This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
09/02/2016 10:39 AMWith no new information submitted by the applicant, Branford’s Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) has entered a 65-day window to carefully deliberate on a request to build six housing units, to include some state affordable housing, on what is currently a non-buildable water view and marsh abutting lot in Branford’s Pawson Park neighborhood.
As previously reported here, the proposed development at 239 Pawson Road doesn’t meet town zoning regulations and encroaches on potentially valuable habitat for protected species; but state statute 8-30g encourages the development of affordable housing. That places the burden of proof on the town to show why any one site is unsuitable.
The applicant, Arsalan Altaf, doing business as Pawson Point LLC, is calling the state’s affordable housing statute into play with the multi-unit application in order to obtain a variance for his proposed development. Altaf purchased the 0.23-acre vacant lot for $35,000 last September. The waterfront lot, which equates to less than the town buildable minimum of 15,000 square feet, abuts tidal wetlands and a neighboring residential property.
The site, which is currently considered unbuildable by the town, has already been deemed unsuitable for a single-family home. On August 17, Branford’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) denied Pawson Point LLC a request for three variances to build a new single family home at 239 Pawson Road. See the story here . The action was a repeat of the ZBA’s December, 2015 decision which denied the property’s previous owner variances needed to construct a single family home on the same lot.
The Sept. 1 PZC continued public hearing on the multi-unit application was attended by nearly 50 members of the public, part of a large group of area residents who have been voicing their opposition to the development of the parcel. After closing the hearing on Sept. 1, PZC chairman Chuck Andres cautioned the commission to proceed carefully with its review of the application, noting that PZC decisions can be appealed.
“We have the burden of proof. This is something which I think we should take very carefully (and) have a written decision,” said Andres, adding it should be something the PZC will discuss “thoroughly” with staff.
“We’re not in any hurry, with over two months left,” said Andres.
Commissioners are currently reviewing the application and what’s been entered into the record during the public hearing period, and will the intent to begin deliberations and discussions at the next PZC meeting on Thursday, Sept. 15.