Some Dixwell neighbors are asking the Board of Alders to hold another committee hearing on the future of Dixwell Plaza after tech confusion delayed their participation in the first one.
The neighbors — Pat Solomon and Crystal Gooding of the Dixwell Peoples Collaborative — made the request in a letter to Board of Alders President Tyisha Walker-Myers.
The letter concerns a Jan. 21 virtual meeting held by the Board of Alders Community Development Committee. The committee voted at the meeting to advance a proposed city sale of Dixwell Plaza parcels to ConnCORP LLC, which plans to transform the decaying midcentury shopping strip into a mix of new homes, stores, and entertainment venues called ConnCAT Place. The vote came after two hours of public testimony via Zoom.
Solomon and Gooding said they and others missed part of the meeting because of miscommunication about how to access it; in their letter they also presented critiques of the proposal.
(After this letter was published, the Board of Alders shared this link of the meeting recording, including testimony by Gooding at the 1:34:13 mark and Solomon at 1:39:21.)
The text of the letter follows:
Dear Honorable President Walker-Myers:
We are writing this letter to request that this item not be considered for Suspension Agenda for the following reasons:
The Dixwell Peoples Collaborative, of which we are members, sent out the published notification of the meeting to the Dixwell Community, only to discover that the information on the notice was “faulty”. In fact, we sent text messages to Alder Winter who tried valiantly to give us the correct sign in information, but it wasn’t until approximately 6:45 pm before we gained access to the meeting. Other members of the Dixwell Community were unable to attend and/or give testimony, make comments or ask questions at the recent committee meeting held on Thursday, January 21, 2021.
We were astounded by the fact that even though Alder Wingate recognized that there were technical difficulties with public access and participation at the meeting, he went ahead and brought forth the vote and secured passage this agenda item to the full board.
The above mentioned project had been redesigned and that redesign had not been shared with the community. The phase 1 does not address the significant blocking of light and air aspects to the neighborhood and the adjacent properties, and the design for phase 2 is incomplete.
The height and density is of concern as under the Zoning Ordinance there is no density restriction where the property is subject to a DLDA. The DLDA must not permit changes in the height and density once the plans are finalized so as to prevent changes permitting greater height and / or greater density in the future. How is a prohibition going to be enforced?
The DLDA is inconsistent with the testimony at the Committee Meeting as Affordable Housing Requirements in Article IX of the DLDA as affordable housing requirement defined in Article I Section 2(c)(I) and 2(c)(II) is defined as 10%, while at the hearing some of the Alders were led to believe that the development would have 20% affordable housing.
Despite the language in that DLDA that the exhibits of the long term Leaseback of Stetson Library and the temporary Lease of the Police Substation till its demolition were attached, no leases nor summary of their terms and costs were part of the submission to the BOA. Although there is a commitment of where the Stetson Library will be located, there is no commitment of where the Police Substation will be located.
As to the developer is requesting special consideration from the City, the Workforce Utilization Requirements are too low and do not assure that work will be available to neighborhood residents. As certain members of the City staff and the Alders in attendance made extensive representations about how employment opportunities for New Haven residents would be made. Where will these commitments be recorded and how will they be enforced?
As to the developer is requesting special consideration from the City, we suggested that the MBE and WBE utilization covenants in the DLDA be based on a percentage of the total contract amount higher than the minimums under Chapter 12 1 / 4.
The meeting should require that all public should be treated with dignity and respect. One of the consultants for the Dixwell Collaborative was disrespected by another speaker and told that she should not be involved. None of the Alders stated that such testimony was inappropriate and unacceptable.
One of the community concerns was whether or not a soil testing of the proposed site of the underground parking had been done.
Historical – nothing in the DLDA addresses the historical aspects of the Dixwell Community this is contrary to what was stated in the meeting.
As a result, we respectfully request that this matter be recommitted to the Community Development Committee for a new hearing after the developer meets with the community and provides complete information and answers the community’s questions and addresses the community’s concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia K. Solomon
Crystal Gooding
I watched the video of the meeting that is posted in this article. And it is was very clear that the majority of residents were NOT able to connect with the public testimony portion of this meeting. The BOA should have postponed taking the vote until this problem was corrected. A 'do-over' would be fair. Or perhaps the community members who were not able to get on the call can submit their questions in writing and the members on the developers team and city officials can respond ... maybe in a scheduled ZOOM between ConnCorp and the Dixwell Peoples Collaborative.