Biz Renewal Plan OK’d; Dixwell Dropped

Long-in-the-works zoning changes designed to promote dense, sustainable, and affordable development along New Haven’s ​“commercial corridors” moved ahead for Whalley Avenue and Grand Avenue — and have been temporarily dropped for Dixwell Avenue, with neighbors thanking city staff for heeding their concerns about potential gentrification.

At Wednesday night’s regular monthly meeting of the City Plan Commission in the basement meeting room at the 200 Orange St. municipal office building, commissioners voted 4 – 1 to recommend that the Board of Alders adopt the proposed Commercial Gateway District changes to the city’s zoning code.

Those proposed changes, which can be read about in fuller detail here and here, seek to reshape the city’s 1960s-era zoning code to encourage denser, mixed-use developments built at the scale of the pedestrian (rather than the car) along the city’s commercial arteries that connect downtown and the neighborhoods.

At the request of City Plan Department Director Aïcha Woods and Deputy Director of Zoning Jenna Montesano, the commissioners agreed to pass along their favorable report with one key omission that city staff and Dixwell neighbors said they had agreed to at a community meeting held Tuesday night at Varick AME Church — that Dixwell Avenue, for now, not be included. Grand Avenue from Olive Street to Hamilton and Whalley Avenue from Howe Street to Pendleton are now the only corridors that the City Plan Commission is recommending the alders rezone as part of this project.

Woods said that the decision to carve out Dixwell did not have as much to do with the unique physical characteristics of that avenue’s built environment as with ​“looking at disparities of income, of rates of rentals versus owners, of proximity to potential high value development and how that might impact the neighborhood.”

Indeed, the inclusion of Dixwell from Tower Parkway to Munson Street in this project has been one of the hottest points of contention in the months of public hearing and community meetings about this rezoning project since Woods first formally presented a finished draft in July.

“We’ve heard a lot of testimony from Dixwell about the fear of displacement,” she continued. ​“And we really want to honor that going forward in a collaborative piece.”

A half-dozen Dixwell residents took then took their turns at the mic to voice their support for city staff’s recommendation that Dixwell be left out of this particular rezoning project.

But, they stressed, they do not want to — and do not intend to — let the planned rezoning of Dixwell stall for long.

Rather, they pitched the delay as provoking a rejuvenated, collaborative community process that sees city staff and Dixwell neighbors working side by side in figuring out what zoning changes would encourage economic growth while minimizing the risk of displacing low-income residents and whitewashing the neighborhood’s uniquely African American history.

“We want growth,” said Dixwell resident Lillie Chambers. ​“We want development. But we also want to be included.”

Woods and Montesano promised that the department would bring to those discussions data gleaned from a prospective citywide ​“inclusionary zoning” study geared towards figuring out what kinds of affordable housing set-asides to require in new residential developments.

At the insistence of City Plan Commissioner and City Point resident Jonathan Wharton, Woods and Montesano also said they will seriously consider including a main thoroughfare in the Hill — whether Congress Avenue or Kimberly Avenue or Howard Avenue — in the next round of commercial corridor rezoning initiatives.

The proposed Whalley and Grand Avenue changes now advance to the Board of Alders Legislation Committee for a public hearing, which could take place as early as Dec. 10, before moving on to the full board for a final vote.

Parking Maximums, 10% Affordable, Special Permits For Large Projects

While introducing the proposed changes to the commission, Montesano reviewed some of the highlights of the proposed zoning changes — as well as some of the key updates city staff following the slew of recent neighborhood public meetings on the project.

The proposed changes still encourage greater density by upping the baseline allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for new building projects to 3.0. They also allow for a maximum permitted FAR of 4.5 based on sustainability incentives such as LEED certification and ecoroofs as well as historic preservation incentives like using window and door sizes and cladding materials similar to a new project’s historic neighbors.

The proposed changes require that all new residential buildings with nine or more units set aside 10 percent of those units at affordable rates — with ​“affordable” defined as 60 percent of the city’s, not the region’s, area median income (AMI).

And they replace parking minimums with parking maximums of one space per residential unit, and allow certain commercial uses like bakeries, supermarkets, restaurants, barber shops, and laundromats as of right.

Based on recent community feedback, she said, the proposed changes also impose a height limit of five stories to new buildings along the Grand Avenue corridor. There is no direct height limit for Whalley Avenue projects, though they will be constrained by FAR.

The proposed changes also now allow for first-floor residential use as-of-right, require a rear stepback for taller buildings on Grand, and more clearly define privately owned public spaces (POPs) as being ​“narrow and running parallel to the street frontage rather than running deep into private property.”

And in regards to neighbors’ specific concerns about large, market-rate residential developments potentially displacing lower-income residents who already live along those corridors, Montesano pointed out that the suggest regulations now include an ​“anti-displacement” clause that requires developers to secure a special permit and go through a public hearing at City Plan Commission for new construction projects over 50,000 square feet.

“The Commission may take into consideration whether the project is anticipated to cause displacement,” the proposed changes read, when it is determining whether or not to approve a project.

Read all of the proposed regulations at the Commercial Corridors website here.

“There Needs To Be Inclusiveness”

The handful of Dixwell residents who turned out Wednesday and stuck around for the lengthy commission meeting all praised the city for putting the brakes on rezoning the main drag of their neighborhood. They all said they would like to see development in Dixwell, but development that springs from the community rather being imposed on top.

“We have to clearly define what is community participation,” said Jayuan Carter. ​“We want change, but we want to make sure we’re part of this process.”

“There needs to be inclusiveness,” said Chambers. ​“There needs to be education. And there needs to be transparency.” This whole process has been an instructive one not just for the city, she said, but for community members previously unfamiliar with the zoning code and how and why the city goes about changing it.

“Community engagement needs to be an open and honest process,” added Lisa McKnight. ​“All the cards need to be laid down on the table.”

Patricia Solomon stressed the importance of making sure that any potential rezoning of the neighborhood does not erase its unique and rich African American history. ​“Nothing in the proposed zoning change abstract reflects the African American history of Dixwell,” she said. That history is what makes Dixwell so cherished by so many of its residents, and any rezoning initiative should be explicitly aware of what impact it might have on that history.

Ashmun Street resident Carla Chappel said that, after learning about the rezoning initiative, she went door to door in her neighborhood, asking residents to sign a petition in opposition. Many of the people she spoke to had no idea that the project was even on the table, she said.

“We’re not against growth and development,” she said. ​“But I think the community needs to be a part of it.”

New Haven Urban Design League President Anstress Farwell testified that the Grand Avenue stretch should also be removed from this proposed project because Wooster Square neighbors had raised a number of concerns about how taller buildings might affect their neighborhood. Those Grand Avenue abutters haven’t had the same opportunities to engage with the city plan staff as have the Dixwell residents, she said, and many are still opposed.

Her testimony earned the lone dissenting vote from City Plan Commission Vice-Chair Leslie Radcliffe, who also recommended that Grand Avenue be removed from the recommended changes until that neighborhood’s residents have provided a clear sign off.

But her colleagues on the commission decided to move ahead, noting that residents will have ample opportunity to testify at a subsequent public hearing before the aldermanic Legislation Committee.

“I don’t want to see the huge amount of work you’ve put into this just disappear,” Commission Chair Ed Mattison told Montesano and Woods. ​“I don’t think we can require unanimity” in order to move forward with the project.