Third Time’s The Charm For Connolly Parkway Multi-family Housing Plan

A controversial application to allow for multifamily housing on a 660-foot portion of 55 Connolly Parkway has been approved… for the second time.

The Hamden Planning and Zoning Commission originally voted 502 on May 27 to approve that requested zoning change. But a mix-up with public access to the Zoom meeting caused the commission to return to the case.

A second public hearing was held on June 10. Three Hamden residents spoke in favor of the project, while seven others voiced their disapproval. The meeting lasted nearly four hours.

The third and presumably final meeting concerning the proposed amendment took place Tuesday evening (within a one-hour time period). The commission first voted unanimously to rescind its previous decision and to vote again on the application with a better understanding of public opinion for and against multifamily housing on the site.

Diane Hoffman was the only member of the public to send in commentary and concerns about the application at the third meeting. Hoffman was reportedly unable to join the Zoom meeting due to some technical issues on her end; community member Sarah Clark was able to read her letter aloud to the meeting’s attendees.

Hoffman first questioned whether the site was ineligible for multifamily use because the property has no public water supply.

Town Planner Dan Kops quickly explained that the property would require connection to the Regional Water Authority system, but that that could be done with relative ease. Hunter Smith, the architect who has represented the site’s owner at all three meetings, also confirmed that a sewer line runs through the parcel.

Hoffman’s letter went on to voice some of the worries that have been shared by other residents familiar with the property.

“I have walked the property and was struck by how inappropriate the parcel seems for any housing of any kind … especially if we care that our residents live in a neighborhood and are not forgotten.” Hoffman wrote. ​“There’s such a huge sense of isolation.”

Commission member Robert Roscow was quick to disagree. ​“I’m a duck hunter,” he said. ​“I can show you remote places in Florida. This is anything but remote.”

“Quite frankly, I see this as a beautiful site,” he added. He pointed out that an elementary school, middle school, and high school are all located nearby and mostly accessible by the Farmington Canal Greenway. He suggested that such a project could support the mission to ​“make Hamden a walkable community.”

Roscow did have one grievance about a potential housing development on the property: ​“I have caught live possums, and I release them over there.”

Would he be able to continue doing so?

“You still can,” Hunter Smith said softly.

Smith also clarified concerns that were brought up at previous meetings. Multiple community members had said they thought the homes would be built underneath the Wilbur Cross Parkway, which could endanger future residents of the property. Smith explained that though the property extends all the way down to Connolly Parkway, which does intersect with the overpass, the state has an easement that prohibits building near the highway.

Instead, the housing complex would be located on the southern end of the property, away from the underpass.

The commission also specified that the amendment pertains only to the lot at 55 Connolly Parkway and does not extend beyond the parcel’s eastern boundary.

Commission member Robert Cocchiaro, who previously voted against the application, said that the alternative to a proposed housing complex worried him more than a housing complex itself.

The property is currently home to one building which is used for auto repair. The owners of the auto company have stated that they plan to move out in the coming year.

Cocchiaro said he questioned what would happen to the property once the current tenant moved out if the housing application failed: ​“It would become more of a dumping area, a crime-type area. My concerns for that are outweighing my concerns for the type of building that would be installed.”

Another commission member, Joseph McDonagh, explained that approving the amendment was ​“not endorsing multifamily housing, but endorsing seeing the possibilities.”

“It’s not an endorsement of a project I haven’t seen or contemplated,” he said. ​“I’m curious to see what would happen.”

While the amendment was originally passed 5 – 2, this time it was passed 6 – 1. Shenae Draughn was the only commission member to vote against the application.

The amendment was only the first step in the process of ultimately building a housing complex in the area. Smith and the owners are now faced with drafting detailed plans for the property.

Robert Roscow stated that ​“it’s a long, long way for the applicant to go,” and that based on the number of public comments and concerns, ​“there are lots of modifications to be made” even to Smith’s most preliminary plans.