foote Park.

As part of the proposal, the narrow road commonly known as Sliney Road would be closed to vehicular traffic, and would be used by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Heffernan said the town’s plan for Melrose Avenue differs from one previously proposed by the Housing Authority. That proposal involved a small extension of Melrose Avenue to provide emergency access to the rear of the proposed Parkside 1 housing facility.  The P&Z commission in July gave it a negative referral after Heffernan said it was not the best option.

The Eagle asked Heffernan if the town’s Melrose Avenue proposal would solve access problems for Parkside 1. He said it may address some of the concerns but not all.

Dara Kovel, president of Beacon Communities LLC of Boston, the development team hired by the Housing Authority, addressed the access issue at a meeting last week. Kovel said the town was pursuing an extension of Melrose Avenue for the ballfields that could also solve access issues for the proposed Parkside 1 replacement project. The complex provides housing for low-income elderly and people with disabilities.

The commission on Thursday gave Palluzzi’s proposal a positive referral and the issue will eventually go to the Representative Town Meeting (RTM). The parking plans will also need to be submitted to P&Z for site-plan approval.

Requests to Rescind Exit 56 Vote

During the communications portion of the meeting, Town Planner Harry Smith said two letters were received stating objections to the commission’s July 27 decision to extend the deadline for the Exit 56 PDD and Master Plan for one year.

At the July meeting, Attorney Kevin Curseaden, of Carroll, Curseaden & Moore LLC of Milford, who represents developers Charlie Weber and Al Secondino, requested a one-year extension on behalf of property owners in the PDD. He said two years was not enough time considering the scale of the PDD and the number of property owners. 

Town attorney Aniskovich and the town’s legal firm, Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman of New Haven, were asked prior to the meeting to review the legal issues regarding a time extension.

Aniskovich said in July that the regulations do not authorize the P&Z to grant extensions to file site plans for a PDD, but they also do not prohibit it. “The commission can choose to do whatever it wants, subject to an appeal. I would not be doing my job if I didn’t tell you that granting an extension where there’s no express authority under your regulations or in a statute, opens the commission up to vulnerability,” Aniskovich said at that time.

The PDD and Master Plan would have expired July 30.

P&Z Chair Charles Andres said in July:  “I do have a problem saying that we have the authority in the regulations because the regulations say site plans must be submitted within 24 months. The master plan shall be null and void if the site plans are not approved in that timeframe, period. It doesn’t say we have authorization to grant extensions.”

The commission voted 3-2 on July 27 in favor of the one-year extension. Andres and John Lust voted no; and Joe Chadwick, Marci Palluzzi and Joe Vaiuso voted yes.

Andres, who is a land use attorney, discussed the letters at the recent meeting Thursday night.  “They’re requesting that we rescind that approval,” he told the commissioners.

Andres said Thursday that he thinks if the commission wants to grant extensions, it should be written in the regulations.

Andres recommended that the applicants be notified about the requests to rescind the vote, and give them a chance to respond. He said he doesn’t know if the P&Z has the legal authority to rescind the vote. He noted that the timeframe for filing an appeal to the Superior Court had expired. He also wants the town attorney to address the issue.

Aniskovich said at a prior meeting that an appeal was likely but it turned out that the Branford Citizens for Responsible Development (BRCD,) a group that previously challenged the Costco development, faced issues over whether it had standing to sue in this particular situation.

The two letters were written by Elizabeth Alcorn and Penny Bellamy, both attorneys. Both letters challenged the commission’s authority to grant an extension and said that the P&Z regulations define the word “shall” as mandatory and not discretionary.

“By acting without authority, your commission has set up a conflict between the plain language of your regulations (“The Master Plan shall become null and void if the site plan is not approved within that timeframe.”) and the July 27,  2017, vote to extend the period for compliance,” Bellamy wrote.

Alcorn gave a history of the regulations regarding PDDs and stated: “The clear language of the regulations as amply supported by the legislative history, compels the conclusion that the P&Z had no authority to grant the applicants’ requested extension, and violated its own regulations by so doing.”

These are the commission’s most recently approved regulations, the ones Andres cited as binding on the body. 

###