The developer of the project to replace Parkside Village I has submitted a site plan modification application with two options addressing the Town's original conditions placed on the approved plan's emergency vehicle pullover area. Branford's Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) will hold a public hearing to open its review of the site plan modification application.

At press time, the public hearing was tentatively set to take place at next regular PZC meeting, Thurs. Sept. 19, 7 p.m. at Branford Fire Headquarters, 45 North Main St. The confirmed public hearing date will be posted at https://www.branford-ct.gov/ later this week, said Town Planner Harry Smith.

Parkside is owned by Branford Housing Authority (BHA), which hired developer Beacon Communities (Boston, MA) for the project. To date, BHA/Beacon has received conditional approval from the PZC to build a 67-unit, single building assisted housing development at 115 South Montowese St.; replacing Parkside's three-building complex. Beacon's replacement project falls under state's affordable housing act statutes (CGS 8-30 g). Built in the early 1970's, Parkside Village I currently provides affordable housing for seniors and adult disabled residents.

The most recent conditional approval for the project came on June 13, when the PZC voted 3-2 to approve BHA/Beacon's request for a site plan modification for the development's emergency access road. However, that approval came along with several conditions. Two require acquiring deed restrictions, in order to incorporate an emergency pullover area that falls on both Parkside property and Town property in the approved site plan. The deed restrictions are needed to ensure availability of access to the emergency vehicle pullover area or the emergency vehicle parking area, and the parking area itself. The Town's deed restriction will need to be approved by a vote of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM).

With this application, Beacon is proposing two options as modifications which would change the approved location of the emergency pullover area. One option moves the emergency pullover area to fall entirely within BHA's Parkside property lines. Alternatively, the other option proposes revisions based on the potential elimination of the designation/installation of the paved area for the emergency vehicle pullover. Opinions on why the PZC should approve either option have been provided by BHA/Beacon attorney Timothy Hollister (Shipman & Goodwin, Hartford) in an Aug. 26 letter sent to the PZC, Smith, and the Town's attorney in the matter, Danielle Bercury (Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman, New Haven).

The Aug. 26 letter also addresses a Superior Court appeal, filed on behalf of BHA/Beacon in July, which takes issue with several of the conditions laid out by the PZC in its June 13 site plan modification approval. Hollister wrote that, on August 14, Bercury addressed several concerns listed by Beacon/BHA in the July appeal. Based on those responses, Hollister stated BHA/Beacon are "now willing and able" to accept five of seven conditions which had been questioned in the court appeal.

That leaves two remaining conditions (5.c and 5.d) in the appeal. In summary, according to Hollister's letter, conditions 5.c and 5.d currently "...require the applicants to ensure that an Emergency Vehicle Pullover Area [of] about 1,200 square feet [on] the northwest side of the proposed redeveloped Parkside building, will not be altered without Planning and Zoning Commission approval, and must be approved by the Branford RTM as an 'encumbrance' on Town-owned property."

BHA/Beacon are now seeking to address changes to conditions 5.c and 5.d with the two options outlined in the new site plan modification application.

As for the Superior Court appeal filed in July, the case is still pending; however, based on Hollister's Aug. 26 letter,"...the case is now narrowed down to just the two conditions that would be the subject of modification in this application," said Smith.

Should the PZC not accept either of the modifications requested in the new application, BHA/Beacon would still have a court case that objects to those two conditions of prior approval.