RTM Denies Melrose/Parkside Easement

Wednesday’s meeting of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) was a lesson in irony.

The RTM denied a request from Branford’s Housing Authority to grant an easement on Melrose Avenue for two years during construction of the proposed Parkside Village affordable housing project. Some RTM members said the easement would actually be in perpetuity, which they opposed; and they also objected to the $200,000 donation to help build the road, offered by the Housing Authority and its developer, Beacon Communities LLC of Boston.

Moments after that denial, the RTM approved a request from Frontier Communications for a small easement near the Community House at 46 Church St. Anthony Alfone (R-6) said Frontier had “inadvertently” placed equipment on town property at the site of the Community House/Senior Center construction project. Alfone said in return for the easement, Frontier offered to do utility pole work for the Community House project at no cost to the town.

Chris Sullivan, (D-6), RTM minority leader, noted the irony by asking if the easement was in perpetuity, and if Frontier was giving financial benefit for the easement.

The answer to both questions was yes.

Complex Issues

RTM members and about 60 residents who attended the special meeting were cautioned that the discussion was only about Melrose access, and not about Parkside Village.  However, the proposed affordable housing project was part of the conversation.

The issues are complex.

Branford’s Housing Authority has been trying for years to build new affordable housing to replace the dilapidated Parkside Village 1 complex at 115 S. Montowese St. The buildings house low income seniors and people with disabilities in 50 small units that are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The new building, with 67 apartments, would be open to low income people of all ages, not just seniors, which the developer claims would increase the possibility of securing federal funds.

One of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission’s conditions of approval said that a building permit cannot be issued for Parkside unless a new emergency access is built, such as the Melrose Avenue extension proposal. The condition was requested by the developer.

The P&Z voted 3-2 in favor of the Parkside housing project in January. However, one of the three applications — a zoning map change – did not get a “super majority” vote of 4-1. The commission and town attorneys interpreted that to mean that the entire project failed.

Neighbors who opposed the project signed protest petitions that triggered a state law that requires a zoning map change be approved by a two-thirds super majority vote. Attorneys disagreed on whether protest petitions apply for state Affordable Housing 8-30g applications.

The Parkside proposal is now in the Superior Court system after attorneys for the Housing Authority and the developer appealed the P&Z decision. Click here to read about that.

RTM or BOS?

The RTM’s Administrative Services Committee discussed the easement issue the previous week and voted 4-2 to deny the request.

Representative Sullivan said Wednesday he was not sure why this item was before the RTM. He asked why the town’s administration didn’t move ahead with the Melrose Avenue extension project. “I see this as more of a nudge to spur town Town Hall to action on the proposal.

“The town could move on this road project at any time,” Sullivan said, noting that the First Selectman sent the project to P&Z in September. Alex Palluzzi, parks and recreation director, presented the plan to the commissioners, who unanimously gave it a positive referral.

Sullivan read from the minutes of the Sept. 7 meeting, saying that Palluzzi said the main problems are “access to ballfields, drainage near the rear parking lot, and parking in general.” He said Fire Marshal Shaun Heffernan said the project would provide good flow for traffic and emergency access for both Sliney and Foote Park.

“These are town officials who are experts on some of the key components of the project,” Sullivan said.

“I believe there are benefits to the town in terms of public safety and organization of parking for Branford citizens that are utilizing the playing fields,” Sullivan added.

Sullivan made a motion to refer the Melrose proposal to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to develop the project “and increase the safety of our families and their children who use the town-owned athletic fields.”

Ray Ingraham (R-5), the RTM’s majority leader, said the Melrose extension plan and the Housing Authority’s request for access are two different things. “We could build that (Melrose) project without ever giving them access,” Ingraham said in regard to access to Parkside. Ingraham lives in the district where Parkside Village is located.

Ingraham, who is also the chair of the Republican Town Committee, asked the RTM to vote against Sullivan’s motion.

Jessica Buchanan (D-1) agreed with Sullivan’s motion, and said if Melrose Avenue is extended, she would hope the Housing Authority would be allowed to use the road if there was an emergency at Parkside.

Peter Black (R-3) said the proposed Melrose Avenue extension was not on the agenda, and wasn’t in the five-year capital plan. He said the item on the agenda was about granting an “easement in perpetuity.”

Marc Riccio (R-6) said granting an easement is a real estate issue, which comes under the RTM’s authority. He said if the easement is granted, it would cause the town to “lose control” of property.

The roll call vote was 16-8 to deny Sullivan’s motion to refer the issue to the BOS.

“Red Flags”

Discussion continued on the Housing Authority’s request to grant an easement.

George Wells III (R‑1) said he would vote against the easement request. ​“First off, there’s just too many red flags,” he said. ​“The $200,000 being offered, for something we don’t know how much is going to cost us, is ridiculous.”

Ray Dunbar (D‑2) said he’s concerned that any vote on the easement, one way or the other, might become part of the Parkside litigation. ​“There’s so much confusion and misinformation” regarding the issues, he said.

Dunbar suggested putting the easement request on the ballot in November because ultimately the taxpayers will pay for litigation.

Riccio asked the crowd of about 60 to raise their hands if they oppose the easement. About two-thirds of the people raised their hands, most of them neighbors of Parkside Village who have opposed the affordable housing project.

Pottenger: It’s Also About Parkside

Attorney Jay Pottenger Jr., a Branford resident and clinical professor at Yale Law School, explained the Melrose access project. The Branford Housing Authority is represented by the Yale Law School’s Community and Economic Development Clinic.

“The proposed road will be helpful for the town of Branford,” Pottenger said, adding that it would improve traffic flow, parking and safety. He said it would also benefit the Parkside project. The access needed by Parkside would extend Melrose by about 100 yards.

“In an effort to kick-start the process of the town following up on its favorable referral about this road, we wrote a letter to this body asking for an easement across the road, and offering to contribute $200,000 toward helping to pay for it,” Pottenger said. He said the Housing Authority does not need the easement in perpetuity, but they would like a temporary easement during the construction phase of Parkside.

Pottenger also spoke at the committee meeting, saying that the issue isn’t just about the road. ​“Some of the concern about the Melrose access… is in truth related to people’s efforts to stop Parkside Village,” Pottenger said. ​“Some people are hoping that if this road doesn’t get built, Parkside Village won’t be rebuilt. And that is not necessarily the case.”

Pottenger said the developer has other options.

Sliney’s Parking Problems

First Selectman Jamie Cosgrove spoke at the committee meeting, but not at the RTM meeting. He said Beacon worked with town staff concerning Melrose, but the notion that the proposal was a town project was a ​“mischaracterization of the facts.”

Cosgrove later told the Eagle: ​“This wasn’t a town project, but it’s clear that town staff worked on it.”

Cosgrove also told the Eagle that the Sliney parking problems can be addressed by putting up additional signs and having a greater police presence. ​“Right now there’s no plans to move forward with that plan,” Cosgrove said in regard to the September proposal to extend Melrose and improve parking and safety at Sliney Fields.

Resident Joseph Giordano, who lives on Melrose Avenue, opposed extending the road, stating, ​“You’re going to create a raceway.”

Resident Nancy Kendrick said parking problems at Sliney Field could be resolved by having police issue tickets. She said extending the road ​“is of no benefit right now to the town of Branford.”

Cenk Sahin, president of the Branford Soccer Club, said the parking situation at Sliney Field is very disorganized. ​“The parking there is not very safe or sufficient.” He said safety is an issue if a child gets injured and the emergency vehicles cannot access the field.

Resident Carolyn Sires, one of the neighbors who spearheaded the Parkside protest movement, said there is a lot of ambiguity about the Melrose proposal. ​“This is out of control, what’s happening,” she said.

The Vote

The motion to deny the easement access passed by an 18 – 6 vote, with many but not all of the Democrats voting for the easement.

The six RTM members who voted for the Melrose easement were: Dan Adelman, (D‑4); Tom Brockett (D‑7); Jessica Buchanan, (D‑1); Peter Jackson, (D‑3); Cynthia Lombardi, (D‑4); and Chris Sullivan, (D‑6).

Four RTM members were absent: Dorothy Docknevich, (D‑4); Peter Hentschel, (D‑2); Sean Kelly, (R‑4); and Robin Sandler, (R‑7).

All other RTM members voted to deny the Melrose easement.