More ​“Package” Purveyors Allowed Downtown

It’s fine to cluster liquor outlets on Crown Street. On Orange Street? Fuggedaboutit. 

That at least was the import of two developments at this week’s zoning board meeting, where a Crown Street developer won permission to try to fill an empty storefront with a high-end package store while Atticus Market withdrew a request to start selling beer in East Rock.

That glaring distinction in zoning practice emerged Tuesday night at a special meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals convened over the Zoom teleconferencing app.

Local attorney James Segaloff, representing the Crown Court Apartments, was on hand to request, per the meeting agenda, ​“a variance to allow a package permit to be located approximately 1,000 feet away from another establishment with a package permit where 1,500 feet is required.”

The 132-unit seven-story building at the corner of Crown and High streets has 10,000 feet of commercial (and amenity) space it has been unsuccessful in trying to rent for the past half year.

A prospect who would like to rent 2,000 feet for what Segaloff termed ​“an upscale liquor store” has come along. The landlord is naturally eager to say yes. However, at least two other liquor stores are closer than 1,500 feet away.

A City Plan report last month declared ​“no recommendation” either for or against the request.

“You’ll find you have a lot of choices downtown, a number of stores within 1,500 feet, and this board has found it appropriate in the past to grant such a variance,” Segaloff argued Monday night.

“This is not a little community in West Hills or elsewhere where there’s a value to keep liquor stores apart,” he adde.

That caught the attention of Commissioner Alexandra Daum, who referenced the appearance at BZA last month of representatives of the Atticus market at 771 Orange St. in East Rock also requesting a distance variance. That proposal was sent back to City Plan. Though they were supposed to appear at the Tuesday night meeting, the request was withdrawn and not heard.

“What’s the difference?” Daum asked.

City Plan staffer Nate Hougrand provided the answer: The Atticus request ​“was in a residential zone, and the use itself required a special exception as well as a variance for the distance. Here the use is allowed as of right and they are seeking relief just for the distance.”

Hougrand also reminded the commissioners that in the case of Atticus, the required hardship basis for the special treatment was financial; the BZA is not permitted to consider financial hardships. The Crown applicant’s hardship claim was based on location.

Segaloff added that public safety and health would not be imperiled by an approval of the Crown request. However, ​“not to allow the liquor store in this facility, it is an injustice to let an independent commercial business not to get started,” he argued.

During the public hearing portion of the gathering, Segaloff got an unexpected boost for his position from zoning attorney Ben Trachten. Trachten was speaking as a member of the public although he was on the meeting agenda representing applications on other matters.

“I would like to speak in favor,” Trachten said. ​“The distance requirement is a protectionist anomaly.” He recommended that as the requirement is operating more in the breach than the observance, it should be revoked.

“In most areas of downtown it’s impossible to satisfy this. And the recent growth of downtown should make us reconsider the rule, especially considering the residential density increasing downtown.”

In short order BZA Chairwoman Mildred Melendez moved to approve, and the vote of the commissioners was unanimous.