This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
04/08/2019 12:00 AMThere may have been supporters in the crowd of about 50, but only those opposed to an application modification that could allow Parkside Village I to be redeveloped as an affordable housing complex spoke out, with many raising health and safety concerns, at a public hearing in Branford on April 4.
Branford’s Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) will continue the public hearing at a special meeting set for Monday, April 22, 7 p.m. at Branford Fire Headquarters, 45 North Main St.
On April 4, the PZC heard from three professionals representing the applicant, Beacon Communities Development LLC (Boston, MA). Working with property owner Branford Housing Authority (BHA), Beacon is looking to revise a 2017-18 three-part, town-approved application to redevelop and expand Parkside Village I.
The PZC’s approval of the three-part application was the result of an October 2018 Hartford Superior Court appellate decision; overturning a complex, January 2018 PZC vote which had initially served to deny the project. Beacon plans to knock down Parkside’s 1970’s-era, 50-unit senior and disabled adult housing complex of three buildings (containing a mix of one bedroom units and studios) at 115 South Montowese St., overseen by BHA. It would bring in a single, L-shaped building of 67units (33 one-bedrooms and 34 two-bedrooms) as a multi-age affordable housing development for residents assisted under CT General Statute (CGS) Section 8-30g [§ 8-30g].
The April 4 PZC hearing took place as part of Beacon’s request to substitute and alter Sliney Field Access Road (a Parkside property access drive which also allows public access to town-owned Sliney field), as the approved plan’s emergency access road. That’s a change from the town-approved plan in which Beacon designated using a Melrose Avenue extension as the emergency access road. Beacon is seeking the change because town approval is needed to create the Melrose Avenue extension; and in July, 2018, the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) voted (18-6) to reject a request from Beacon and BHA for access to land to build an access road to Melrose Avenue.
The modification to the plan seeks to widen Sliney Road to 24 feet, excavate and alter the grade (with possible blasting/ rock removal required); and rock slop creation south of the road entry off South Montowese. The altered plan also includes a full design for a reserve parking area (13 spaces) and a phasing plan updated to include the road widening and provide more detail on preliminary work in the area, which is along the western periphery of the project site.
As PZC chairman Chuck Andres noted at the start of the April 4 hearing, the commission’s decision on the request to revise the application will be constrained by CGS § 8-30g.
“If the commission denies the application and imposes conditions that are unacceptable to the applicant, and there’s an appeal, then the commission has the burden of proof [to] show that the decision is necessitated by substantial public interest in health, safety or other matters that we can consider,” said Andres, “...and that those public interests clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing; and that those public interests cannot be addressed by reasonable changes to the plan.”
“In order for your comments to be helpful to us, what’s to be most pertinent to us, is if you can direct your comments toward the changes , the things that they’re addressing in the application...whether you’re for or against it; because I think there’s probably some of both of you out there,” Andres continued.
Despite most voicing frustration, concerns and even incredulity at Beacon’s latest application, the nine citizens who spoke did raise what they felt were health and safety questions posed by the modification request. Some discussed safety issues involving the location of Sliney Road in an area quite often burdened by heavy traffic. Others also said they felt the traffic report Beacon submitted in the town-approved application doesn’t represent true numbers; especially given the overwhelming popularity of Stony Creek Brewery on Indian Neck Avenue (drawing an estimated 300,000 visitors per year) and a popular collection of restaurant-bars in the Indian Neck area of South Montowese, which is also a part of scenic State Rte. 146. One also pointed to changes, from tree removal to altering natural outcroppings, which would diminish the state-designated scenic nature of the public road. Questions were also raised on the safety of staging and undertaking the road widening project in close proximity to Indian Neck School on Melrose Avenue (a preschool). With Sliney Road potentially sitting on rock ledge (some neighbors said they felt it was part of the same ledge found in their basements), the impact blasting could have on area homes and structures was raised as an issue. One resident also brought up the potential health and safety problems — and expense to the town – if blasting caused a leak or other issue at the town’s sewage treatment plant on nearby Block Island Road, which sends treated water into Long Island Sound. Others asked why Beacon has not yet submitted its plans detailing activities including blasting.
In his presentation to the PZC, Beacon attorney Timothy Hollister (Shipman & Goodwin, LLP) summarized the three-part application’s progress from its starting point in 2017 up to the current revision request.
Hollister said discussion to use Sliney Road as an alternative, if the Melrose access was not approved, came out at past PZC meetings on the three-part application.
“This alternative was discussed several times, so this is not a new concept,” Hollister told the PZC. “It was something that was talked about in the previous round of hearings as an alternative if the Melrose access was not approved, which it was not.”
Noting Beacon’s request for the Melrose Avenue access was denied by the RTM in 2018, Hollister summarized, “...as of today, we have the approved application, but we need to come before you to revise an alternative to the so-called Melrose Avenue access.”
The topic of the Melrose Avenue access was also addressed during public comments by RTM member Ray Ingraham (R, District 5);
speaking to the PZC on behalf of what he said was an “overwhelming majority” of constituents.
“It was Beacon that proposed the condition that the Town must approve Melrose Access Road [and] the RTM has rejected the access road proposal. Now Beacon wants to do an end-[run] of the will of the people, and we think that’s wrong,” said Ingraham.
“I know tonight is about an application to modify a site plan; so I’ll not restate the many objections to the expansion of Parkside — with no guarantees to current residents, no guarantee that this will be aimed to serve the real needs of low-income residents of Branford,” Ingraham continued. “But using Sliney Access Road was the worst alternative means of access, as proved through [prior] testimony in this room. It is unsafe both because of additional traffic it will generate along Route 146 and because of the fire safety concerns that the Fire Marshal articulated when it was first proposed by Beacon.”
Ingraham also asked, “If using Sliney Road was the worst alternative then, what has changed? The only thing that has changed is that Beacon cannot satisfy a condition of approval that Beacon proposed. That’s not a reason to let Beacon now come back and say, ‘We want a do-over.’ This commission, the court, the town’s legislature, have all acted in good faith on this proposal. Now Beacon wants to short cut around the good faith efforts, just because it lost. It shouldn’t work that way. Don’t let it work that way. Please reject this application to modify the site plan.”
During his presentation to the PZC, attorney Hollister noted the requested revisions to widen Sliney Road comply with specifications brought up by the town fire marshal during the 2017-18 three-part application process.
However, in making comments from his staff report on April 4, Town Planner Harry Smith noted a letter from the town fire marshal, dated March 29, 2019, lists “several comments” on fire protection and emergency service access with regard to the newly-requested modification to the site plan.
The PZC also heard from two professionals brought by Beacon to discuss the Sliney Access Road revision; civil engineer David Sacco of TPA Design Group (New Haven) and an independent consultant who discussed the revision’s fire, safety and emergency specifications.
During discussion and questions by the PZC, commissioner Marci Palluzzi asked why the plan didn’t incorporate intersection improvements at Sliney’s connection with South Montowese. Palluzzi said she also felt current use of Sliney Road, especially with heightened traffic during seasonal field use, is already a safety issue. Commissioner Fred Russo felt there was a safety concern, especially in busy traffic, due to Sliney’s close proximity to a difficult intersection (road fork and three-way stop) at South Montowese and Indian Neck Avenue.
In his preliminary Staff Report, Smith said more detail is needed with regard to how construction activity will be undertaken. He also noted the plan’s grading and earth removal activities, in certain areas, exceed the 3-to-1 slope requirement and need to be adjusted and to be found in compliance by the PZC.
Other notes from Smith include the need for the Town of Branford, as owner of adjacent property accessed only via Sliney Road, to provide documentation showing permission is granted allowing for any new limitations on the access created by the modifications proposed in the application and additional site work, if need, on town property.
As Hollister noted during his presentation to the PZC, although staff comments were requested on the application when submitted in February, the comments were received two days before the April 4 public hearing.
“One thing I can say on the record is we should be able to accommodate all of them, but in not in 36 or 48 hours,” said Hollister, adding the comments will be addressed and submitted in time for staff to review ahead of the April 22 meeting.
Following public comments heard on April 4, Andres asked Hollister if Beacon would like to comment further.
“It’s a little bit disappointing to hear the revision of history that we just heard over the last hour or so,” Hollister replied. “But we will come back [April 22] with a more correct recitation of what actually happened in 2017.”