Mandatory Notice Quest Gains Support

Sounds reasonable to me and of interest - possibly the only item I have ever agreed with Patricia on.

The people should have the right to know what is going on in their neighborhood, and how any change - any change whatsoever - could/would impact their current living situation and wellbeing/quality of life.

I for one hope this passes - and would like to see something like this happen on the state level as well.

Update!! Alder Richard Furlow has reached out and plans to get the proposal before the Board of Alders in March. Usually a committee reviews all legislative proposals. There may be wording changes too.
I think the Notice proposal will benefit developers as well as neighborhoods by starting the process at the grass roots level and letting people voice their concerns and solutions.
@1644. Kevin McCarthy contributed to the proposal. This is strictly a local matter as I understand it.

Updating the residents in a neighborhood of any proposed project that will potentially impact them just makes sense. As more and more residential buildings are owned by landlords who don't live in the city, the notification to the people who do actually live there is important to keep people updated, give them a chance to ask questions and express concerns, and get answers, and for the project owners to be good neighbors to the community. You never know, sometimes the community has good ideas or raise concerns that the city and the project owners were unaware would be an issue with the project. Together they can come up with solutions or compromises.

Seldom do I agree with P. Kane on much. However, that has come to an end on this one. Her advocacy on behalf of the Newhallville residents regarding prior notification of projects that can either affect them directly or indirectly is spot on.

Why aren't ALL the Alders on board with this one? It's obvious that the Black and Brown communities are being dumped on, and if the BOA cannot see fit to support this legislation, they need to be removed!

1644, to go to Patricia's comment, CGS § 8-2 explicitly allows municipalities to adopt notice requirements that go beyond those contained in the statute. The provision is about halfway through subsection (a), which is model of how not to draft.

A couple of caveats. Various developments are allowed as of right under the zoning ordinance. There is nothing wrong with telling neighbors what is coming. But if an area is zoned for a specific use, there is no public hearing required to use the property that way. And if the property owner has applied for a building permit for a project, it is exempt from subsequent changes to the zoning ordinance. Finally, federal law has largely pre-empted local zoning for cell phone towers and antennas.

@KevinMcCarthy: If possible, the substance of your caveats should be incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. Let's see what the Board of Alders wants to do.

Sending out notifications to any percentage of New Haven residents regarding any point of city legislation or actions is going to be a logistical nightmare. But ..... the city should offer a website page to send notifications to people who register their method of contact regarding municipal affairs, whether is be text, email or possibly mailer (the latter less likely due to cost).

These are simple things that can be done, while requiring very little resources. Lack of originality on the part of city leadership.

This is a great idea and would eliminate all kinds of bad feelings all around.
We can certainly work on this together. Dwight community just had a Tax Abatement sign off on and NO one was aware of the Community Development Meeting. We have a list serve for the Dwight Central management and the alders should be required to let us know about these important issues.
The best plan is on that includes voices from the neighborhood. Mayor Elicker should make this a priority.

I'm sure this comes from a good place and the intention behind it is benevolent but it's fundamentally flawed. First, narrow down the types of matters that this would apply to and be explicit. Second, limit notice to the Alder, and abutters. The management teams distribution lists are usually the "same old same old" people, usually 10-20, who have issues with everything and opinions about everything. density, community benefits, affordable housing, bikes, environmental concerns, etc. But none of those items are generally open for discussion; the codes and ordinances specify requirements and no applicant should be required to exceed our legislative requirements.

I have rarely had a good experience at a management team meeting. In fact, most of the jaw dropping stupid/racist/nimby/uninformed/I'll conceived comments have ALL come at management team meetings. There's also been active undermining of one city department against another at these meetings.

It's an opportunity for every neighbor with a pet issue to speak up and think their opinion matters. Participation gives a false sense of being part of something. Everyone thinks they're an expert and knows best. They don't.

I think the applications that rile neighbors are usually where the city is in cahoots (for lack of a better word) with a developer or local clergy to dispose of a city owned property and the community finds out at the 11th hour. But these types of matters are on BOA agendas.

30 days prior is a crazy long amount of time. There would need to be some specificity as to how early in the process the notice can be distributed and how accurate it has to be as to the final plan that is advanced. There shouldn't be an expectation of re-notification every time a plan changes. As they often do.

Posting to private websites should be rethought.

I don't support this. We have a system that works for the engaged citizenry. Don't change it.

@ Ben Trachten … WTH!!!! Not sure when the last time you went to a CMT meeting or receive notice about one, but we don't ALL have 'issues with everything, & we probably DO have opinions about everything (just like you do) because we care about our communities and are positively active in them. Your comment about the people that DO participate in this type of community engagement is so condescending like we have no RIGHT to be concerned or involved!!! You may not have good experiences at CMT's because you, as an attorney, represent entities that usually have no desire to engage with or be partners or good neighbors with communities. They just want to come in, do their business, collect their $ and go back to whatever communities outside of New Haven that they live in … kinda like you do! Neighbors usually get 'riled up' when someone comes into their community to do something they BELIEVE may affect their quality of life & weren't shown the courtesy of being notified about their intentions. If their intentions are good, why NOT advise the locals about their 'wonderful' project or development?

Your statement 'most of the jaw dropping stupid/racist/nimby/uninformed/ill conceived comments have ALL come at management team meetings' is so patronizing. And yes I'll say it, it REEKS of privilege!!! Just because all is well where 'YOU' live doesn't mean that things are all good in other parts of the city. And for you to even insinuate that WE should not even be given the opportunity to express our desires for the place where WE live sounds like it comes from one who thinks they are superior to others! But considering the 'ville' that YOU live in, would you be OK with YOUR neighbors putting cell phone towers on their homes? Oh wait, that won't happen because YOU don't live in an IH zone... that was taken care of with zoning regulations in YOUR part of town. Everybody doesn't HAVE the opportunities that some like you do, but we should at least have the opportunity to opine.

@ Ben Trachten - and if you don't support it, then DON'T. But don't knock it for the folks who do care about this issue of notification and think that it WILL better serve ALL the communities of New Haven if the area residents (not just property owners) receive notification. We understand that some parts of Westville are not as dense as some parts of Newhallville, and there may not be as many resident homeowners in that part of Newhallville as there are in many parts of Westville, but that doesn't make the residents any less citizens and worthy of notification … such a small request.

In 2019, T-Mobile wanted to put a 9 antenna array atop a church in Quinnipiac East. No comments from you then - but you weren't T-Mobiles attorney. Kane & Ozcyk opposed.

In 2015, AT & T met with Branford residents to discuss their proposal in advance of their application … a novel idea. No comments from you then either. But you don't live in Branford so we kinda get it.

In 2013, T-Mobile wanted to build a cell tower in Fairmont Park in Fair Haven Parks ... CPC tabled it. Any comment from you? No? Kane & Ozcyk opposed there too.

But we get it, you want 5G cell phone service. And you confessed, you are more concerned with technology then you are with science. We get that too.

But while you pulled your car over to the side of the road on your way home to a neighborhood that is NOT Newhallville to speak as the attorney representing the applicant at a meeting on an item concerning Newhallville, there were many more people who live IN Newhallville who were at home IN Newhallville at the time of this meeting ABOUT Newhallville, who more than likely would have expressed their opinion … if they had notification that YOU a non-Newhallville resident had the privilege of having simply because you represented the applicant.

Well, the residents represent the neighborhood and themselves. Is a neighborhood less deserving of a privilege that you were afforded? Go ahead … answer that. I'll wait.

Ben, there is a real difference between who shows up for CMT meetings and who gets notice of them. I've been involved with the East Rock CMT since its inception. As you note, a small number of people show up, typically around 30. But the meeting notice and agenda go out to hundreds of people. I suspect this is true for other CMTs.

I've been asked to discuss this proposal with the Hill North CMT at its next meeting. One thing I will stress is that the role of public participation varies substantially by the type of application. A zone change is a legislative decision, and both the City Plan Commission and the Board of Alders hold hearings to get public input. On the other hand, a site plan review is designed to solely address a proposal's compliance with the specific requirements of the existing zoning ordinance and a hearing is not required.

Finally, City Plan could do a better job of describing proposals in its agendas, which are available online. The current agendas describe the legal change being sought, for example a variance to allow a taller building than allowed under the zoning ordinance. This is necessary, but really does not describe the proposed development. I think the applicant should be required to provide a plain English description of the development, subject to City Plan verification.

@Ben Trachten: You wrote: "We have a system that works for the engaged citizenry."
If that were true, I would not have repeatedly learned last minute - literally the day before a hearing -of projects that would have a significant impact on my neighborhood. As you know, some notice provisions are limited to abutting or adjacent landowners within a few hundred feet of a proposed project.
It would be good to have a chart of which agencies, boards and commissions have any notice provision and to see how limited the range is.
The fact is that the smart developers have learned to bring their projects to the neighborhoods via the Management Teams, Alders or other community contacts.
No one wants a long, expensive and contentious process. It is no fun at the community level and I doubt any proponents enjoy the costs or delays either.
Right now Giovanni Zinn and Doug Hausladen are conducting meetings in Fair Haven Heights to get feedback about the 2022 redesign of Quinnipiac Avenue from Grand Ave. to Foxon Blvd. While we are fortunate to have architect and developer Fereshteh Bekhrad contribute her expertise on behalf of the neighborhood - because she lives here- the lived experience of other residents is equally valuable to shaping the outcome.

@patricia Kane

The document that is linked in the article is vague. If there is an updated draft ordinance please link it or email it.

Alders have public email addresses. Notifying them is easy. Most "developers" already notify the Alder for substantial projects.

I think City Departments (overall) do a great job with community engagement.

Patricia has put lots of work into this project and I support the concept of more notice and better communication. Too often residents hear about meetings and hearings after they have already happened. The city remains in the dark ages when it comes to communications.