This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
05/13/2024 12:32 PMA proposed development for 20 single-family dwelling units on Thompson Avenue was met with strong concern from residents living in the same neighborhood of the site at a Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) public hearing on May 1.
The Hamden-based developer 13 Carlson Place LLC envisions a housing development with six triplexes and one duplex unit occupying 1.05 acres. The development would replace two existing structures on the proposal site that would be demolished if plans were approved. The units would sit between the boundaries of Carlson Place and Thompson Avenue.
The developer submitted their application to the PZC under the proposition that it could help East Haven achieve its housing goals under Connecticut State Statute 8-30g. The statute requires that 10% of a municipality’s housing stock be deemed affordable insofar that it aligns with area median income (AMI) levels. East Haven’s current housing stock is 8.33% is deemed affordable per state income criteria, and the town’s AMI is $83,489, according to the most recent figures by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Attorney Stephen Studder, who represented the applicant at the hearing, said that the proposed development would be at a “good location” with nearby access to several bus routes and the downtown area, and offer affordable dwellings for people in need of a place to live while the state is facing a housing crisis.
In its own traffic report submitted to the PZC, the applicant concluded that “there will be no negligible impact on traffic patterns” with its development, as Land Use Official Joe Budrow informed the PZC. The applicant also told the commission they would be willing to carve out enough space for public safety officials like the East Haven Fire Department (EHFD) access.
However, meeting attendees and town officials found these areas, along with overall respect for Thompson Avenue residents, to be points of contention.
A notable point of concern came from the EHFD in the form of a letter submitted by Chief Matthew Marcarelli to the PZC a few hours before the hearing. Marcarelli told the commission that, having only been familiar with the proposal briefly, the department was “not prepared to approve this project.”
In his letter, Marcarelli explained that “there is not sufficient room to navigate our fire apparatus” at the development in case of an emergency and that there are “public parking issues on both Thompson and Carlson Place that will have impact on the public and will prevent our apparatus from entering and exiting.”
Marcarelli said parking restrictions on both sides of the public road would be required for emergency access.
The department will need more time to evaluate the proposal to “provide a better answer” to determine access along the two roads according to the applicant’s plan.
“Additionally,” continued Marcarelli’s letter, “the town engineer only learned of this project on Monday, and he concurs with our public safety and fire operational concerns with regard to turning radius which needs more discussion with the town engineer and our code professionals.”
Marcelli concluded that the application, as it stands, amounts to “a public safety issue and a fire department operational issue, and until we have a clear avenue regarding it after further evaluation, there can be no action on the project.”
Area residents like Samantha Parlato expressed concern to the PZC that “if there is restricted parking on Thompson Avenue, the residents that park there will now be forced to park halfway in their driveway” and that a lack of space already forces some residents to park along neighborhood streets.
She said not enough space for driveway parking “would potentially block the sidewalks, which would also create a hazard for anyone that’s traveling up and down that street…the people that park there, they’re not guests in that area. They do live there.”
The PZC also considered whether an increase in traffic stemming from the property would compound with heavier traffic flow during the summer to locations like nearby Memorial Field and an assumed expansion of Tweed New Haven-Airport. East Haven Town Hall and residents have sharply criticized the latter for numerous traffic-related concerns if the expansion were to occur.
Studder responded to residential concerns, calling them “speculative” and “unfounded” regarding a property that he believed would not have “an adverse effect” on surrounding neighborhoods. In Macarelli’s letter to the PZC, Studder told the PZC that the EHFD was too quick to disapprove of the current plans.
The PZC decided to close the public hearing on the proposal, a move on which they found the applicant was insistent. Of the closing at the hearing, the commission has 65 days to decide on an approval or rejection of the application. They will deliberate at their next meeting on June 5.