The 3+-acre plot: No factories in sight.
Paul Bass Photo
Erik Johnson: Prioritize affordable housing.
Hamden’s top planner and development chief delivered a pitch to allow an affordable-housing complex to rise on long-vacant manufacturer land — but unconvinced commissioners are holding out on giving the go-ahead.
Erik Johnson, Hamden government’s economic development director and acting town planner, offered a written statement recommending the commission support the project at a meeting Tuesday night.
Afterwards, the commissioners tabled an already postponed vote on the proposal at hand: to allow John Ranciato, the owner of 455 Sherman Ave., a 3.5 acre-plot of land located next to Quinnipiac University and across from the Farmington Canal Trail, to follow through on an application he filed with the town last year to convert the empty space into the home of 31 townhouse-style apartments, 30 percent of which would count as “affordable” housing.
Because land is in a manufacturing zone, Ranciato needs permission from the commission to build housing there. The proposal has sparked continued debate over whether the town should preserve limited and valuable land allotted for industrial operations or work with the applicant to fine-tune a plan to construct needed affordable housing in northern Hamden.
Less than 10 percent of Hamden’s housing stock is affordable as defined by the state. That means that under state regulations, the town must provide explicit justification for rejecting any given affordable housing application — except, as is the case with Ranciato’s proposal, the site in question is within a manufacturing zone. That gives opponents of affordable housing an out.
Town planning staff suggested commissioners break their decision down into two different actions: First, determining whether or not to waive their right to use the manufacturing zone exemption to kill consideration of the application; second, determining whether or not the application itself is in need of amendments or ready for approval.
Commissioners have struggled so far to come to a decision on either of those two issues.
Q #1: Manufacturing or Housing?
Sketch of the proposed apartments.
Planning staff offered different angles from which to consider that first question: Is it appropriate to put apartments on land set aside for manufacturing?
In a letter to the commission dated for Feb. 4, Assistant Town Planner Matthew Davis noted that he and his colleagues were “of the opinion that the site is suitably located for both moderate density multifamily uses, as well as many of the ‘M’ zone uses.” But he mainly listed reasons it may make sense to keep the land available for potential manufacturing purposes.
A previous owner received approval to use the site for a manufacturing and wholesale business back in 2010. He ultimately sold the property to Ranciato rather than following through on his original application, meaning the lot has been empty and underutilized for at least a decade.
Back in February, Davis argued that finding a possible manufacturing use for the site may be easier moving forward than it was in previous years. For example, the planning and zoning department recently eliminated certain design limitations that had made appropriate M zone development virtually impossible. He also pointed out that the town will soon be allowing for the sale, consumption, manufacturing and distribution of cannabis, which could present new demand for the land.
Davis added that Quinnipiac University is creating new on-campus housing and facilities that will keep more students on school grounds and out of Hamden homes next year, which may open up the opportunity to convert more of Northern Hamden’s houses into affordable living options. Lastly, he wrote that as the town struggles to manage its fiscal challenges, “The use of M zone lands for affordable housing would seem to undermine the Town’s ability to accomplish important financial objectives.”
In his memo, Davis asserted that “staff only raises these points to provide context for the PZC, not to make pre-emptive recommendations.”
Fast forward to April 26: Erik Johnson updated the staff memo, officially recommending that the commission approve the applicant’s request.
The site is an unlikely spot for successful commercial or manufacturing uses, he stated.
The steep driveway leading up the site, Johnson wrote, means limited space and difficult entry for trucks. Plus, given that much of the surrounding area is residential, it makes sense to position more housing in the location. In direct contradiction with Davis’ point about the town’s fiscal stability, Johnson stated that a residential development would likely generate higher tax proceeds than a commercial one.
He argued that the infrastructure investment (roughly $750,000) required to develop an industrial or commercial building on the parcel would be cost prohibitive.
Finally, Johnson argued that increasing Hamden’s limited affordable housing stock should be a priority.
Bernie Pellegrino, the attorney representing Ranciato, echoed Johnson’s points at Tuesday;s meeting. He reiterated that northern Hamden severely lacks affordable housing, and that such a project would bring utilities — including sewers and water lines — to the space, kicking off infrastructural and economic development in the surroundingg rural, wooded area.
As for finding a commercial project that would actually be carried out on the site, Pellegrino said: “It’s not gonna happen. That’s why it hasn’t happened for 30 years.”
Commissioners were divided on whether or not to follow staff guidance to answer the threshold issue — that is, whether or not the commission saw the fact that the land was zoned for manufacturing as reason enough to strike the application.
Commissioner Joe McDonagh commented that “it’s a problematic site for almost anything, but it’s certainly impractical for manufacturing.
“I don’t see the manufacturing issue as a fundamental one,” he said.
But other commissioners, such as Jay Cruickshank, said they would like to avoid stating whether the site should be strictly used for commercial and manufacturing projects. He didn’t want commissioners to back themselves into a corner, he said, when the fact that the property is in an M zone offers commissioners a straightforward way to axe the project if they so choose.
Q #2: Site Plan Specifics Scarce?
One page of the proposed site plan: Specifics don't seem scarce.
Beyond determining whether or not to generally allow for affordable housing at 455 Sherman Ave., Planning and Zoning members expressed uncertainty about Ranciato’s specific site plan on Tuesday (the third public hearing so far for the project proposal).
Commissioner Michele Mastropetre wondered aloud how the applicant planned to handle solid waste pickup, an inquiry first made by the town engineer.
“There’s no dumpster!” she said.
She added that after engaging in “a lot of discussion back and forth” with the applicant regarding concerns over the site’s proximity to public transport, a lack of sidewalk between Sherman and Whitney, and not enough recreational land for families, she didn’t see any new ideas to provide potential residents with better amenities within the site plan, like safe pedestrian pathways, gazebos or play spaces.
McDonagh, meanwhile, asserted that he could not vote on a proposal when “I haven’t heard from the fire department.”
At first, Pellegrino disagreed with the commissioners.
“We want to do the project and I think we’ve been responsive to almost all of the substantive comments or technical issues,” he said.
The town website shows public notes provided by the fire marshall from December, which states that the property requires sprinklers and a yard hydrant, he and the project’s engineer noted.
But commissioners — as well as a line in Johnson’s memo — said that the applicant must establish an emergency access plan to the site with the Hamden Fire Department prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
Pellegrino said the applicants were proposing individual trash pick-up and installing a landing area at the end of the Sherman Avenue sidewalk. “That’s not a big deal,” he said.
“There’s only a couple of things left from what I’ve heard that we haven’t done yet, so we can do those things,” he stated. “But part of me also says … I don’t wanna waste our clients’ money.” Pellegrino noted the number of meetings he had had to attend with Planning and Zoning and the lack of clarity surrounding whether or not the commission was willing to allow affordable housing on the property at all.
Finally, the commission and the applicants’ representatives came to an understanding of what documentation and information is necessary to form a final opinion on the project: New comment from the fire marshal; answers to questions posed by the town engineer (clarity on site plan specifics, including clear denotation of ownership lines between the town and the property owner when it comes to access into the property as well as sewer installation); a pinpointed location for a dumpster on the official site plan; and a visual extension of existing sidewalk through to the end of Sherman Avenue.
The commission agreed to continue the conversation through to May 24.
“Bring it back,” Commission Chair Brack Poitier instructed, “And we can hopefully have everything resolved.”
Hamden needs to get out of it's own way. It's housing, let it happen. Are you scared that people might live in your town and pay taxes? Oh no!
The worst thing that could happen is that you ponder all the what ifs and nothing happens. There's no progress, your town goes further into debt, and everyone keeps sitting on their hands while the world moves on without Hamden. I got five bucks that says that's exactly what happens.