P&Z Votes on Parkside Village Thursday

The Parkside Village I affordable housing proposal is headed for a vote Thursday, but whatever the outcome, it may end up in court. One member of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission said he wants to deny the project and challenge it in court because in his view the law is too restrictive. 

The 5-member commission will vote on the Parkside proposal at a special meeting Thursday at 7 p.m. at Fire Headquarters. A resolution to approve the project, with multiple conditions, is expected to be complete by that time.

A straw poll taken earlier this month indicated three commissioners were in favor, and two were not. The 3-2 majority is enough to approve the site plans, but may not be enough to approve a zoning change if a “super majority” vote of 4-1 is needed. That issue, and several other Parkside questions, was discussed for about 90 minutes at Thursday’s meeting.

P&Z Chair Chuck Andres said the commission has to abide by state statute 8-30g that says affordable housing projects can only be denied for substantial reasons of health and safety that cannot be resolved with conditions of approval.

One commissioner, Fred Russo, said he wants to deny the project and go to court in spite of the affordable housing statute. “I don’t really care what the law says. I prefer, if we had to, be challenged at the court level,” Russo said.

In other business Thursday the commission held a public hearing on the proposed Blackstone Memorial Library addition, and unanimously approved the project.

A public hearing was also held on the commission’s request to amend regulations for Planned Development Districts (PDD’s). The amendments were unanimously approved after revisions were made to include residents’ concerns about a proposed 10-year timeframe for construction.

Parkside

Branford’s Housing Authority is attempting to replace the dilapidated Parkside Village 1 affordable housing complex at 115 S. Montowese St., which houses low-income elderly and people with disabilities.

The developer, Beacon Communities LLC of Boston, has proposed 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. The Housing Authority says the current tenants will be moved to the new building.

Parkside Village 1 currently includes three two-story buildings that were constructed in 1974 on the 5.7 acre site that the Housing Authority owns. The buildings, which include 50 small units, are deteriorating and are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Public hearings, which began in October and ended in December, drew large crowds, with many neighbors opposing the project for a variety of reasons.  Click here to read the story.

Russo: Challenge the Law

Commissioner Russo (pictured) expressed his dislike of the Parkside proposal during the public hearings and the deliberations. He is one of the alternates to the five-member commission, but is voting on the project because Commissioner Joe Chadwick, who was a member of the Housing Authority, recused himself. It was Russo’s turn to vote in the alternates’ rotation schedule.

Russo said Thursday that neighbors are concerned about the size and location and the disruption. ​“I go by that street every day and the big rock formations have a certain beauty. Those have to be removed just so a bigger building can be built. There’s something wrong with that. ​“I don’t really care what the law says. I prefer, if we had to, be challenged at the court level.”

Russo said the commission is restricted by the state’s affordable housing statute.

“Maybe we need to spend some money and go to court. I think we’re going to get shot down, but somewhere along the line, if these laws are not challenged, they’re going to be used against any community,” he said.

Russo said he doesn’t want to approve the project with conditions.

“I think we have the power to reject it and if we have to go to court, then we would go to court and let the court decide,” Russo said.

He later said, ​“I would never, never vote for this, ever,” which was followed by loud applause and cheers from the crowd of neighbors who oppose the plan.

Andres: ​“My Job is to Apply the Law”

Andres, who is a land use attorney, said he has experience with the affordable housing law, which has been on the books since 1989. He said there have been more than a couple hundred decisions about it. He said the town of North Haven denied four affordable housing projects and lost in court four times.

Andres said he doesn’t want to deny the project just to send a message. ​“I want to do what my job is — my job is to apply the law.”

Russo asked if they could do something to delay the process.

“I don’t like that strategy,” Andres said. ​“I want to look and call it as I see it” he said, adding that any public safety issues can be addressed by putting conditions on the approval.

“I’m also cognizant that this is not some fly-by-night person that’s going out there,” Andres said in regard to the proposal. ​“It’s the Branford Housing Authority. They do have an obligation to provide housing for those in need, and that’s what they’re doing.”

Conditions of Approval

Commissioner Joe Vaiuso, who said he would probably vote for the project, asked what happens if the case goes to court and the town loses. Vaiuso asked if the conditions would still be viable, or if the commission would lose any control over the project.

Town Attorney Bill Aniskovich (pictured) said there’s no guarantee that conditions would remain. “There’s risk inherent in litigation,” he said.

Town Planner Harry Smith read through a list of tentative conditions that the commissioners are considering. The conditions will be included in the resolutions that the commissioners will vote on.

Some of the tentative conditions include emergency access from Melrose Avenue; the completion of an archeological assessment; and limiting the maximum occupancy of bedrooms to two people.

Super Majority and Zoning Maps

The developers have filed three applications — a zoning regulation change, a zoning map change, and a site plan/coastal site plan.

Neighbors who opposed the project signed a protest petition which could require a super majority for the zoning map change. Attorneys for the developers and town attorneys are at odds as to whether the super majority rule applies to projects filed under the state statute 8-30g affordable housing act. Not yet addressed is how essential the zoning map change may be.

On Thursday night, Andres, who is a land use attorney, said he thinks the project cannot proceed without a zone change because a state statute says housing authorities must comply with zoning regulations.

Andres said the commission can include a condition stating that site plan approval is contingent on the approval of the zoning changes. He said doing so will likely trigger an appeal.

At the Dec. 7 public hearing, Attorney Timothy Hollister, a partner in the Shipman & Goodwin law firm in Hartford, who represents the developers, said in his opinion the super majority statute doesn’t apply because this is a 8-30g affordable housing project.

In addition, Hollister said the applicant can technically proceed if the site plans are approved even without a zone change because it is an 8-30g application. He said if there is a majority but not a supermajority vote on the zone change, “We will ask the court to order that part of the application to be approved.”

Danielle Bercury, a senior associate at Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman, the New Haven law firm that represents the town along with Aniskovich, also addressed the supermajority issue at the Dec.  7 meeting.  Bercury said she had not seen any case law that said protest petitions don’t apply to an 8-30g application.  She said if the issue is contested in court, a judge could decide that protest petitions don’t apply to 8-30g applications. “But I’m not comfortable sitting here saying that,” Bercury said at the December hearing.

A Question of Emergency Access

Commissioner Marci Palluzzi, who is not in favor of the project, said she is concerned that emergency access issues at the rear of the building are a safety issue. She said requiring the developers to provide access from a proposed extension of Melrose Avenue puts a burden on the town.

Andres said emergency access to the rear of the building can be resolved by a condition that the Melrose extension has to be built to the satisfaction of the town’s fire marshal before the project moves forward.

Aniskovich said the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) would have to make the decision about funding the design and construction of the Melrose Avenue extension. He said the Parkside condition of approval does not obligate the RTM to construct the road.

Whether the current RTM would agree to a new road is another issue. The current Republican leaders of the RTM live in the Parkside district and the Republicans hold a majority on the RTM. 

Town Planner Harry Smith received a letter from Fire Marshal Shaun Heffernan earlier in the day saying plans for the Melrose Avenue extension would provide better emergency access and increase parking for the Sliney ballfields.

In fact, Alex Palluzzi, director of Parks and Recreation, received a positive referral from P&Z in September for plans to extend Melrose Avenue to provide more parking for the Sliney ballfields which are adjacent to the Parkside complex. Palluzzi said it would provide both emergency access and more parking for the ballfields.( Commissioner Marci Palluzzi, who raised questions about the Melrose Avenue extension Thursday, is Alex Palluzzi’s sister-in-law.) Alex Paluzzi said the parking situation has become “pretty much a free-for-all” with cars parked illegally for ballgames and blocking emergency lanes.

Heffernan told the Eagle in September that the Melrose Avenue plans could also address emergency access issues for the rear of Parkside.

Blackstone Memorial Library

Following a 30-minute public hearing, the commissioners unanimously approved construction of an addition to the rear of the James Blackstone Memorial Library.

Architect David Wenchell (pictured left) of Silver Petrucelli in Hamden;  and Engineer James Pretti (R)of Criscuolo Engineering in Branford gave brief presentations.

Plans call for a 2,000 square-foot addition on the ground floor, and reconfiguration of many interior spaces throughout the library. The iconic front entrance and steps will remain the same.

Wenchell said the addition will blend with the limestone exterior of the library because the stone will be quarried from the same location as the original.

The project will address four major challenges — the children’s and teens’ areas are not adequate, there are only 21 public computers, meeting space is limited, and the rear entrances is not as functional as it could be. Renovations will take place while the library continues to operate.

The Representative Town Meeting (RTM) approved $5.2 million in bonding for the library project earlier this month by a 15 -11 vote.The Board of Finance unanimously approved the proposal last month.

The actual cost to town residents is about $3.4 million because a state library grant of $1 million will be provided now that the town has approved the project. Another $686,000 had been raised by residents and businesses toward the library’s goal of $800,000. The Branford Community Foundation is providing a $100, 00 matching grant.

Amending Planned Development Districts (PDD’s)

The commission voted unanimously to approve changes to PDDs, but first modified the changes after residents said a 10-year construction timeframe was too long.

The original revision would have changed the overall time for completion of a large multi-phase PDD from 5 years to 10 years. After listening to residents, the commission agreed to keep the 5-year time frame, but add a stipulation that a PDD would be linked to the completion date of any site plan approved by P&Z. This would ensure that a PDD would not expire before the site plan construction deadline.

Residents who spoke Thursday night in opposition to the 10-year time-period were Kate Galambos, a member of Branford Citizens for Responsible Development; Janet Riesman, who owns property at Exit 56; and Peter Henschel, who is a member of the RTM.

These changes are not related to a proposal by property owners at Exit 56, Charles Weber and Al Secondino, who want to revise the regulations to allow extensions of the 2-year time limitation for site plan approval. A public hearing on that proposal is scheduled for Feb. 15.

###