This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
05/20/2019 12:00 AMWith a crowd of over 60 in attendance, a three-part public hearing on an assisted housing developers' request to substitute Sliney Road for required access on the plan to redevelop Parkside Village 1 (115 So. Montowese St.) ended on May 16. Next, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) plans to reconvene May 30 to deliberate and review the matter. The PZC's decision deadline is June 27.
The commission’s decision on the application will be constrained by state affordable housing statutes (CT General Statute [CGS] Section 8-30g [§ 8-30g]). Under § 8-30g, the PZC must prove a decision to deny the application is necessitated by substantial public interest in health, safety or other matters. Additionally, the PZC must be able to show such public interests outweigh the need for affordable housing; and cannot be addressed by reasonable changes to the plan.
The PZC heard more from applicant Beacon Communities Development LLC (Boston, MA)including further input from Project Engineer (PE) David Sacco of TPA Design Group (New Haven), traffic consultant Steve Ulman, Sr. PE (Alfred Benesch & Co., Glastonbury), as well as building and fire code compliance expert Joseph Versteeg of Versteeg Associates LLC (Torrington).
Future and present traffic issues in the area, as well as resolving safety issues when using Sliney Road for construction access together with public park (Sliney Field), school (Indian Neck School) and Parkside residential access, were among issue raised on May 16; while a significant addition to the information-gathering process were comments based on the Fire Marshal’s review of the plan and the applicant’s responses to that review.
Town Planner Harry Smith also reviewed responses from the applicant to his comments on the proposed plan, saying, at one point, “I am, despite the notes, still concerned about exactly how the conflict between traffic using Sliney Field, particularly at very busy times, and folks using the parking lot behind the Board of Ed facility, and construction traffic for this facility and traffic for the residents of the facility are going to co-exist through one access road. It seems like there needs to be a more detailed plan provided.”
Smith also noted approval for usage of town property during construction, if needed, would need to be secured by the applicant.
Branford’s Fire Marshal, Assistant Chief Shaun Heffernan, was not at the May 16 meeting but provided a letter with concerns regarding fire safety and fire response issues that would face residents and responders, based on his review of the plan.
A fire safety expert for the applicant, Beacon Communities Development LLC (Boston, MA), refuted the concerns, based on factors including standards set by the National Fire Protection Association. The expert is Joseph Versteeg, principal of Versteeg Associates LLC (Torrington), an independent consulting firm specializing in building and fire code compliance.
Heffernan’s concerns in his report included: site limitations causing ladder truck placement in building collapse zones; residents parking outside of designated parking areas hindering firefighting; an overstatement by the applicant’s expert of the effectiveness of fire sprinklers, and the applicant’s expert’s use of firefighting responses available from departments in cities such as New Haven not matching the reduced capabilities, staffing and apparatus of Branford’s Fire Department. In addition, Heffernan noted the plan shows fire apparatus access to four side of the building; while the building has six sides and includes areas where access is limited by steep slopes, stairs and retaining walls.
On May 16, Versteeg reviewed for the PZC his responses and shared data refuting Heffernan’s concerns, “My findings indicate that, in line with state statutes, that this project does not have an adverse impact [to] substantial public interest; and there are no fire safety or public safety concerns,” said Versteeg.
The PZC heard from seven members of the public with concerns about the plan, including traffic safety in the area due to increased vehicles in close vicinity to a complicated, busy three-way stop intersection at Indian Neck Avenue and South Montowese Street; flooding issues at/near Sliney Field, questions about the health and safety of existing residents during construction, that fact that the Town’s Fire Marshal had raised concerns, and the need for even greater fire safety than what the plan provides due to the age and ability of Parkside’s existing senior and disabled residents.
Beacon needs approval to widen Sliney Road in order to go forward with otherwise town-approved plans for a new Assisted Housing District at the site. 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. The new development, an L-shaped building of 67 units (33 one-bedrooms and 34 two-bedrooms) would be a multi-age affordable housing development for residents assisted under § 8-30g. Parkside is owned by Branford Housing Authority (BHA), which hired Beacon to redevelop the complex.
At the close of the May 16 public hearing, Beacon’s attorney, Timothy Hollister (Shipman & Goodwin, Hartford) said, in listening to public comments, he was reminded of the phrase “no good deed goes unpunished.”
“Listening to public comments with the very unsubtle subtext that the applicant and the team don’t care about health and safety...obviously, we bristle at it, we totally disagree with it, it’s uncalled for. But we’re the applicant; this is a public forum and people can say what they want,” said Hollister. “It is a phenomenon in 8-30g, where the only basis for denial can be health and safety; that all of the sudden, everything becomes health and safety in one form or another. [But] let’s remember the only thing that’s in front of you is widen Sliney Road, and the quid pro quo is we’re going to widen and improve Sliney Road, and then the residents of the existing Parkside are going to yield the widened road and the parking spaces in the access to the park to the Town of Branford; and move their business elsewhere.”
In response to some of the concerns raised during the May 16 public hearing, Hollister said there will be no change to traffic using the park due to the plan and that the only change for that traffic will be use of a widened access road. Also, regarding, “...the gentleman asked what are going to be the impacts of the blasting; the answer is unequivocally none,” said Hollister, saying modern blasting techniques need to be taken into consideration and that the blasting will be also be supervised by the Town’s fire marshal.
Hollister also noted construction phasing has been on submitted plans and “revised several times in response to the fire marshal,” while further stating, “Mr. Heffernan has not said that this development is unsafe. He made some comments. Mr. Versteeg responded to it.”
With the close of the public hearing, any remaining concerns raised by the PZC will have to dealt with by conditions of approval placed on the application.
The PZC will meet on May 30, 7 p.m. at Branford Fire Headquarters to review and discuss the application. A decision on the matter is required by June 27, said Smith.