Printer Friendly Version - Appeal Filed Against Branford PZC's Parkside Affordable Housing Vote

Part of the appeal calls for the court to invalidate two "No" votes against made on Jan. 25 by (with hands raised), Planning and Zoning Commission alternate Fred Russo (left) and commissioner Marci Palluzzi (right). Pam Johnson/The Sound

On Feb. 16, Branford Housing Authority (BHA) and developer Beacon Communities (Boston MA) filed a legal appeal against votes taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on applications to redevelop and expand Parkside Village I under CT General Statute Section 8-30g affordable housing [§ 8-30g(g)]. The appeal requires an appearance at New Haven Superior Court on March 20. The full appeal is posted with this story in related documents.

On Jan. 25, the PZC undertook a series of three votes on the project's three separate applications submitted by BHA and Beacon. Each application was approved by a vote of 3-2, but one of the applications, for a zoning map amendment, required a two-thirds "super majority" (4-1) vote for approval, by state statute. The PZC's added condition that all three applications required proper approval to move the project forward caused the project to be denied due to the votes taken on Jan. 25.

The PZC followed the super majority edict on advice of the Town Attorney's interpretation of § 8-30g(g) requiring the two-thirds vote, once a properly-filed protest petition against the application has been entered into the record. In this case, a protest petition, filed neighbors late last year, was accepted by the PZC.

One way BHA and Beacon hopes to win the appeal is by asking the court to reverse the PZC's conclusion that the protest petition is applicable.

While the town doesn't comment on open litigation, at the time of the Jan. 25 vote, PZC chairman Chuck Andres discussed the possibility that BHA and Beacon could appeal the decision; but said the commission stood by its actions.

"One of my themes is, we've got to comply with the law and we've got to review this application under 8-30g and certain standards. That's the way we're going to review it and that's how we're doing it," said Andres on Jan. 25.

Another way the plantiffs are seeking to appeal the PZC's actions is asking the court to invalidate the PZC's condition tying approval of the three applications together.

Additionally, the plantiffs are asking the court to invalidate one or both of the "No" votes cast by PZC commissioner Marci Palluzzi and alternate Fred Russo. In the appeal, BHA and Beacon claim the PZC did not record issues of public safety and health meeting requirements under § 8-30g(g) that would support a "No" vote.

Another reason the appeal gives to invalidate the "No" votes was that they were "tainted by bias." In one case, BHA and Beacon also point directly to statements by Russo as showing bias against the project. In fact, just ahead of the Jan. 25 vote, BHA/Beacon attorney Timothy Hollister (Shipman & Goodwin, LLP) had requested Russo recuse himself from voting. In response, on Jan. 25, Russo outlined the reasons why he would not, saying he had not pre-judged the case, did not have personal bias and felt enough evidence had been presented to support a vote to deny the applications (see the story here)

In 2016, BHA and Beacon withdrew its first application to redevelop and expand the current three-building, 50-unit Parkside Village I at 115 South Montowese St. as a single, 71-unit building. At the time, BHA/Beacon had sought PZC approval for Planned Development District (PDD). The application was withdrawn after the project's size and scope was met with objections.

Built in the early 1970's, Parkside Village I is out of ADA compliance and currently houses seniors and disabled adults in studio and one-bedroom units. In fall of 2017, BHA and Beacon submitted the three applications under § 8-30g(g) to redevelop Parkside Village I as a single building of 67 one-and two-bedroom units to include affordable housing not only for seniors but for individuals or families of all ages. The application for a zoning map change would create an Assisted Housing District guided by § 8-30g(g) instead of Branford's more stringent zoning regulations.

BHA and Beacon have also argued the expansion is needed as Branford offers only 3.2 percent of its housing stock as affordable housing; however, as Town Planner Harry Smith has pointed out during the applications' public hearing process, many low cost housing options exist as rentals among Branford's large inventory of condominiums and apartments; however those numbers are not formally tabulated by the state as part of Branford's affordable housing percentage.

In a joint press release issued Feb. 20 by BHA and Beacon Communications, BHA chairman Douglas Denes said, "...we look forward to the court's resolution of this appeal. The 8-30g law is clear and the current residents of Parkside, as well as the future residents of the development who can't afford to live in Branford deserve quality housing options."