This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
07/30/2018 11:01 AMOn July 25, the majority of more than 50 residents in the room applauded the Representative Town Meeting’s (RTM) 18 to 6 vote rejecting a request by Branford Housing Authority (BHA) and Beacon Communities for access to land to build an access road to Melrose Avenue.
An attorney for BHA said the request sought an easement for two years’ time to allow for temporary construction access and parking that would be needed in order to redevelop Parkside Village I at 115 South Montowese Street. As part of the request, BHA and Boston-based Beacon also offered to contribute $200,000 for the road the town.
That was one of many matters discussed for more than an hour on July 25, as the RTM discussed a recommendation brought by the RTM Administrative Services Committee to deny the easement, based on a 4-2 vote made in committee on July 18.
As RTM moderator Dennis Flanigan (R-5) explained on July 25, the issue before the RTM that night was only for the easement being sought and not a discussion on BHA and Beacon’s efforts to redevelop and expand Parkside Village I. A rear property line at Parkside abuts the town’s Sliney field and parking area.
RTM’s District 5 members have gone on the record against the proposed Parkside Village I expansion in the past, but Flanigan contended any decision that night was not restricted to the district.
“Granted this is a fifth district issue, but many people in this room tonight are other than the fifth district,” Flanigan said. “We are the legislative body of this town. This is our jurisdiction to do what’s right for the people of Branford, and especially our constituents.”
The Parkside Issue
BHA, which is not a town government body, and Beacon, BHA’s hired developer, need the Melrose access road installed to allow emergency responders access to the proposed redeveloped, expanded Parkside Village I, an already-existing affordable housing complex. In part, the request for the easement was an effort by BHA to “kickstart” a town process that’s required to build the access road, BHA attorney Jay Pottenger told the RTM on July 25.
BHA is represented by Pottenger together with attorneys with Yale Law School’s Ludwig Center for Community & Economic Development.
Built in the early 1970s, the three-building, 50-unit Parkside Village I is out of ADA compliance and in need of upgrades. To be eligible for funds to finance the expansion of Parkside, BHA/Beacon seek to change Parkside I from senior and disabled adult affordable housing assisting Branford residents, to mixed-residential affordable housing open to individuals or families of all ages, under the state’s General Statute Section 8-30g.
Last year, BHA/Beacon made its second proposal to the town, asking to construct a single building of 67 one- and two-bedroom units. The proposal was made as a three-part application, with one part requesting a zoning map change from residential to an Assisted Housing District guided by 8-30g instead of Branford’s more stringent zoning laws. A condition of the PZC was that all three applications needed to be approved for the project to move forward, with a state-required super majority (4-1) vote needed for the zoning map change application to be approved. In January 2018, each application was approved by a 3-2 PZC vote (not a super majority), and the project was denied on those grounds. In February, BHA and Beacon filed a legal appeal asking the court to overturn the PZC’s voting outcome. Litigation is currently underway.
Asking the Town to Take Up the Project
On July 25, RTM Minority Leader Chris Sullivan (D-6) asked the RTM not to vote on the easement that night, but to instead vote to refer the access road project to the Board of Selectman (BOS) so that it could be developed through the town process and built for public safety.
“I’m worried that a vote tonight against the project kills this beneficial project,” said Sullivan.
He noted the PZC received a referral letter in 2017 from First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove noting the town was proposing improvements to parking and access at Sliney Field. Sullivan also shared notes from PZC minutes from Sept. 7. He noted Branford Recreation Director Alex Palluzzi and Branford Fire Marshal Shaun Heffernan were the only two commenters who spoke to the PZC on the proposed improvements on Sept. 7; they discussed how the road would improve emergency access for the town’s newly acquired Foote Park (on Melrose Avenue) and help improve parking and drainage at Sliney Field.
Sliney Field primarily hosts Branford Little League play, but includes some youth soccer use. Sullivan also raised issues of concerns of traffic and parking area safety raised in letters from parents connected to youth soccer. The concept Palluzzi and Heffernan discussed Sept. 7 called for adding 50 parking spaces, including six handicapped spaces. Installing the access road would allow the closure of existing vehicle access to the field from South Montowese Street via Sliney Road, but leave it open for walking and biking. The PZC gave the concept a unanimous favorable review.
From that point up to the present time, no additional town action has been taken to initiate the town process required to move forward to build the road. It also is not in the town’s current five-year Capital Improvement Plan.
Voted Down
RTM Majority Leader Ray Ingraham (R-5) led the RTM to vote against Sullivan’s motion to send the request to the BOS.
“Before us we don’t have a project for any roads,” Ingraham said. “Access across the property for [BHA] is the main question. We can’t approve a project that wasn’t brought to us from the town. The town did not bring this project to us. The project was brought by lawyers from Yale to have us push other town entities to do a project.”
Ingraham said voting to approve the easement would set a precedent for others to come to the RTM asking for the same process. He also noted a vote in support of the easement would open up the offer from BHA to give the town $200,000, without the RTM knowing the actual project costs. Ingraham said the road project could be built by the town without ever giving access to BHA.
“But to be fair to the housing authority and to Beacon, they have to have an answer whether we would ever give them access,” said Ingraham.
The motion by Sullivan was then defeated by a majority vote.
The Easement Argument
RTM member Peter Black (R-3) noted a road project was not what was on the agenda; granting access was. He also said the proper process needs to be followed.
“What’s been noticed is granting access,” said Black of the July 25 agenda item. “The material that went out to us was asking for an easement in perpetuity [and] a ‘No’ vote on granting the easement that was proposed does not mean [the town] should not go forward with the parking project. It should percolate up...[so if] the Board of Recreation decides they want to move forward with that, and start pushing it forward, they can do that. But right now, what’s before us is the granting of the easement. That’s what was noticed publicly, not a parking project.”
Pottenger disputed that the request was for an easement in perpetuity.
“I do need to slightly modify the way the easement was projected before. We do not need an easement in perpetuity,” said Pottenger. “Everybody in this room can have an ambulance or fire truck come to his home or her home. Even if you live on a private road, the people on that road don’t have to have an easement for the fire truck or ambulance to get there. So to the extent that emergency access to the back of the proposed Parkside Village is part of the request for the road, we don’t need a perpetual easement. What we would like is a temporary easement to use that road during construction and development of Parkside Village, for construction work and parking. It would be an easement just for the construction period, and then Branford Housing proposed to maintain and keep that road going for an extra year...”
But, Pottenger continued, “the argument for the road is not about Parkside and that’s not on your agenda. The argument for the road is the need for parking, the need for emergency access, the need for better traffic flow and...safety.”
Pottenger said he hoped the easement would be approved and that the town project could then be allowed to go forward “through proper channels.”
“I understand you’re not voting on money or a plan, but the only way the housing authority could...get [the project] to move...was to ask for your help with respect to the easement,” he told the RTM.
Following six citizen’s statements, with five speaking against granting the easement and one in favor, Black offered his final analysis of the “in perpetuity” question.
“I don’t see how the housing authority doesn’t need it in perpetuity if it’s for emergency access,” said Black. “If they’re going to build a building there, and they want fire trucks to be able to come through, then that’s going to have to be in perpetuity.”
Votes to deny: Harry DiAdamo Jr. (R-1), Clare Torelli (D-1), Frank Twohill (R-1), George Wells (R-1), Jennifer Zambrano (R-1), Ray Dunbar (D-2), Peter Black (R-3), Robin Comey (D-3), Darren Lawler (R-4), James Stepanek (R-4), Donald Conklin (R-5), Maryanne Hall (D-5), Raymond Ingraham (R-5), John Leonard (R-5), Anthony Alfone (R-6), Ed Prete (R-6), Marc Riccio (R-6), and Tricia Anderson (R-7).
Votes to allow: Jessica Buchanan (D-1), Peter Jackson (D-3), Dan Adelman (D-4), Cynthia Lombardi (D-4), Tom Brockett (D-7), and Chris Sullivan (D-7).