A revamped proposal from 13 Carlson Place to construct apartment units along Carlson Place and Thompson Avenue was met again with public backlash and criticism from the East Haven Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) during a public hearing on Sept. 24.

This past June, 13 Carlson Place saw its initial proposal to construct 20 single-family dwelling units unanimously denied by the PZC due to numerous concerns expressed by the commission and area residents of the proposed development site. The applicant resubmitted its largely modified application under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g(h), which rules that an applicant may appeal a zoning commission decision and submit a modified plan following an initial rejection. The resubmission, which retains its banner as an affordable housing project, has its unit numbers doubled in size from 20 to 40 as part of a four-story building standing at 41 feet tall.

Twelve of those units would be below market rate as a means to support the town’s affordable goals per state statute, an argument for the proposal’s realization by representatives of the applicant.

Much of the revamped site plan was presented by Jeffrey Gordon, a landscape architect with Codespoti and Associates representing the applicant. He focused on revisions that were in response to concerns by both the PZC and Chief Matthew Marcarelli of the East Haven Fire Department (EHFD). In reference to the initial site plan, Marcarelli addressed in a letter to the commission that “there is not sufficient room to navigate our fire apparatus” in the case of an emergency.

Gordon presented that the site plan considers a 35-foot turning radius for a fire apparatus that would be necessary when responding to an emergency at the property, while additional access drives for emergency personnel are outlined in the site plan as well.

In response to concerns over the project’s density, Gordon said, “Although the number of units is increased from 20 to 40 units, the density adjustment is actually rather modest as the bedroom count has increased from 40 bedrooms in the initial submission to the current being 48 bedrooms because we have 32 one-bedroom units and eight two-bedroom units.”

Other representatives of the applicant detailed how the building would be up to state and local fire codes, have minimal traffic concerns, and would not amount to a great increase in population.

Brian Miller, the principal of the Wallingford-based Miller Planning Group, saw that the development “would have a positive effect and was certainly consistent with everything” in the town’s affordable housing plan and would not create a burden on East Haven’s taxpayers.

“The town facilities are capable of adopting this marginal increase in population. There’s no new roads to plow and fix. There’s a park right nearby that serves the community, and the traffic impact is minimal, at least from this particular project.”

While the applicant’s representatives believe the revamped plans are in accordance with the town’s housing goals and address many of the previously espoused concerns, several town officials did not share those views. Town Engineer Jonathan Bodwell said the applicant’s new plans still contain several engineering-related concerns, including, peculiarly, the presence of a sewer line and storm run underneath the proposed building.

“In my professional 50-plus years of design, I never saw a sewer line and a storm run directly underneath a proposed building, and that’s what it does under the electric and the sprinklers portion of the building,” said Bodwell.

He concluded these plans amount to “bad engineering” and said, “Until they give me a grant report and add some of the details on the catch basics and frames and so forth, I can’t approve the frame.”

Assistant EHFD Fire Chief Chris Rosa informed the commission that the department would not have the full capabilities to address an emergency situation at the site, citing limited manpower and aerial ladders not being able to reach the structure’s roof and fourth-story windows.

PZC Chair Marlene Asid remained concerned about the building’s density being “intrusive” in a compact neighborhood and not having enough parking spaces for its residents.

Concerns regarding density and parking carried over into public testimony, with some residents painting the application as unscrupulous and inconsiderate of neighboring homes.

Resident Bob Napolitano, whose backyard abuts the proposed development site, said, “What’s it going to be like with more dumpsters and more people? I don’t know if they’re going to want to take care of the property the way that we want to take care of ours because we’re proud of our property. We’ve been living there forever and this kind of situation prohibits me from letting my grandchildren play in the backyard unsupervised.”

Other concerns related to the lack of plans for the evacuation of tenants, snow management, and addressing a rat infestation at the site of development. Others, such as Thompson Avenue resident Steve Downey, believed the proposed development was better suited for towns like Orange or Milford. He said these towns are well behind East Haven in achieving the state-mandated threshold for 10% of a town’s housing stock being deemed affordable.

He said of the applicant, “This guy feels like he’s doing us a favor. We’re below the 10%, but the surrounding cities around us are less than that by much…I don’t know why he’s targeting us.”

The PZC continued the public hearing to its next meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 8.