Thomas Breen photos
BZA’s Sarah Locke and Shirl Wilkins lead the charge.
The Duncan: Soon to be “Graduate New Haven” … or will it?
A surprise last-minute attack led by two union-affiliated zoning commissioners scuttled a boutique hotel developer’s bid for its final needed city approvals.
That latest twist in the Hotel Duncan saga took place in the basement of 200 Orange St. on Tuesday night, when the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) voted 4 to 1 to deny without prejudice the Chicago-based Graduate New Haven hotel developer’s special exception application during.
It raised anew a matter that had seemed settled: Whether the developer would be able to follow through on plans to remake the Duncan despite opposition by elected and appointed officials tied to a union seeking to represent his workers. The developer prevailed over previous attempts to obtain permits, has begun renovations, and seemed to be sailing toward receiving this last application approval — until the clock approached 9 p.m. Tuesday.
The application was for a hotel liquor license and to permit one on-site parking space where 59 spaces are required at 1151 Chapel St.. Developers are busy converting the former, historic Hotel Duncan there into a 72-room, college-themed boutique hotel.
Despite recommendations of approval from city staff, the City Plan Commission, and a dozen members of the public who testified in support at last month’s public hearing, the board ultimately voted down the application.
They did so after hearing last-minute concerns from two commissioners, Sarah Locke and Shirl Wilkins. They raised the concerns after public commenting had ended and responses could be offered.
Tuesday night’s Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
Both argued that the hotel developers had failed to produce a promised lease agreement between the developers and Yale that would grant hotel guests 25 reserved parking spaces at the nearby Chapel York Garage.
They also argued that the developers had turned out support only from Downtown business owners last month, and that commissioners had not heard any praise for the project from Downtown residents.
Both Locke and Wilkins are associated with the local arm of UNITE HERE, the union that represents Yale workers and hotel workers, that backs a supermajority of the Board of Alders, and that has sought to block the Hotel Duncan’s conversion over disputes with the new owners about the future hotel employees’ rights to unionize.
Board of Zoning Appeals members Al Paolillo Sr., Mildred Melendez, Pat King, Locke, and Wilkins.
Locke, a local realtor, has organized UNITE HERE-related events and volunteered with the the union’s labor advocacy group, New Haven Rising. Wilkins, a class assistant in the Orange Public Schools system, is a member of the New Growth Praise Center, a Dixwell Avenue church run by the family of New Haven Rising Director Scott Marks.
UNITE HERE had opposed the original Duncan plans while the union sought to convince the hotel’s new owner to sign a neutrality agreement that would allow for labor representation. The developer, Graduate Hotels President Tim Franzen Franzen, said he eventually agreed to sign such a deal, but then stopped hearing from the union.
Locke insisted after the meeting that her vote to deny the application came solely from zoning-related concerns.
“I welcome this hotel,” she said. “I want to have a drink there. But it needs to be transparent, and a complete application, and then we’ll approve it.”
“This was about zoning,” she continued. “And that’s all we can think about when we’re up there.”
Local attorney Carolyn Kone, who represents the boutique hotel developers, declined to comment on how the BZA’s decision will affect the developer’s timeline and the Graduate New Haven project as a whole. Graduate Hotels President Tim Franzen did not respond to multiple requests for comment by the publication time of this article.
Nate Hougrand, a staffer in the city’s zoning department, said that, since the board denied the application without prejudice, the developers can resubmit the exact same special exception application as soon as they want. They do not have to wait a year before resubmitting, which would have been the case if the board had denied the application with prejudice.
When asked how the board’s decision may impact the Hotel Duncan conversion timeline and project, Acting City Plan Director Mike Piscitelli redirected all questions to the developers themselves.
“The BZA made its decision,” he said. “You have to talk to the applicant.”
“Incomplete And Not Very Transparent”
King.
The board didn’t discuss and vote on the Hotel Duncan’s special exception application until nearly three hours into Tuesday night’s meeting.
That’s because the commissioners had already spent an hour hearing from the applicants themselves and a dozen supporters during a public hearing last month before referring the item to the City Plan Commission. The City Plan Commission then sent the application back to BZA with a recommendation of approval.
After nearly three hours of public hearings on a dozen different zoning items on Tuesday night, BZA Chair Pat King seemed prepared for a pro forma vote in support of the Duncan special exception application when she brought it up in sequence with the other City Plan Commission referrals.
“There were a number of speakers in favor of this,” she recalled from last month’s public hearing. “I think it would be a great renovation to the Duncan. The city plan advisory report recommends approval. So I’m going to move that we approve the application.”
She turned to Locke for a second to the motion.
Locke lifted her hand instead. She said that she would actually like the board to discuss the matter a bit longer before voting.
Locke (center).
“I’ve been thinking about this a lot,” Locke said.
She said that the applicant had referenced an agreement with Yale to lease 25 parking spaces from the Chapel York Garage. And yet, neither the developers nor the city had provided the commissioners with a copy of that lease. Even though the city staff advisory report recommended that the commissioners require the developers to sign a parking lease with Yale as a condition of the special exception’s approval.
“The application itself felt both incomplete and not very transparent,” Locke said. Even if the commissioners had seen the lease, she asked, what were the developers parking plans for after the lease expires?
“It seems to me like a very temporary solution,” she said, “but asking for permanent relief.”
Locke handed Wilkins the microphone, who reiterated her board colleague’s concerns.
“What is the alternative plan?” Wilkins asked. “What is the long term plan? And was there a guarantee? We hear constantly that parking is pretty tough. We just want to be reassured in regards to parking.”
That wasn’t the commissioners’ only concerns with the application. They also pointed out that most of the people who testified at last month’s hearing were local business owners and economic development boosters, as opposed to neighborhood residents who might be most affected by a potential surge in parking need for hotel guests.
“I think this is a great thing for the city,” Locke said. “I want to see it come through, and I want to see this be welcome into our city, but it has to come to us the right way.”
Acting City Plan Director Michael Piscitelli.
Piscitelli, sitting with Hougrand and city lawyer Roderick Williams at a city staff table beside the commissioners’ bench, suggested that the commissioners simply add a condition to their approval that would require the developers to submit a signed copy of the lease for upload to the city public land records.
Locke said that she had requested a copy of the lease two weeks ago, and yet still she had seen nothing.
“I feel hesitant to approve something based on a lease we haven’t seen,” she said.
Piscitelli cautioned that denying the application would mean that the developers, if they chose to reapply, would have to go through the same full application, public hearing, and City Plan Commission referral process they just went through.
“Think about the implications of a denial in terms of time,” he said.
The board could even table the application, he said, and review the lease over the next few weeks before voting on the application next month.
Commissioner Al Paolillo, Sr. said he had heard enough.
“This is the body that approves it,” he told Piscitelli. Locke had asked for a copy of the lease, he said. Neither the city nor the developers provided a copy. “So be it,” he said.
He moved a denial of the application. Locke seconded it.
Then Locke, Wilkins, Paolillo, and Commissioner Mildred Melendez all voted to deny the application. Kind decided to abstain from the vote.
“The relief they’re seeking,” Locke said after the vote, “is very permanent and very major, and the solution they offered is very temporary and not transparent.”
She reiterated that, if the developers resubmit an application that provides a clear, definitive, documentation-supported alternative for hotel parking, she would be open to voting in support.
Was the promise to lease parking elsewhere written into the application or just spoken at a prior hearing? If it was written, then its legally binding and however nice it is to have proof at the meeting, not having the lease wouldn't absolve the hotel of their legal commitment. If this was just a matter of clarification, the BZA should have just tabled it and let the applicant get their paperwork together.