Housing Denied By Housing-Creation Rule

A new city zoning rule is aimed at creating more housing on Whalley Avenue.

In a bid to uphold the spirit and the letter of that law, the city’s zoning board may have … caused the removal of housing from Whalley Avenue.

That was the result of a decision made at Wednesday night’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting, which took place online via Zoom.

It forbid a landlord from renovating two existing apartments and making them legal, unless if he also builds out an additional nine residential units on that same property.

The land-use commissioners voted 4 – 1 to turn down Karadeniz LLC’s request for a variance to permit two dwelling units where a minimum of 11 dwelling units are required at 161 Whalley Ave.

The owner of that existing three-story commercial property is a holding company controlled by local landlord and pizza restaurateur Kadir Catalbasoglu.

On Wednesday night, local attorney Ben Trachten explained to the zoning commissioners that Catalbasoglu wants to legalize, rehabilitate, and bring up to code two existing upper-floor apartments at the site.

“These units are existing,” Trachten said. ​“They’re built out. The first floor has been properly permitted as a restaurant.” Meanwhile, the existing second and third floor apartments are illegal thanks to the entirely commercial zoning designation of the property.

Trachten said his client needs zoning relief in order to legalize these existing apartments because of a 2020 change to the local land-use law governing most of Whalley Avenue.

That zoning law update made Whalley Avenue between Howe Street and Pendleton Street the city’s first Commercial Gateway District (CGD).

The Board of Alders unanimously approved the zoning ordinance text amendment and zoning ordinance map after months of public debate about how best to spur dense, walkable, and environmentally sustainable development along downtown-adjacent corridors that are currently dominated by surface parking lots, fast food restaurants, and other small commercial venues.

One of the provisions of the CGD zoning update is that mixed-use or residential developments located within a quarter-mile radius of a bus stop have a minimum total residential density of 35 units per acre. (All other mixed-use developments within a CGD must have a minimum residential density of 25 units per acre.)

Since 161 Whalley is 0.3 acres large, Trachten said, Catalbasoglu would have to build out a minimum of 11 residential units at the property if he wants to be in compliance with the law.

That’s simply too much housing for what the landlord wants and can afford to do.

“We’re only able to build two [apartments] in the existing space,” Trachten said.

“This [zoning] relief would maintain the status quo on the premises. There would be no preclusion of developing at a higher density in the future.”

Supporters: 2 Apts. Is Better Than 0

During the public hearing portion of Wednesday night’s virtual meeting, neighbor after neighbor Zoomed in to testify in support of Catalbasoglu’s zoning relief request.

Those who spoke up in support included Dwight Alder Frank Douglass — who voted in support of the Whalley Avenue zoning change less than two years ago.

“It’s a great idea,” Douglass said about Catalbasoglu’s plans to legalize and renovate the existing two apartments. ​“I’m just calling in to ask for your approval of this, and weigh in with all of my support. This is not one of those landlords that’s going to drop the bucket here.” On the contrary, he said, Catalbasoglu has added — and can be trusted to maintain — much-needed housing in the area.

University Place resident Kate Walton agreed.

“It is absolutely the right thing to do to allow the pre-existing footprint of the building to remain the same,” she said on Wednesday. ​“It doesn’t preclude being able to add [more housing] in the future.”

‘r Kids Family Center Founder and Executive Director Randi Rubin Rodriguez also backed Catalbasoglu’s zoning relief request: ​“This is a reasonable property owner in our city who pays a lot of taxes on existing properties, and is asking essentially to rehabilitate and renovate the existing apartments to improve the quality of life for tenants in this neighborhood. I think that really supersedes whether he builds 11 apartments in an area that has not seen that level of density.”

In a letter written to the BZA in support of the project, Dwight Community Management Team Chair Florita Gillespie added her voice to the chorus of Catalbasoglu supports. The area ​“needs more residential use to make it safer at night,” she wrote, and ​“maximizing use of available space on the upper floors will keep the building more viable.”

She also praised Catalbasoglu as being ​“incredibly kind and generous to the Dwight neighborhood for over 20 years” in his support of neighborhood festivals, monthly meetings, spring clean ups, and other local events. ​“We believe he is a good neighbor, a good businessman and genuinely cares about our community.”

Former Yale/Downtown Alder Hacibey Catalbasoglu — who is Kadir’s son — urged the BZA commissioners not to frame this debate as between 11 apartments and two apartments.

“We all would agree that having 11 apartments would be a better use of the property. But I don’t think that’s an option,” he said. ​“The binary isn’t 11 vs. two. It’s zero vs. two. And we would all agree that having two apartments” is better than having none.

Trachten warned the commissioners that, if they did not grant the zoning relief request to permit the renovation of the existing two apartments, the currently residential upper floors of the building would likely suffer from ​“a long-term commercial vacancy.”

BZA Critics: Don’t Undermine Pro-Density Law Change

Despite those arguments about the present reality of 161 Whalley and the modest goals of its current landlord, zoning commissioners balked at voting in defiance of a density-promoting law that the alders so recently put on the books.

“This is a unique situation,” BZA Commissioner Alexandra Daum said. ​“The first time I’m personally seeing anything in this zone come before the board. The first time we’re dealing with the [CGD] update to the code. And it’s the first time that we’re seeing a request for decreased density below a minimum.

“I have real concerns with this request. I don’t think that we should be setting a precedent that we’re overriding a recent zoning change for what I don’t see as a hardship.”

The city clearly wants to encourage greater density in the area, Daum noted. But now the BZA commissioners were being asked by a landlord to ​“undermine” that intent by permitting fewer units than are required by a ​“zoning update that is recent and thoughtful,” she argued.

Fellow commissioner Errol Saunders II agreed with that critique. Even though the city ultimately dropped CGD rezoning efforts for Dixwell Avenue and Grand Avenue, the alders approved — and neighbors overwhelmingly supported — the rezoning of Whalley Avenue.

“We ought to respect that will,” he said. ​“Many places decided this wasn’t for them. The Whalley corridor is the one that ended up with it.”

Trachten pushed back on that notion of legislative intent flying in the face of the current reality at 161 Whalley.

“This is a question of reasonableness,” he said. ​“You do have the discretion to grant these variances for unintended consequences of changes to the ordinance that create a burden on the application.” Even the City Plan Department staff report recommended approval for this application, he said.

Ultimately, a majority of the BZA members were unswayed, and voted 4 to 1 to reject the variance application. Daum, Saunders, Michael Martinez, and Mildred Melendez voted in support of the rejection. Commissioner Al Paolillo, Sr. was the sole board member to vote against turning the application down.

Landlord: Disappointed. ​“I Just Want To Make It Right”

Reached on Thursday, Catalbasoglu said he’s disappointed in the vote.

He has owned 161 Whalley Ave. for 14 years. He said the upper-story apartments existed when he bought the property.

“It’s been apartments all this time, and I just want to make it right,” he said.

But now, his intended use — to keep, renovate, and legalize two long-existing apartments — does not fit with the new rules that apply to the district.

Keeping up with taxes is hard enough as it is, he said. And the two upper-story apartments are currently empty. They’ll likely continue to languish if he can’t legalize and renovate them.

“I have two empty apartments,” he said. ​“Someone needs to listen to my voice and understand that. I’m just asking: What I have, I want to make it legal.”