Industrial Lots-Into-Housing Path Sought

Because of one section of New Haven’s zoning code, this apartment building can’t be built.

Because of another section of New Haven’s zoning code, this apartment building might be built.

The rendering above depicts 64 proposed new apartments that a holding company controlled by local landlord Yoon Lee would like to construct atop a current surface parking lot at 63 Hamilton St. 

His quest to build those apartments may open a door to tweak zoning so that housing-strapped New Haven can make room for more home-building.

That 0.24-acre plot is located near Chapel Street just east of the I‑91 overpass in the Wooster Square / Mill River borderlands, in a so-called Light Industrial (IL) zone.

During Tuesday night’s virtual meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, local attorney Ben Trachten — representing Lee’s company Wooster Lofts LLC — pitched the commissioners on a use variance to permit residential use in the Light Industrial zone at 63 Hamilton. Lee’s company has also requested a special exception to allow zero loading spaces where one is required at that site. 

All with the goal of enabling the potential development of up to 64 new apartments atop a current surface lot.

“Unfortunately, residential use is not permitted in industrial zones except in existing structures of 50,000 square feet or greater,” Trachten said on Tuesday. But, he continued, this part of the city already has plenty of examples of residential structures, including right next door at the 23-unit apartment building at 441 Chapel St. (which is also owned by Lee’s company).

“Our hardship is inherent in the ordinance itself,” Trachten said.

The 0.24-acre lot at 63 Hamilton is too small for ​“the most common planning tools” like a Planned Development Unit (PDU) or Planned Development District (PDD) that could allow for residential use there. It also can’t receive its own map change, because it’s a single parcel, and that would be spot zoning.

So the fact that this lot sits in an industrial zone, which prohibits residential use in most cases, means that no new apartments can be built there without zoning relief. 

But another, much more recent part of the city’s zoning code has made this parcel a more attractive site for new apartments. 

That’s the inclusionary zoning (IZ) ordinance. The main purpose of that 2022-adopted local law is to require new apartment buildings to set aside a certain percentage of units at below-market rents.

The local IZ law also includes various ​“bonuses” for participating developments, allowing for higher Floor Area Ratios (FAR) and smaller-sized apartments and less parking than would otherwise be permitted — thus letting developers build bigger and denser residential buildings in exchange for their compliance with IZ. 

And so, a new IZ-compliant residential building at this Hamilton Street site could have 64 dwelling units with no new on-site parking. 

But in order for that to happen, its industrial-zone prohibition on residential use has to be lifted.

“We’re never going to see true industrial development on any of these parcels” like 63 Hamilton that are still zoned industrial, but that are so proximate to downtown, Wooster Square, the train stations, and plenty of other residential buildings. And right now, it’s just a ​“vacant parking lot, serving no purpose.”

So, asked, BZA Commissioner Errol Saunders, ​“the hardship here is not in the parcel, but the different requirements of the zoning ordinance?”

Generally, under case and law and Connecticut common law, Trachten replied, the hardship necessary to allow for a variance ​“has to be found in the parcel” or in the applicable ordinance. And right now, ​“we don’t have a mechanism to do residential” at 63 Hamilton under its existing industrial-zoning designation. ​“Our only mechanism to move forward is through a use variance.”

“Another option for the parcel is not to develop this particular building,” Saunders countered. After all, it seems pretty clear in the city’s existing zoning rules that ​“we can’t have housing” in areas zoned industrial.

The city’s comprehensive plan of development and general property law ​“favors development of parcels, especially parcels that are paved over” and likely had buildings on them previously, Trachten countered. ​“That’s one of our basic tenets of land use law: We favor development.” 

The question is more, ​“what kind of development we’re going to have here.” Much of New Haven’s zoning code was written in 1964, he said. The use table has been updated only periodically since then. Given the thousands of existing multi-family residential buildings in zones that would currently not allow their construction as of right, ​“it’s not a great leap for this parcel” to have new apartments on it. This is exactly the type of ​“in-fill” development that the comprehensive plan favors. And residential use would serve ​“a higher and better purpose” than what’s there now.

Lee agreed. In his public testimony to the commission on Tuesday, he said, since buying the property in 2022, ​“it’s become pretty clear that, for the 63 Hamilton lot … I think development or use of an industrial context” right next to an existing 23-unit apartment building ​“just doesn’t look like a very feasible use case.” This requested zoning relief is the ​“first of many steps towards creating more housing in this neighborhood.”

The only other member of the public to speak up on this application at Tuesday’s BZA meeting was Chelsea Patton, a resident of the adjacent apartment building at 441 Chapel. 

She urged the commissioners not to approve the requested use variance because the 63 Hamilton lot is currently used for gated parking by residents at 441 Chapel. Taking away that off-street parking and then adding lots more new residents at a potentially new apartment building would add to the parking and traffic burden in that area of Wooster Square, she said. ​“It would create a lot of competition” for parking on the street. 

Trachten replied that, under IZ, a new development at 63 Hamilton St. would not need to have parking spaces for that building’s residents. The developer could, though, build ground-floor parking spaces anyway and make them available to the residents of 441 Chapel, since he owns both properties. ​“Anything built at Hamilton Street would need to be zoning compliant while not rendering Chapel Street non-compliant,” Trachten told the Independent.

The 63 Hamilton zoning relief application now heads to the City Plan Commission for review before returning to the Board of Zoning Appeals for final deliberations and a vote.