Attorney Tim Hollister
The town’s Housing Authority and Beacon Communities, LLC. , the developer hired to rebuild the dilapidated Parkside housing project on S. Montowese Street, today asked a Superior Court judge to reverse a January decision by the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission denying the Parkside Village 1 application.
Lead attorney Tim Hollister, an expert in the state’s affordable housing law, had a 14- page appeal served on the Town Clerk this afternoon. Hollister is a partner in the law firm of Shipman & Goodwin in Hartford. The appeal will come before the New Haven Superior Court on March 20. Hollister represents the developer. Anika Lemar, who oversees the Yale Law School’s Community and Economic Development Clinic (“CED”) represents the Housing Authority. One of their first actions will be to ask the judge to transfer the case to the land use court in Hartford.
File Photo
The 14- page appeal cites multiple legal reasons why the P&Z decision should be reversed, including the fact that during the hearings, “no expert, consultant or resident identified any probability or type of harm or substantial health or safety concern that could result from any part of the application.” Health and safety reasons are the only set of reasons why an affordable housing 8-30g application may be denied.
Hollister devoted one section of his appeal to the actions of one P &Z commissioner, Fred Russo. Hollister had asked Russo to recuse himself from voting because he openly voiced bias against the project at various points . Russo refused and then voted against the project.
Asked to comment on the appeal, Bill Aniskovich, the town’s counsel, told the Eagle that the town’s policy is not to comment on litigation.
In outlining Branford’s housing history, Hollister told the court that Branford and its surrounding region “have an acute need for more lower-cost housing.” He said in 2016 “only 3.2 percent of Branford’s 13,972 housing units qualify as affordable and the Town does not have a single housing unit that is subject to a deed restriction that complies with section 8-30g affordability standards, even though 8-30g has been the law in Connecticut for 27 years.”
The state’s affordable housing statute says property must be “deed restricted” or federally assisted to qualify as affordable housing — which means Branford would be well below the 10 percent quota required by the statute. But deed restricted is only one criteria for low-income housing.
The South Central Regional Council of Governments shows that in 2015 Branford had 22 percent of homes that met the criteria of affordable housing for the 80 percent mark, and 12 percent for the 50 percent mark.
For example, Branford has long been known as the Condo Capitol of Connecticut, but many condos are no longer owner-occupied and have become rental units. Those lower-priced units are not on the state’s affordable housing list because they’re not deed-restricted. There are also numerous trailer courts in Branford whose occupants could qualify as low-income, but their homes are also not on the state’s list.
Citizen Reaction Showed Racial and Ethnic Bias
Hollister pointed out that during the recent public hearing sessions, Branford residents repeatedly made disparaging comments based on prejudice. The comments, which drew applause, he observed, were “based on stereotypes, prejudice, race or ethnicity, that suggested animus toward the intended residents of the Parkside Village redevelopment.” Click here to read the story.
“The problem is that you shouldn’t be mixed in with low income or Section 8 people. That brings a different element to the town,” was one comment cited in the appeal. Another was: “It’s a public low income project, and no matter what you call it, it is what it is.” A third comment was: “The minute (Parkside) takes state and federal money, it’s open to anybody, anybody.” One resident observed: “Retirees, disabled, old people — I have no objection to renovate the whole place and make it nice for them. But don’t get too much of that riffraff in.”
The public hearings, which began in October and ended in December, drew large crowds, with many neighbors opposing the project for a variety of reasons.
Hollister argued, as he has at public hearings, that a protest petition requiring a 4-1 majority vote of the commission instead of a majority 3-2 vote is illegal. Overall the commission voted to approve the project by 3-2, but maintained that a super-majority was needed because of a protest petition filed by neighboring property owners. Hollister argued that the commission did not follow the state’s affordable housing law.
“In its rezoning resolution, the Commission did not identify any reason for denying the rezoning part of the application, or identify any record evidence that would satisfy the criteria for a denial, as set forth in the state’s 8-30g case law and applicable legal rulings,” the appeal states. In addition, he said, a resolution condition tying the site plan to the rezoning approval is illegal. He cites two cases which hold that non-compliance with zoning regulations per se is not a valid basis to deny an 8-30g application.
Russo’s Bias Outlined
File Photo
Hollister was highly critical of Commissioner Russo (pictured), who was permitted to vote even though he had previously voiced bias against the project. Hollister demanded that Russo recuse himself based on the Russo’s prior statements. He refused and then voted “No.”
Russo’s prior comments about the project, Hollister wrote, “were tainted by bias. On January 18, Hollister noted that Russo said, on the record, “I don’t really care what the law (8-30g) says.” He vowed to vote no. Click here to read the story.
“By making this statement before voting, Commissioner Russo violated his oath of office and demonstrated impermissible, disqualifying bias, in the form of a refusal to follow applicable law,” the appeal states.
Hollister told the court there was no statement in the record by the Commission as a whole or by the two commissioners who voted ‘No,” (the other commissioner was Marci Palluzzi, the P&Z secretary), identifying any basis “under the four prong 8-30g standard of review to justify a denial, and the record does not contain evidence by which the commissioners who voted “No” could have justified the denial” under the statute’s review standard.
He added that Russo’s act of voting “was a violation” of another statute which requires disqualification “on the ground of bias, and was material to the outcome because Commissioner Russo’s disqualification would have resulted in a 3-1 vote on the rezoning, a supermajority vote. Another alternate commissioner was prepared to take Russo’s place but he was not asked to do so.
History of Parkside Project
The P&Z voted 3-2 in favor of the Parkside project Jan. 25, but one of the three applications — a zoning map change —did not get a “super majority” vote of 4-1. The commission interpreted that to mean that the entire project failed.
Neighbors who opposed the project signed protest petitions that triggered a state law which requires a zoning map change be approved by a two-thirds super majority vote. Attorneys disagreed on whether protest petitions apply for state Affordable Housing 8-30g applications.
All three applications were approved by a 3-2 vote, with yes votes from P&Z Chair Chuck Andres, John Lust and Joe Vaisuo. Commissioner Palluzzi and alternate Russo voted no. An alternate to the five-member panel was needed because Commissioner Joe Chadwick recused himself since he had been a member of the Housing Authority. Paul Higgins, a second alternate, was present at the meetings and was prepared to take Russo’s place but he was not asked by the chair to do so, apparently because it was Russo’s turn on the rotation of alternates.
Burden of Proof
Applications under state statute 8-30g operate under different rules that other proposals. If the commission denies the project and an appeal is filed, the commission has the burden of proof to show why it was rejected. They must show that the decision was supported by the evidence on the public record and that it was based on substantial public health or safety issues, and that those issues outweigh the need for affordable housing.
Resolutions
One of the three resolutions that the commission voted on was the zoning map change, which attorneys argue would or would not need a super majority.
During the Jan. 25 meeting, Andres asked Town Attorney Aniskovich for guidance. “I know the applicant took the position that the protest petitions don’t apply to applications under 8-30g,” Andres said, and then turned to Aniskovich. “But you advised us that you found no authority to support that, and that you therefore disagree with that. Is that correct?”
File Photo
“Correct,” Aniskovich (pictured) replied at that time, indicating that for him that was a gray area of the law.
Following the vote on the map change, Andres said, “That is a vote of 3-2 in favor, but my understanding is that the motion would therefore fail because 4 votes are required,” he said at that time.
Parkside Background
Branford’s Housing Authority has spent several years attempting to replace the dilapidated Parkside Village 1 affordable housing complex at 115 S. Montowese St. The three buildings are deteriorating and are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complex includes 50 small units that provide housing for low-income elderly and people with disabilities.
The Housing Authority hired a development firm, Beacon Communities LLC of Boston, to oversee the project and apply for funding. Plans call for construction of an L-shaped building with 67 apartments, including 33 one-bedroom units, and 34 two-bedroom units. The units would house low-income people of any age, not just seniors, which the developer claims would increase the possibility of securing federal funding.
Parkside Village 1 was constructed in the early 1970’s on a 5.7 acre site that the Housing Authority owns. It came into being before the American With Disabilities Act (ADA) became law.
In his appeal, Hollister asked the court to reverse the P&Z commission’s finding that the protest petition was applicable in this case or in the alternative to invalidate one or both of the “No” votes cast on January 25 or to take other suggested action.
He also asks for costs as provided under the law and any other relief “as may be just and proper.”
###
What a terrible article no research done at all with very little facts. The fact is the neighborhood is for the project but against the size and scoop of the building so that eliminates your racism claim. The builder knew the huge building would not pass Planning and Zoning and thats why they had to file a 830-g to get around zoning requirements.
Currently Parkside is set for elderly and disabled of Branford. So the question is what is wrong with that? and also how about the people who were on the waiting list from Branford to get in are they now left out? I am pretty sure they are.
If the writers did a ounce of research maybe they would have uncovered that John Lust of planning and zoning was also on the Housing Authority when the redevelopment plans were being made.Joe Chadwick from planning and zoning was also on the Housing Authority and abruptly left after a local resident started FOI request.
Maybe the writers should have met with the neighbors to learn the truth, but maybe the writers don't want to know the truth or are to lazy to get out and do some actual research, maybe just calling racism is the easiest way to cover up your lack of work that you do on a article.