File photo
Palluzzi and Heffernan
A proposal to extend Melrose Avenue would solve longtime parking woes and safety access at Sliney Ballfields. The plan would also address emergency access at the proposed Parkside Village affordable housing complex.
However, neighbors have opposed the Parkside housing proposal and some have questioned the Melrose Avenue extension plan.
The road issue is now before the Representative Town Meeting (RTM). It is slated for discussion at a special meeting of the RTM’s Administrative Services Committee Wednesday at 7 p.m. in the community room at fire headquarters, 45 N. Main St.
The issue is also on the agenda of the RTM’s special meeting July 25 at the same location.
Plan Presented last September
In September, Director of Parks and Recreation Alex Palluzzi presented the Melrose Avenue extension plan to the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission.
Palluzzi said the Melrose extension would provide more parking for the ballfields, which are used by hundreds of children every year. He said parking at Sliney has been an escalating problem for 30 years, and that the proposal would add 50 additional spaces, improve traffic flow, and provide emergency access to the ballfields, which are located off South Montowese Street.
Branford Fire Marshal Shaun Heffernan said emergency equipment cannot reach the ballfields when cars are parked in the fire lanes. The ballfields are now accessed from Sliney Road.
First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove sent a letter to P&Z in September requesting a referral for the Melrose extension. The commission gave the project a positive referral.
Extending Melrose Avenue would also help provide additional emergency access to the proposed Parkside Village affordable housing. The Housing Authority and its developer, Beacon Hills LLC of Boston, stated they will donate $200,000 to the Melrose Avenue extension project.
The Parkside affordable housing project was approved by P&Z by a 3-2 vote. However, neighbors who oppose the housing project signed a petition requesting a super majority vote, which town attorneys interpreted would require a 4-1 vote, thus denying the project.
The Parkside housing proposal is now in the Superior Court system after attorneys for the Housing Authority and the developer appealed the P&Z decision.
The $200,000 payment should be irrelevant. A developer shouldn't be able to throw a check at the town for a favorable vote.
That road will be a nightmare for that small area where kids are roaming around all of the time. The grassy area for that road is used as a practice field for several sports where this town is already stretched for field usage. Keep this option off the table and let the developers find another place to build that is truly in a suitable area.