More Apartments Sought For Dixwell Row Homes

The new owner of a pair of historic Dixwell row houses is seeking permission to reconfigure them into more apartments — raising concern from at least one neighbor about the impact on neighborhood parking.

That debate played out at the latest monthly Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting, which was held at City Hall and online via Zoom last Tuesday. 

The BZA didn’t vote on the housing-boost applications Tuesday, instead referring them to City Plan Commission for review before taking them back up for an expected vote next month.

This latest episode of New Haven’s ongoing housing-vs.-parking series centered on 127 and 139 Henry St., two century-plus-old row homes that since the 1960s constituted part of the University Row Homes co-op. That federally subsidized co-op officially went under last year; three of the single-building’s separate properties were sold at foreclosure auctions.

Alpha Acquisitions LLC, a holding company controlled by Madison-based landlord Alex Opuszynski, now owns two of those addresses, while the city’s public housing authority owns a third.

Opuszynski’s company has applied for a pair of variances and special exceptions designed to allow him to add a total of six new apartments across the two different row homes it owns near the Henry Street-Orchard Street corner. 

If successful, the new landlord would be increasing the total unit count across these two properties from 12 to 18 apartments — but reducing the total number of bedrooms in those apartments from 48 to 36. That’s because some of the existing four-bedroom apartments would be converted to one-bedrooms. 

As Opuszynski’s company’s attorney, Ben Trachten, explained at Tuesday’s BZA hearing, the proposed buildout would consist entirely of ​“interior renovation and reconfiguration” of the relevant parts of the existing four-story brick building. This project does not include the addition of any floors or any new construction, besides repairs to the roof. Trachten said the properties are currently vacant.

In particular, Opuszynski’s company has applied for a variance to permit 888 square feet of gross floor area per dwelling unit where 1,000 square feet is required and a special exception to allow zero off-street parking spaces where four are required to add four additional dwelling units to an existing eight-unit residential structure at 139 Henry St. 

His company is also seeking a variance to permit 888 square feet of gross floor area per dwelling unit where 1,000 square feet is required and a special exception to allow zero off-street parking spaces where two are required to add two additional dwelling units to an existing four-unit residential structure at 127 Henry St.

Through these applications, Trachten said, the ​“total number of bedrooms will be decreased” at both 127 and 139 Henry. The total number of apartments will go up — to the same number that existed before the property was converted into a co-op.

For 139 Henry, that means taking what is currently an eight-unit property consisting entirely of four-bedroom apartments, and turning it into a 12-unit property with a mix of one-bedroom and four-bedroom apartments. The four-unit property at 129 Henry would also go from consisting entirely of four-bedrooms to a six-unit property with a mix of one-bedrooms and four-bedrooms.

“We’re simply trying to go back to the prior density” that existed before this historic building was converted into a co-op in the 1960s, Trachten said. 

He added that the new owner hopes to keep these apartments affordable to renters making no more than 60 percent of the area median income (AMI). That would require a special type of mortgage through the Capital for Change program, as well as a fixed tax assessment through the city. The owner is currently working on trying to secure both of those financial supports independent of the zoning-relief applications before the BZA.

“It’s not going to be luxury housing whether we do it under a deed restriction or not,” Trachten said. He noted that the city’s inclusionary zoning (IZ) ordinance doesn’t ​“offer any incentives for this particular property” because of its small lot size.

The only member of the public to speak up during Tuesday’s hearing was Jeannine Lewis, who owns a daycare around the corner at 761 Orchard.

“My concern is the parking spaces,” Lewis said about Opuszynski’s company’s applications. ​“The whole street fights for parking” as it is. ​“The parking is already extremely short. … We’re struggling already.” She said she worries that adding still more apartments to that corner will create still more competition for limited parking spots.

“I love my community,” she concluded. And the neighborhood loves her. But ​“it’s really hard fighting [for] parking” as is, and more apartments could make the situation worse.

Trachten stressed that this is an ​“adaptive reuse” project, and would not result in the construction of any new buildings. ​“We’re staying within the building envelope.”

While the project would see the creation of new apartments, it would see ​“quite a significant reduction in bedrooms,” which he said is more of a driver than unit count of a building’s parking demand. That’s because more bedrooms means more people living in a property means, potentially, more people with cars they need to park. More units but fewer bedrooms, he said, could and should mean less of a parking crunch.

Lewis disagreed. She noted that non-driving children could live in apartments with more bedrooms. She predicted that more units, regardless of the number of bedrooms, may mean more adults with cars they need to park.

Trachten replied that, as evidenced by the city’s recently adopted IZ ordinance, which waives parking minimums entirely for complying developments, ​“a decision has been made that no parking is required for similar projects.”

These Henry Street row home properties ​“have been occupied for over 100 years,” he continued. ​“They integrate well into the neighborhood. They provide affordable housing, whether deed restricted or not. We’re reducing the bedroom count, which we find reduces parking load.” What really matters for parking, he said, ​“is how many people are in the units, and not the unit count.”

As for the parking special exception requested for this project, Trachten said, ​“this is typical ordinance parking relief to go along with any increase in density.” He said there’s simply no space available at these Henry Street properties for on-site parking.

“It’s been a non-conforming lot for 100 years,” he concluded. ​“Whatever parking burden it generates is probably lessened through this application.”

With that, the zoning commissioners closed the public hearing portion for these applications and referred both over to City Plan Commission.