Zoners OK Apartment Plan Amid Homeownership Critique

by Mona Mahadevan The New Haven independent

Santos Guzman (through a translator): I’m “thinking twice” about moving to Essex Street because of the apartments.

For the second time, the city’s zoning board on Tuesday approved a plan to build 60 apartments in Fair Haven Heights, over objections from nearby residents who called for more single-family homes instead.

The unanimous decision was handed down by the Board of Zoning Appeals in City Hall Tuesday night.

The project, proposed by Shelton-based developers, would build two separate structures at 97 and 101 Essex St. The development would opt into the Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) Ordinance by setting below-market rents on three units.

The applicant — Novel Developments LLC, a holding company controlled by Shelton developer Sachi Anand — already received zoning approval in 2023 and site plan approval in 2024. But because of ambiguity over how long that zoning relief remained valid, the company’s attorney, Ben Trachten, returned to the board on Tuesday to renew the approval.

The application seeks a variance to build one unit for every 1,428 square feet of lot area, where zoning regulations would otherwise require at least 2,100 square feet per unit.

A staff report from the City Plan Department notes that the developer does not need to renew the variance, but chose to do so “for the sake of clarity.” The report also states that under the department’s revised interpretation of the city’s IZ regulations, the development is permitted without zoning relief, as all inclusionary developments qualify for a minimum density of 600 square feet per unit.

Despite those findings, a handful of nearby neighbors lobbied against the approval on Tuesday night, citing concerns around crime and traffic.

“We have more than enough apartments in our neighborhood,” said Gerald Hampton, a long-time resident of Quinnipiac Avenue. More apartments would “increase traffic” and “degrade property values,” he said.

Hampton said he received notice from the City Plan Commission only a few days before its 2024 meeting on the development.

“How do you have time in four days to rebut this whole project?” asked Michael Brown, an Essex homeowner. “I’m the little guy. We don’t have the resources to fight back” against the developer and City Hall.

Both Brown and Hampton said the vacant lots on Essex Street need to be developed — but they want to see more single-family homes, not apartment buildings.

Apartments are “going to bring in who knows what into the community,” said Brown.

Chris Stewart, who grew up on Quinnipiac Avenue, said apartments would “strain and drain…the fabric of the neighborhood.” Tarey Hampton, another Quinnipiac Avenue homeowner, said, “The serenity of my home [would be] taken away” by “monstrous apartment buildings” on Essex Street.

Their concerns were underscored by a new homeless shelter off Route 80, which, according to Brown, is already “not a good look” for the neighborhood.

Some residents also worried that the development would interfere with the Quinnipiac Ridge Nature Preserve, which is located .5 miles away, or increase the neighborhood’s flooding risk.

At the end of public testimony, Trachten rebutted the opposition, arguing that neighbors could have raised their concerns at prior zoning and community meetings.

No significant impacts to traffic were found by the city’s transportation department, he said. And the development already complies with the city’s flood-prevention laws.

Trachten also noted that the case for needing zoning relief is debatable in itself. Under the City Plan Department’s interpretation of the IZ, the developers would be entitled to build more than 100 units on the lots — more than twice what they are proposing.

“I realize they don’t want their neighborhood to change,” Trachten told the board, “but [the development is] basically allowed as of right.”

The board members agreed, passing the variance unanimously.

Chris Stewart: “The last thing that Essex Street needs is higher density and infrastructure strain.”