Multifamily Housing Bid Passes Zoning Hurdle

A 660-foot portion of Connolly Parkway in Hamden has cleared the first hurdle to be approved for a future multifamily housing development.

55 Connolly Parkway was previously excluded from a list of nearby streets that allow for multifamily housing. A 5 – 2 vote Tuesday night by the Planning and Zoning Commission means that the parcel will now be included.

Neighbors voiced concern over the prospect of a new housing development, citing a potential increase in traffic and lack of adequate notice by the property developers.

Town Planner Dan Kops called these ​“very early concerns,” given that the sole focus of Tuesday night’s meeting was to determine whether the proposed amendment change was consistent with the town’s current Plan of Conservation and Development.

Architect Hunter Smith, who represented the property owner at the meeting, highlighted that the Planning and Zoning department has already stated that the zoning amendment supports ​“four of the five highest rated policies listed in the POCD.”

First of all, new housing could promote economic development to help provide net tax revenue, goods and services, and jobs to help meet community needs, he agued.

It could also offer new consumers to local businesses and industries within Hamden.

A recent market evaluation report stated that ​“there will be a growing demand for apartments and condominiums within walking distance of public transportation and retail establishments,” an opportunity that new housing could capitalize on.

Finally, multifamily housing in the area could promote redevelopment of existing sites, such as the nearby Farmington Canal.

Community member Kristin Anderson wrote an email echoing this last point, expressing her excitement ​“to see even more opportunities for residential development along the Canal Trail.” She stated that ​“projects like these have the opportunity to provide increased use, stewardship, safety, and appeal of the Farmington Canal Trail, which is a draw and an asset to Hamden.”

Smith, who lived for 30 years on Woodlawn Street in Spring Glen, also made the case that the lot could stand to be beautified.

“They’re not the most attractive buildings,” he said in reference to the series of businesses currently occupying the space.

“From a visual appeal standpoint from people on the trails, it looks very cluttered and messy.”

He included a basic sketch of the housing complex that the owners imagine for the space: ​“A series of four unit buildings, mostly two stories, with space in between for parking and planting.”

Future plans, Smith promised, would show variation in design between individual houses that would aim to add character to the area.

Commission Alternate Ted Stevens pointed out that the area could at maximum contain around 44 housing units, but Smith insisted that the owners only intend to build 28 to 32 units on the property if later approved to do so.

Comments from the public asserted that the project is a misstep because its location would fail to attract residents.

“Logically, who would buy a condo underneath a highway?” Elaine Dove of the Spring Glen Civic Association asked in an email. ​“We have plenty of other properties for sale in Hamden in much more desirable locations. The noise alone, as well as the dust and dirt, would make this a poor choice of housing unless you were desperate.”

Smith countered that the property’s proximity to the Farmington Canal Trail would be a strong asset to the spaces. He also said that there’s surprisingly ​“very little road noise; the overpass send the noise upwards away from the property down below it.”

Bob Pattison wrote that he worries about safety given the single point of access into the area. He asked what would happen if ​“fire and rescue had to get to the site and the road was blocked for some reason?”

Commission Alternate Shenae Draughn, who voted against the amendment alongside Robert Cocchiaro, added that she also sees the prospect of multifamily housing in the underpass as a ​“bit concerning” and a potential ​“safety issue.”

She added that ​“as a good neighbor, you do engage with the community. And the Spring Glen Civic Association said they had not been contacted about anything they were doing on the site.”

Hunter Smith said, ​“I offered to meet any people at the site who wanted to talk about it, while maintaining proper social distancing, and nobody got back to me about wanting to do that,” Hunter Smith responded.

Bob Pattison, who used to be on the Executive Board of the Spring Glen Civic Association, noted that he had been in touch with the board and that nobody expressed opposition to the amendment with the exception of Elaine Dove.

Others, like John O’Rourke, argued that the ​“development will have a huge negative impact on our water supply” given that construction would take place right next to a regional water property.

According to Smith, a Watershed Protection Specialist from Regional Water Authority said that ​“a multifamily project would be an improvement in the watershed and adjacent surface public water supply.”

In response to comments about increased traffic and the importance of keeping nearby school children safe, Smith assured that a traffic study will be completed in the next steps of the application.

Moving forward, the owners will have to obtain an Inland Wetlands Permit from the Inland Wetlands Commission as well as a special permit from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The applicants will have to submit building plans to the Fire Marshal. An Environmental Assessment of the property will also be necessary given that the site has been used for auto repairs.

Smith made clear that last night’s meeting was only the first step in the process and other objections will need to be addressed at a later date.

This includes conversations about offering affordable housing units within the site and imposing additional conditions concerning construction and safety measures. 

Smith still recognized the importance of such concerns and promised that ​“the project we’ll ultimately be coming in with will meet all those criteria.”

Correction: The original version of this article incorrectly identified the address at 60 Connolly Parkway. The correct address is 55 Connolly Parkway.