Photo by Diana Stricker
Although a judge has ruled in favor of the proposed Parkside Village affordable housing project, it’s too late for the Branford Housing Authority to apply for federal funding this year.
However, the developer is still optimistic about the project, which would replace dilapidated public housing that does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Simultaneously, the issue of affordable housing has become a “hot topic,” according to one of the candidates running for state representative in the 102nd District in Branford. Republican candidate Bob Imperato said in a press release that the judge’s decision was “just plain wrong.”
Last week, Superior Court Judge Marshall Berger, who presides over the land use court in Hartford, issued a 13-page decision, which states that protest petitions do not apply to 8-30g affordable housing projects.
The decision was in response to an appeal filed by the Housing Authority and its developer after the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission denied the Parkside applications. The issue dealt with whether a 1925 law about protest petitions was relevant to the 1990 Affordable Housing statute.
Town Attorney Bill Aniskovich told the Eagle that he will have no comment about the judge’s decision until he concludes discussing the issues with First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove.
The town has approximately 30 days to decide whether to appeal the ruling.
What’s Next for the Project?
“I still believe the project can be done,” said Dara Kovel, president of Beacon Communities LLC of Boston, the company hired by Branford’s Housing Authority to oversee the project.
“Obviously we were excited to prevail in court,” Kovel told the Eagle. However she said there isn’t enough time to apply for the annual federal tax credit funding program, whose deadline is Oct. 31.
“So we will not be applying in this round but we will be gathering together and figuring out where we want to go from here,” Kovel said.
She said they hope to determine in the next month or two what the next steps for financing would be. “Beacon, the Housing Authority, and our attorneys will figure out what’s next,” Kovel said.
She said there are other potential avenues for funding, which they have looked at before, including state resources. However she said the results of the governor’s race may affect state allocations for affordable housing.
File photo
Plans call for construction of an L-shaped building with 67 apartments, which would house low-income people of any age. Parkside Village 1, located at 115 S. Montowese St., provides housing for about 50 senior citizens and people with disabilities. The P&Z conditions of approval require that all current residents would be housed in the new facility.
Kovel has previously stated that opening the building to low-income people of all ages would increase the chance of obtaining federal funding.
Parkside Village 2, which is a newer complex on adjacent property, would still continue to house seniors and people with disabilities.
Imperato: Decision is Wrong
Imperato issued a press release on his campaign Facebook page in response to the judge’s decision regarding Parkside. “This decision is just plain wrong,” he said. “The protest petition is a legal procedure that gives property owners some voice in this process.”
Imperato and Democratic candidate Robin Comey are vying for the seat being vacated by State Rep. Lonnie Reed, who is retiring after 10 years service.
The Eagle contacted Comey regarding her reaction to the judge’s decision about Parkside.
“The judge’s decision was clear, he found the protest provision is not a proper ground for the denial of the Parkside application,” Comey said.
“In the future I will demand that we work across the aisle to hold open, honest and productive discussions about the impact of current affordable statutes, including 8-30g for equitable and broadly supported housing solutions,” Comey said.
Screenshot
The question of affordable housing was also raised Sunday afternoon during a televised debate between Imperato and Comey.
“That’s a pretty hot topic these days,” Imperato responded at the debate. He said the intent of 8-30g is a very valuable asset to communities, but he questioned some aspects of the law.
“What we need to do here is count every unit in Branford and every unit in every community that is not deed restricted, but meets the criteria of affordable housing.” He said that would make it easier to reach the required 10 percent level of affordable housing.
“That’s the first thing I will do when I go to Hartford is put a bill forward that will change the current laws over 8-30g to count all housing that fits within purview.”
He also wants to clarify the issue of protest petitions. “We need to add clarity around this bill that the people who live in that community should have a voice. You can see from what came out last week, that the voice of the people was stymied.”
During the debate, Comey said affordable housing is an issue all over the state. “I know we have lots of towns that are struggling to meet 10 percent within the 8-30g statute. I think the law, while well intended, has some unintended consequences, especially for some communities. We need to ensure that seniors…. have affordable and safe places to live.”
She said legislators need to revisit the deed restriction aspect of 8-30g.
“There are some changes that could be made, Comey said. “And I will work with the senior leadership and the Legislative Housing Committee to see what we can do for our town.”
The debate, which was sponsored by the League of Women Voters, can be seen on BCTV or its Facebook page.
Protest Petition Background
The public hearings last year for the Parkside re-development were attended by large crowds of neighbors, many of whom were vocal in their opposition to the project. Some residents said the project would take affordable housing opportunities away from seniors and people with disabilities. Others said they oppose the plan because it would bring a “different element” to town.
Some neighbors signed a protest petition, which they believed would trigger a 1925 statute known as 8-3b regarding zoning changes.
The 1925 statute states that if protest petitions are signed by the owners of 20 percent or more of the lots within 500 feet of the proposed property, then a zoning change must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the commission. This means that four out of five P&Z commissioners would be needed to approve a zoning change, instead of three out of five.
Attorneys for the Housing Authority argued that the Affordable Housing statute enacted in 1990 superseded the 1925 statute, and served to correct some of the deficiencies that would prohibit affordable housing.
The P&Z commission in January voted in favor of the project by a 3-2 majority for all three applications. However, the project was denied because the commission and town attorneys said the protest petitions triggered a 4-1 supermajority for a zoning change, and they concluded that it would also affect the other two applications involved in the project.
In his decision, Judge Berger concluded: “In short, the protest petition provision of 8-3b is not a proper ground for the denial of the applications. In improperly relying on 8-3b to deny the applications, the commission failed to comply with 8-30g and has not sustained its burden of proof.”
According to 8-30g, which was enacted in 1990, affordable housing proposals can only be denied if there are substantial health and safety concerns based on evidence presented in the record of the public hearings.
Mr. Imperato misunderstands the provision of the law that exempts municipalities with 10% affordable housing, as defined by the law, from the appeals procedure. I was on the nonpartisan staff of the committee that developed the law- the legislature was aware of what it was doing. The level was set at 10% because the definition of affordable housing only included housing that is affordable on a long-term basis, notably public housing and developments with project-based section 8 certificates. Had the legislature wished to include housing that was not guaranteed to be affordable in the long term, it would have set a much higher threshold, perhaps 30%. Moreover, no one measures the affordability of unsubsidized housing units in the years between censuses.