Allan Appel Photo
New zoning rules would avoid towers like these downtown.
A package of new zoning rules for New Haven introduced by city planners aims to create a busier and fuller downtown without higher buildings.
No more “garden apartments.” Smaller side-yard requirements so row-house style multifamily townhouses can sprout up. Reduced “open space” requirements allowing you to put more space on the roof. A reduced parking requirement, of one space per unit.
Those changes appear in the package of proposed zoning ordinance text amendments for RH‑2 zones, primarily affecting downtown, heading to the Board of Aldermen for consideration — and public hearings — now that they have passed the City Plan Commission. The commission passed them at its regular monthly meeting last week.
City Plan zoning guru Tom Talbot characterized the language and definition alterations in the law as a “major change” in how the city views high density.
The changes reflect an attempt by city planners to catch up to current practice: to make it easier for developers of mixed-use buildings and commercial-to-residential conversions to work in downtown RH‑2 (aka high-density residential) districts without having to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for special exceptions and variances for parking, height, side-yard, and requirements in each and every instance.
Or, as the City Plan report states: “The bulk and yard standards [in current RH‑2] require extensive yards between buildings and setbacks from the street and require extensive open space, all of which break the ‘street wall.’ The RH‑2 district requires one parking space per dwelling unit, on site or within 300 feet; relief from this provision in walkable, bike-able, transit-served central New Haven is frequently sought from the BZA.”
“A number of the changes you propose just reflect our practice. We’re catching up with reality?” City Plan Chair Ed Mattison asked at last week’s meeting.
City Plan chief Karyn Gilvarg (pictured) and Talbot concurred. “We’re trying to extend a more traditional element, with longer and lower instead of tall towers, without saying [to potential builders], ‘You ‘ll need this variance, this variance and special exception.’”
Gilvarg referenced current high-density buildings in the affected areas, such as the Madison Towers and University Towers (pictured at the top), tall buildings surrounded by streetscape-disrupting parking along York, George, and Park.
Such “towers in a park” configurations are “fine in a cornfield,” Gilvarg quipped, but inappropriate for downtown New Haven development today, where variants of “new urbanist” philosophy (promoting human-scale buildings, dense mixes of commercial and residential business uses on the same properties, walkable and bikable streets) have become more popular.
The “top of the pyramid of residential zones, RH-2 comprises areas north and east of the Green, Dwight, and up Science Hill, Gilvarg said.
Aldermanic representative Adam Marchand wanted to know if the changes were being forwarded to address a specific project in the pipeline.
The answer was no.
Then Mattison looked around the room wondering, with a touch of anxiety, where the public was. Not a single speaker for or against the changes had shown up.
In recent years projects inspiring the proposed changes have sparked impassioned protest, such as the reaction to Randy Salvatore’s proposed 136-unit apartment building at the corner of Chapel and Howe.
The RH‑2 standards underlie requirements for building residential and mixed use even in the BD (or general business) zones. So the proposed changes will affect development in the non-residential areas as well.
That’s why Talbot called the language and definition changes “major.”
That’s also why Mattison grilled Gilvarg on how much outreach the department had done.
The answer: In effect, her department is stretched very thin. She has personally run out of nights and weekends, she said. “We have not done extensive outreach.”
Commissioners Audrey Tyson and (Chairman) Mattison.
“I’m a little concerned people will say ‘You snuck it past us,’” replied Mattison.
Talbot said the department is being proactive. When there’s a specific project, the public flocks in, but general zoning changes attract little attention. “You’ve heard a lot of this already.”
Mattison was persistent: “I’d like to see what some interested parties have to say. It feels a a little ‘inside the beltway.’”
“You have a special meeting on Nov. 30. Someone can try to do outreach before then,” Gilvarg said. She also pointed out that the change, once passed by the commissioners, must go to the Board of Aldermen, where it will have a public hearing.
“If the Board of Aldermen doesn’t think the cake is fully baked, it can pass it back.”
With that assurance, the commissioners’ reluctance was overcome, and the measure passed unanimously.
Marchand said he expects the matter to go to the aldermanic/alderic/alderian legislation committee, which would hold public hearings on the zoning changes, likely next month.
Why have a parking requirement at all? Many cities are doing away with them altogether.
Because parking costs get built into development cost, the only impact of a parking requirement is that you get unaffordable rents, fewer housing units, and less money for schools and youth programs.