Facing an application to change zoning that would replace Parkside Village I’s 50 units, currently restricted to seniors and disabled adults, to a district of 67 units (with 60 designated affordable), Branford’s Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) will not be rushed into a decision.

On Oct. 19, a capacity crowd packed the opening of the PZC’s public hearing on the matter, which has now been continued to Thursday, Nov. 2 at 7 p.m. at Branford Fire Headquarters, 45 North Main Street.

The PZC heard an overview from the project team, input from Town Planner Harry Smith and Fire Marshal Sean Heffernan, comments from an attorney for a citizens’ group that opposes the project, questions from the PZC, and nearly 30 public comments, including a letter opposing the plan from the area’s District 5 Representative Town Meeting members.

The PZC also received protest petition that, if verified, requires a two-thirds PZC majority vote (in this case 4 to 5) to approve Connecticut State General Statue 8-30g status for the development. As proposed, 60 of the units would be affordable to households earning no more than 60 percent of the town’s median income, which is currently $71,938. Those 60 units would go to households earning $43,163 or less, with 30 percent of their income going to housing costs ($1,079 monthly). The zoning change would create a district guided by 8-30g instead of Branford’s more stringent zoning regulations.

While most citizens who spoke were opposed to the project, the consensus was they support assisting current Parkside residents’ need for housing upgrades. PZC Chairman Chuck Andres closed the first part of the hearing at 10:30 p.m. with the consensus of the PZC that a decision would not be reached by Nov. 1.

“This is a very major application. It’s typical for major applications to have multiple public hearings, particularly where there’s opposition,” said Andres. “The second thing is this is an 8-30g application and we have the burden of proof [on] appeal. And what that means, I think, is we have got to make sure that we have a very good record.”

Project Team Presentation

The hearing opened with experts for applicant Branford Housing Authority (BHA) and project developer Beacon Communities LLC. The team presented a project overview showing requirements met and noted all current Parkside residents would be re-homed in the new facility. BHA’s attorney, Tim Hollister of Shipman & Goodwin, requested a PZC decision prior to a Nov. 1 federal low-income tax credit application deadline. The tax credit program is anticipated to generate $17 million in private investments to fund the project. Hollister noted, however, that even if the zoning decision remained pending as of Nov. 1, the project team would still submit the state application for financing.

Parkside Village I was built in 1974 and is composed of 10 one bedroom units and 40 studio apartments with 34 parking spaces. Over the years, all-volunteer BHA, which also oversees 40 unit Parkside Village II, (built in 1985 on Block Island Road) has received small state grants for re-roofing, re-paving, and other repairs to maintain Parkside I’s three residential buildings and community room space, but the units have fallen into disrepair. The complex is also out of compliance with the American with Disability Act (ADA), with needs including elevators.

The proposed project would knock down the complex in phases, with residents living on site during the project. The plan is to build a single, three-story building containing 33 one-bedroom and 34 two-bedroom units and 85 parking spaces. To finance the redevelopment of Parkside I, BHA is seeking to successfully apply to the federal low-income housing tax credit program to create a redeveloped Parkside I that would be income-restricted by the state for 40 years. The program also requires the applicant has a developer, in this case, Beacon.

BHA/Beacon’s first attempt redevelop Parkside as a single building, 71-unit, Planned Development District (PDD) financed by tax credits was withdrawn in October 2016 in the wake of several concerns citied by the town planner and fire marshal’s review, and opposition from residents who opposed the project’s scale and scope.

While the new expansion has been revised with those concerns in mind, perhaps the most significant change involves the use of 8-30g. Under that statute, the PZC can only deny the application based on finding substantial public health or public safety concerns and the coastal site plan review is also restricted to that standard. If approved, the new Parkside Assisted Housing district would allow multifamily use at the housing complex, where 90 percent of residents would earn 60 percent or less of the area median income. The area is currently an R3 (residential) zone.

Under 8-30g, the PZC would also be obligated to accept two conditions of approval: adding a Melrose Avenue emergency access road, which would cut past Indian Neck School to reach the rear of the Parkside I complex (current access on Sliney Road would become a pedestrian/bike path), and town transferal of a recently approved property line adjustment that gives the complex additional rear setback land in return for the town receiving a portion of a Sliney Little League baseball field that had been developed on Parkside land.

“In general, in 8-30g applications, commissions have an obligation to accept conditions of approval,” said Hollister.

In his closing comments following the project presentation on Oct. 19, Hollister concluded, “[T]he property is suitable for multi-family residential development as proposed by the site plan and site plan and coastal site plan comply with the regulations do not present a health or safety concern,” adding, “[I]n general [the] town of Branford has done a good job in providing a mix of housing, but there is a need for more lower cost housing.”

PZC’s Questions

Commissioner Fred Russo said he didn’t want to see the town “take something that may not have been a good idea and make it four times as large.”

“I don’t believe those here against the proposal for the new building are against Parkside per se, but if this is what happens to [a housing authority] sponsored facility—40 years later, by your own admission, it’s falling apart—what is this new building going to look like 40 years from now? It’s larger [and] that’s something you have to I think about...What we shouldn’t do is make the same mistake twice,” said Russo.

He also asked the applicant to supply the information regarding 17 other sites explored for development or redevelopment of Parkside I. BHA and Beacon had proposed developing at town land on the former Branford Hills School site, but the property instead went on to become the town’s newest park, opened in 2017.

“I would love to see the other [properties], the size, where they are located. Are they in residential zones? You have that data; we don’t,” said Russo, adding Parkside I, on 5.8 acres is a small piece of property where you have 50 residents, but number of the number residents you’re going to have eventually are over 200...Here you are asking how many cars are going to be parked; let’s ask how many people that one building is going to be holding?”

In reply, attorney Hollister said redeveloping Parkside I at 115 South Montowese Street is a better land use “as opposed to tearing up a new piece of property.”

“We’re taking three buildings and consolidating into one building,” said Hollister, adding the actual increase to the current footprint is approximately 5,000 square feet.

“We’ve seen the phrase ‘massive redevelopment,’” on lawn signs opposing the project, Hollister said to Russo. “That’s not the facts. Now, I can tell you your projection of 208 residents is completely unrealistic, and not in accordance with reality, but we’ll try to give you, at a continued hearing, a more accurate projection of the number of people that will be on this site.”

Commissioner Marci Palluzzi also asked Hollister about the number of residents the new development would bring, including school aged children, as she was considering whether the added population would create a financial impact to the town.

“You’re increasing overall by 17 units, but you’re doubling the bedrooms. Is there any data on what the child population will be for the schools?” she asked.

Hollister said the information not part of the land use analysis and hadn’t been done, but that from other similar developments, the impact of school-aged children on public schools is “minimum.”

Town Planner Smith said the information is not usually on site plans specifically, but commissions can seek that sort of information as part of a review.

“What you’re asking for is something called a fiscal impact analysis; it’s something that commissions do ask for,” said Smith. “School children costs can add to the school system [as can] police services, fire services.”

PZC Chair Andres asked if the redeveloped Parkside Village I would give “any preference to Branford residents” seeking such housing.

“The [current Parkside resident] relocation plan starts with permanent residents who are Branford residents; the rest of the resident relocation plan, beyond the priority to relocate the residents, is up to the state. That’s part of the funding process,” answered Hollister. “Under the [federal] Fair Housing Act, no affordable housing development can give priority to the residents of the town, but we certainly can, as a practical matter, have a [current] resident relocation plan...That’s as far as we can take it.”

Andres also wanted more details on the plan’s proposed 85 parking spaces, saying while he recognized elderly residents would require less parking on average, the redevelopment is for residents of “all ages” and not strictly elderly. He also questioned the applicant’s submission of analogous parking counts which used evening parking lot counts from 39 different non-age restricted housing complexes, including two in Branford. The counts showed an average of 1.2 to 1.7 parking spaces for two or three-bedroom units, but the two specific to Branford, Foxbridge Village and Woodland Hills, show 1.84 and 1.82 spaces, Andres noted.

“They aren’t age restricted,” Andres added. “You’re taking out the age restricted, and you’re proposing less” parking spaces than what Branford has in the report.

“We can do an apples to apples comparison,” said Hollister, saying the parking ratios provided were believed to be more than adequate, but that “no one wants to redevelop in a way that’s going to be underparked.”

Addressing the PZC following their questions, BHA Chair Douglas Denes said, “I will say, as someone that’s been on the board [about] 20 years, Parkside I is 40 years old and has served the town really well for 40 years. It’s at the end of its life, and we have to do something new. When I first moved to Branford the stop light at the intersection of [North] Main Street and Cedar Street was a flashing yellow light. Things change. Branford is a different place. We need this building. Parkside served us well for 40 years. The people who initiated it 40 years ago [and] the Town of Branford thought it was a really good idea at that time.”

In his town planner/staff comments to the PZC on Oct. 19, Smith noted Branford has more affordable housing than it may appear. He also took issue with the project’s proposed 85 parking spaces and its surrounding area traffic study, as well as raising other concerns.

While Connecticut’s Affordable Housing Appeals list shows Branford has 3.23 percent of housing stock qualified as low-income (with Parkside I and II currently accounting for about 20 percent of that stock); Smith said Branford actually has a “substantial” percentile of affordable housing. He cited a 2015 South Central Regional Council of Governments report showing 22 and 12 percent of Branford’s homes, respectively (including 3,713 rental units), met housing criteria for those earning 80 percent and 50 percent, respectively, of area median income.

Smith also questioned the redevelopment’s plan to provide just 85 parking spaces, noting typically 2.5 spaces are required for a two-bedroom space, but the applicant’s request is just 1.5 spaces for its two-bedroom units. Smith also said he found no justification for a building height increase and needed more time to study traffic numbers. He also found “substantive” outstanding issues regarding construction access and use of the site during construction. Smith noted the town engineer has concerns about where construction materials would be stockpiled, parking of construction workers and equipment, and the need for clarity on tenant use of the site during construction. Smith also brought up concerns from the town building official, who cited the need for clarity on parking and route accessibility to new construction before a certificate of occupancy would be issued.

In his comments on Oct. 19, Fire Marshal Shaun Heffernan said several issues still need to be resolved including construction project access, the offsite improvements to Melrose Road to create an emergency access road, and other issues, such as what is described as a “non-dedicated” emergency vehicle parking on the project plan. He also said the Fire Department has not yet been provided a construction phasing plan, which is needed to address parking and access concerns, and as yet has not been given details about the type of materials to be used in constructing the new building or the type of sprinkler system to be installed.

Regarding the town’s offsite improvements to create the Melrose emergency access road, “to the best of our knowledge, there is no plan to actually construct that,” said Heffernan. “[It] was brought...as part of the application and received a favorable review from the commission, but there has been no act or funding to construct that area, as of this time. Additionally, there is no agreement from the town to allow that to be used as emergency access. To be considered emergency access for the Fire Department means we would be looking for written documentation from the Town of Branford and Indian Neck School that the area listed is offsite improvement by the Town of Branford, to be constructed before building permits are issued for proposed project.”

Heffernan said it would also require receipt of a maintenance agreement and documentation from the property owner that no improvements would be made without fire marshal approval. The area at the rear of the complex would also require installation of a fire hydrant.

Opposition Attorney Discusses Issues

In his comments to the PZC, opposition citizens’ attorney John Parese said town staff parking concerns raised should be “carefully” considered by the PZC as a matter of safety.

“If there’s not adequate parking, [then] people tend to park in places that they really don’t belong, like fire zones [and] it impacts your first responders who provide necessary services,” said Parese.

Parese also questioned the reasoning behind BHA’s decision to bring in Beacon and redevelop Parkside I as an assisted housing district with a 40 year-expiration date for affordability restrictions.

“Why is Beacon developers involved at the beginning?” asked Parese. “It’s the responsibility of the housing authority to provide the [current] housing for seniors and the disabled of moderate means. So I think we’re getting away from the reasons that this Parkside development came about in the first place. [We] don’t want our elderly or disabled living in a place falling down around them, but that’s not the reason to go through a wholesale revamping of Parkside Village, it’s a reason to maintain it better, to make some improvements, to fulfill the responsibility for which the housing authority was created...I don’t see how Beacon adds anything to this mix. I guess it’s as construction manager, but that can be accomplished without trading away the future of Parkside Village. And when I say the future, I mean beyond the 40 years of affordability restrictions.”

Parese also took issue with the applicant’s traffic engineering report, which showed the redevelopment having no significant impacts to area traffic. Parese asked why that research seemingly did not take into account the town’s June 2016 Disaster Recovery Plan, prepared by outside engineering firm Milone & MacBroom and funded by the Connecticut Department of Housing. He quoted plan notes identifying South Montowese Street among town areas “regularly experiencing flooding at high tide events [causing] blocked access to homes, damage to property and vehicles on a regular basis.” Parese also noted the plan stated a Category 2 hurricane would create “significant isolation problems,” which will also increase as sea levels increase, with storm surge causing the Branford River to “overtop” and flow south over South Montowese Street.

Parese also pointed to Branford’s Plan of Conservation and Development, which lists South Montowese Street as a high density residential area “at risk for future flooding, and further development in [these] areas may increase vulnerabilities.”

Parese concluded that “the public safety concern that impacts every zoning application, including 8-30g applications, are definitely present in the [Parkside] application. And I would also point out that these concerns are not of a nature than can be addressed by modifying the application. It’s endemic to the area of the town. Those are not my words; they’re not the words of a hired gun consultant paid by the opponents or proponents of this application. They are the words of professional engineers commissioned by the Town of Branford.”

Parese also advised the PZC that “Parkside, already an affordable complex, is not the place to gamble with the safety of Branford citizens, especially with the net gain of 17 units. The cost, in terms of dollars, is not prudent, but the cost in terms of public safety is reckless.”

Residents Speak Out

While several on the public comments list had left before the opportunity to speak arose, approximately six of the night’s 27 speakers spoke in favor of the project. David D’Amelio, a member of the Parkside Village residents board, said the redevelopment will allow him to move into a “state of the art” building for the same rent is currently paying for his home at Parkside, which he said is in disrepair. Another Parkside resident, Susan Searles, said residents are only able to “survive” with the existing living conditions at Parkside and need a new building. Chris Collins of 127 Highland Avenue said she supports the project and noted “we are all Branford citizens...It’s one of those towns people love to live in,” and that Branford needs affordable housing, and “as Branford, this is our problem, and we have to fix it”.

Among the 21 who spoke against the project was Damian Platosh of 133 South Montowese Street, three doors down from Parkside Village I. He said he went door to door to neighbors and found “near unanimous” opposition to the project because it’s “in the wrong place, at the wrong time. There’s just not enough land for this massive development.” Platosh said those in Parkside deserve a place to live “in harmony” with the surrounding R3 (residential zone).

The PZC also heard from one of the citizen opposition group’s organizers Carol Sires (98 South Montowese Street) who said she had collected documents, including many emails gained through the Freedom of Information Act, that she said show disparities between what BHA and Beacon are discussing publicly and what is being discussed otherwise.

“Those are my concerns, those are questions,” Sires said. “I hope everybody takes them seriously, and I hope we start to hear from the community about them.”

She also asked the PZC not to rush to a decision to meet the applicant’s need for funding.

Patricia Blakeslee (30 Indiand Neck Avenue) said she is a new Branford and single mom who moved to town from a city.

“I chose to move to Branford...because of the small-town atmosphere to raise my daughter and I was looking for something that was affordable and serve my needs...I also feel like it is very important that we take care of our community, [but] I do find there is a certain amount of reality to the sustainability of federal funding that’s coming down [and] I really feel if we’re banking on the ideal that all this money is coming from the federal government to support our housing authority, that might be the first place that they’re cutting.”

In addition, while she felt “Branford is a community that wants to take care of its residents [and] Parkside isn’t a separate entity from Branford itself,” she was dismayed to learn of the density and size of the proposed complex and its impact on “this small community that I’m trying to build a life in. Its now turning into a huge building in the middle of this small neighborhood [and] there are a lot of points that have a ripple effect from a big space like that taking over.”