Password Glitch Reopens Multifamily Housing Dispute

They used the password 389321.

They typed it in right. But it turned out to be the wrong password.

As a result, Hamden’s Planning and Zoning Commission must undertake a do-over on a proposed zoning amendment to allow mulitfamily housing to be built on 55 Connolly Parkway. And how to do that is getting complicated.

The commission originally voted 5 – 2 at a May 27 Zoom-held meeting to pass the amendment paving the way for such construction..

After at least one Hamden resident was reportedly unable to access the meeting, staff discovered that the password to the Zoom meeting was incorrect in one of two places it appeared on the agenda.

“It feels a little like Groundhog’s Day,” joked Hunter Smith, the architect representing property owner Ancar Inc., as he returned for a second public hearing this Tuesday night.

At that session, Assistant Town Attorney Tim Lee outlined a series of new rules to ensure fairness and openness during online Planning and Zoning Commission meetings.

First, the public is now able to speak during the public hearing. In the past members of the public voiced their support or concern by submitting emails, which were read out loud during the meeting by Town Planner Dan Kops.

In addition, the report that outlines each case prior to the meeting must be made available on the town’s website 24 hours before the meeting is scheduled to be held. Otherwise, voting on the given issue will not be able to take place that same night.

So even though Smith presented the Connolly case again on Tuesday, no vote was taken. Under this new rule , the vote on whether or not to rescind the amendment has been pushed to the June 23 meeting, meaning Smith will make a third appearance in front of the commission.

Vote Scheduled On The Last Vote

Lawrence Levinson, the lawyer representing the property owner, asserted that the town’s format for the May 27 hearingwas such that all public comments had to be submitted prior to the meeting; therefore even though the password was incorrect it could not have affected the vote.

A preliminary vote will therefore take place regarding whether the past vote approving the amendment can be rightfully canceled. Only if it can will there be another vote regarding whether or not to re-approve the amendment.

“This Monster”

Smith used the time between the May 27 and June 10 meetings to reach out to those with reservations about the application.

He wrote to everyone who had submitted a comment about the application the week before and invited them to the site on June 6. He personally answered the questions posed by around 20 concerned residents who showed up that Saturday morning.

Opponents continued to oppose the amendment.

Commission member Robert Roscow alleged that ​“erroneous information” is spreading through the town concerning the details of the amendment.

One email stated that the amendment would ​“allow multifamily housing on the entire street,” striking fears that parts of the Hamden Hall campus could be developed. Smith stated that this is false, and that the application only referred only to a 660-foot portion limited to 55 Connolly Parkway.

Multiple residents still described the situation as a ​“slippery slope.” Elaine Dove of the Spring Glen Civic Association argued that such an exception ​“would set a precedent” that could ultimately lead to housing developments throughout Connolly.

Community member Scott Green, who has lived in Hamden for over 50 years and resides ​“directly above” the property in question, asked, ​“Why do we have to keep building apartments when we have a ton of vacant apartments?”

The application included a recent market evaluation report that stated that ​“there will be a growing demand for apartments and condominiums within walking distance of public transportation and retail establishments.” Hunter Smith pointed out that the property is of walking distance to Dixwell Avenue, where residents can catch buses.

Green made a more personal plea, stating that the property would force local wildlife to relocate and obscure his family’s view from their home.

“We will no longer get to see the animals come into our yard, no longer get to see the lake below,” he said. ​“Now you’re taking that away from me, after we’ve been here for 18 years.”

Commission member Robert Cocchiaro, who voted against the amendment a few weeks ago, made the case that such a small, narrow parcel of land simply would not be able to accommodate a housing complex that could consist of up to 44 units. Mr. Smith has stated that the owners do not wish to exceed 30 units.

Commission alternate Shenae Draughn, who also voted against the amendment in the prior meeting, likewise described the property as ​“an extremely tight site” and continued to voice concerns regarding the safety of that location.

Town Planner Dan Kops said the fire marshal has not named any issues at this point in the process. Draughn and others maintained that placing families on the parcel would increase the probability of emergency scenarios. The site itself does not seem accessible to firefighters or police, the said..

Community member Michelle Zacks remarked that the application gave ​“no consideration to the people who will be living there.”

“Imagine the noise these people are going to have to endure,” she said. ​“They’re only a spit away from the highway… it would be unbearable for them.”

“If anything has to be developed there, I would suggest four to five single-family houses instead of this monster,” she stated.

“Build quality, not quantity,” added Karlen Meisen, who has served on and off for 12 years as the chairperson of the traffic and safety committee of the Spring Glen Civic Association.

She said that the area is marked by speeding, unsafe intersections, and reckless driving that would only increase should a housing complex be built in the area.

Denise Laframboise, the president of the Spring Glen Civic Association, spoke as a private citizen at the meeting.

“We’re not officially opposing on behalf of the association,” she said, ​“but we started a petition to take the temperature of the neighborhood and find out if others are concerned as well.”

The petition now has over 500 signatures.

Tim Lee explained to the commission members that it is their responsibility to determine the weight of those signatures.

Seven members of the public spoke in opposition to the amendment in total. Three others voiced their support for the project.

William Kurtz reminded all those at the meeting that the amendment is a preliminary step in the process. ​“It’s up to the developer to provide a plan that’s going to work,” he said.

Dalton King agreed that Hunter Smith had already been generous to provide so many details about a project which is still in its earliest stages.

“The project provides an upgrade to the general environment” he offered. He framed the project as ​“an excellent opportunity” to address pre-existing traffic issues and to advocate for new bicycle lanes, paving, and accessibility.

“As long as we insist that the developer upholds environmental standards and traffic regulations, I fully support it,” he concluded.

Kristin Anderson likewise imagined that the project could ultimately serve as mixed-income housing and work to ​“beautify” the area. ​“First we have to have the opportunity for building on the site,” she said.

She started a petition that gathered 50 signatures of support, including 44 from the neighboring Spring Glen community.

Next Steps

Hunter Smith maintained thathe was putting significant consideration into the perspective of future residents of the property.

He took pictures to show the view of the trails that would be seen from the homes, describing them as ​“very positive assets if the property is used for multifamily housing.”

Smith noted that only after the amendment was approved could he then apply for a special permit to actually begin building on the property.

This next step would include a traffic study and an environmental assessment of the property. Smith would also have to submit building plans to the fire marshal and obtain an Inland Wetlands Permit.

Smith further clarified that though the entrance of the property is located beneath the Wilbur Cross Parkway, none of the houses would actually be built under the highway.

By 11 p.m., at which point the meeting had already gone on for four hours, Smith said, ​“I think it’s time for all of us to go home and sleep.”

As long as the Zoom password is correct, the official vote determining the fate of the housing project will take place on June 23.