EAST HAVEN

For a second time, the East Haven Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) has denied site plans from Hamden-based developer 13 Carlson Place to construct 40 apartments under the name “Thompson Commons” between Carlson Place and Thompson Avenue, formalizing that denial at a special meeting on Oct. 8.

Following a denial by the PZC in June of the applicant’s initial plans to construct 20 units in seven townhouse-style buildings at the same site, 13 Carlson Place returned to the commission in August with revised plans to construct a single building with 40 units standing at 45-feet high. The revision retained its filing under the banner of affordable housing and its intention to support East Haven’s state-mandated affordable housing goals.

By state statute, the applicant appealed the decision by the commission four months ago, thereby allowing it to return with revised plans which its representatives said were in direct response to health and safety concerns expressed by both town officials and residents within the Thompson Avenue-area neighborhood.

In the eyes of the PZC, legal and building representatives of the applicant were unable to assuage health and safety concerns at the Oct. 8 hearing. These were the same concerns which carried over from the previous Sept. 24 public hearing on the revised plans, including inadequate space for emergency response by the East Haven Fire Department (EHFD), as well as respect for the privacy and well-being of neighbors.

Traffic was another major concern reiterated by the commission and the public, both of which believe that the site plan’s call for 47 parking spaces is insufficient for the development’s number of tenants and possible visitors and that the actual number of cars in and around the site would generate an overflow of traffic in a tightly compacted neighborhood which already has minimal parking.

EHFD officials expressed major concerns of its own regarding the plans. Chief Matthew Marcarelli criticized the revised plan’s “oversimplified” model for the fire safety of tenants and feels that it’s an unrealistic model for access of the department’s apparatusses to all sides of the proposed structure. Deputy Chief Chris DeRosa reiterated the lack of manpower in the department to address certain emergency situations at a scale of a 45-foot-high building as drawn in the plans.

Marcarelli described the site plan as a “monstrosity” and “essentially five pounds of excrement in a two-pound bag.” He concluded that the development would spell out a “nightmare scenario from a fire operational standpoint.”

Public testimony condemned the new plans altogether. Thompson Avenue resident Carolyn Jackson said she is “all for affordable housing” and seeing progress at the site development, but saw potential issues with density, traffic, and waste management in the plans.

“I think it's time to be reasonable,” Jackson said to the commission. “The town people have taken their time. I don’t think you can possibly approve what's on the table. Something needs to come to a more reasonable use of that piece of land, and this just isn't it right now.”

Applicant associate and attorney Steven Studer continued to firmly disagree with the wholly negative perspective of public testimony. He told the PZC that the public’s concerns remain “speculative” and make “weird generalizations” about issues which may affect the health and safety of tenants of Thompson Commons and people in the surrounding neighborhood. Studer stood by his belief that the 40-unit development would not pose an environmental threat to the area and that emergency access would be possible.

A surprising turn of events ensued later in the meeting following a private discussion behind closed doors with town officials, applicant representatives, and the town’s land use attorney. The applicants decided to resubmit their original site plan for 20 units with a series of modifications and requirements by the town’s fire and engineering departments. Studer said it was “incumbent upon the commission not to deny the application,” which attempts to “effectively reconcile the very critical need for affordable housing.”

Ultimately, the PZC found both the applicant’s resubmitted original and new plans to be unsatisfying and denied each of them.

While the applicant may have lost out to the commission again, the likelihood that 13 Carlson Place could still see a project constructed at the site did not escape members of the PZC.

John Tarducci believed that the applicant’s representatives had boxed the PZC into a “do-or-die” situation to either approve the modified plans for 20 units or, with the denial of both the original and revised plans, run the risk of the applicant appealing the PZC’s decision in court. This means a judge could overrule a denial and give the green light on whichever plan the applicant brings to the court, including the 40-unit project.

Studer told the PZC that it is likely the applicant will appeal the denial with either site plan.