Governor Malloy scheduled to be in Wallingford this Sunday afternoon August 3rd

Governor Malloy is scheduled to spend some time in Wallingford this Sunday afternoon, August 3rd, in Wallingford Center at Gaetano's Tavern at 4 pm.

 

 

Please feel free to come and invite friends and family.

FROM WALLINGFORD - Terminal timidity; “The incentive housing zone is near death”

As published in the Record Journal Sunday March 24, 2013

From the Editorial Pages of the Record Journal, as written by Mike Brodinsky host of public access show “Citizen Mike”.

The incentive housing zone is near death. When the end comes, the cause of death will be terminal timidity.

The IHZ was once the best plan to revitalize the area of downtown Wallingford near the railroad station. The plan had the potential to entice developers to invest substantial cash downtown, because the IHZ would have allowed more residential and commercial space than would have been otherwise permitted under existing zoning.

The town would have been able to dictate the appearance of any new development by imposing design standards, which are possible only in an incentive housing zone. New projects, therefore, would have looked spiffy and appropriate. We’d have gotten more taxes, too. This seemed like a win-win situation. But it’s not likely to happen.

The town planner introduced the concept of an IHZ to the town council on February 26, 2008. Five years later, the planning and zoning commission is still uncertain of what to do. It’s still groping for information. A glacier moves faster.

Many are happy with this result. Town Councilor Craig Fishbein, who never liked the IHZ, cheered the lack of progress. He said a quicker decision would be a haphazard rush to judgment. Council Chairman Bob Parisi, who was never sold on the plan either, also said the timeline was fine. He encouraged more discussion; he did not encourage a decision. The most recent hang up is a worry about the possibility of variances. A variance is government’s permission to build on or use property in a way that is not permitted by zoning. For example, if a developer buys properties intending to develop an IHZ project, but finds the IHZ regulations bothersome or expensive to satisfy, that developer has the right to ask the Zoning Board of Appeals to “vary” the regulations.

Would a request for a variance result in changes to the carefully crafted design standards? Would the ZBA allow a developer in the IHZ to provide less parking than is required? Would we see other surprises? The quick and clear answer is no.

Variances should be tough to get. They require proof of a hardship caused by the characteristics of the land. Following the law, the ZBA couldn’t properly grant a variance merely to reduce the cost of a project.

Nor could the ZBA properly grant a variance to fix a situation the applicant caused. For example, if a developer starts a project but isn’t prepared to spend what it takes to satisfy the IHZ regulations, it will not be able to benefit from some of the IHZ regulations, and get a variance to evade other regulations that are burdensome. That ploy wouldn’t work.

Progress in the downtown, therefore, shouldn’t be frustrated because of an irrational fear that the ZBA will issue variances when it shouldn’t. It’s too bad the P & Z and the ZBA can’t just sit and talk it through. Some officials also worry that if Wallingford adopted IHZ regulations, it couldn’t change them. Proposed amendments must be approved by the state. Experts have advised that routine amendments would be approved routinely as long as they did not weaken the core principles of the zone, such as requiring some affordable housing.

We should not expect the state to issue a written guarantee that it will approve amendments. Some may treat that uncertainty, however, as a reason to say no.

We need to act. The downtown will not get prettier or more vital by itself. There are no alternative plans. The town hasn’t moved to benefit from the coming commuter rail service, even though other towns have.

Those who would sink the IHZ, therefore, need to suggest Plan B. After all, they’ve had five years to think about it.

If they don’t have ideas on how to jump start re-development in the downtown; if they have nothing to offer except aimless drift and undue caution; maybe they should reconsider the IHZ.

Housing zone still moving — slowly

As published in the Record Journal on Wednesday March 6, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – A decision will be made on the proposed downtown Incentive Housing Zone within the next two to three months, according to Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman James Seichter.

During a workshop held by the commission Monday night, Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau asked Seichter when a decision would be made, adding, “I’d love to see this in my lifetime.”

“I appreciate your frustration on this,” said Seichter, who made it clear to Le-Tourneau that he’d rather not set a timetable. “Clearly we need to reach a decision on this issue in a relatively short period of time.”

An Incentive Housing Zone in Wallingford would create specialized zoning regulations for developments on Hall Avenue and Quinnipiac, North Cherry, Meadow, Center and North Colony streets. The regulations allow the town to receive state funding while controlling the design of new developments. By adopting the zone, municipalities can receive up to $20,000 for pre-development studies and up to another $50,000 if at least 250 housing units are built in the zone.

The Incentive Housing Zone falls under an Office of Policy and Management program called Home Connecticut. The program was approved in 2007 by the state legislature and would require 20 percent affordable housing. The goal of the program is to provide affordable housing for residents who otherwise wouldn’t be able to remain in Wallingford.

Town Planner Kacie Costello said that for the Incentive Housing Zone to move forward in Wallingford, the Planning and Zoning Commission must establish regulations for the zone. The commission will hold workshops to “get proposed regulations to the point they want them to be.”

If regulations are approved by the commission, the Town Council must then endorse them, Costello said. Normally, the council would not be involved with zoning regulations, but since the program entails acceptance of money from the state, she said, the council must take action.

After receiving approval from the Town Council, the amended regulations are sent to OPM, Costello said. If OPM agrees with the regulations, the agency would give the town “preliminary approval.”

Regulations are then sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Costello said a public hearing must be held by the commission. Then the commission must approve the regulations one last time before sending a final draft back to OPM, at which point “they provide us with final approval,” Costello said.

“The problem is, there seems to be no urgency on the part of the Planning and Zoning Commission,” said Le-Tourneau, who accused the commission of “dragging their feet” and slowing down the process.

“We’re trying to cure problems that don’t exist,” he said, adding that recent workshops about the Incentive Housing Zone have rehashed issues that had already been settled.

Costello said turnover on the Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commission since 2010 has resulted in some delay during meetings, as new people become acquainted with the situation. The Incentive Housing Zone was first proposed in 2008. On the state side, Costello said, a lack of funding caused delays.

“I don’t think they’re dragging their feet at all,” Town Councilor Craig Fishbein said of the Planning and Zoning Commission. “The towns that rush into things haphazardly get into trouble.”

Fishbein is comfortable with the progress so far because “we want to do it right the first time,” he said. Town Council Chairman Robert Parisi agreed.

“I don’t have a problem with his (Seichter’s) timeline,” Parisi said, “as long as there is free and open discussion.”

Parisi said that, with age, he has learned to become more patient. He believes the Incentive Housing Zone will eventually become a reality, it’s just that in Wallingford, things “are always a little on the slow side,” he said. “I’m not in a rush.”

Instead of two to three months, Town Councilor John Sullivan would like to see a decision made within 30 days.

“Let’s get moving here,” he said.

Sullivan complimented the Planning and Zoning Commission for their “tremendous” work so far, but he sided with LeTourneau in that “we are beating this thing to death.”

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. pointed out that two to three months isn’t really that long.

“You’re not going to see too many meetings in that amount of time,” he said. “I think everyone needs the time to deal with this in a responsible way.”

Dickinson is supportive of the Incentive Housing Zone, which he hopes will make downtown a “friendlier, more comfortable streetscape kind of scene.”

Will there be another referendum over a Wallingford parking lot?

As published in the Record Journal Thursday September 27, 2012

By Laurie Rich Salerno
Record-Journal staff
lsalerno@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2235
Twitter:@LaurieSalernoRJ 

WALLINGFORD – The Simpson Court parking lot could be the subject of another referendum, after the Town Council gave town staff the go ahead to apply for a state grant that could provide $500,000 for repairs and upgrades to the site.

Several residents vocally opposed the town’s plans for the lot at Tuesday night’s meeting, and resident Robert Gross requested during public comment that Town Attorney Gerald Farrell Sr. provide him the paperwork to start the referendum procedures.

Gross, along with Geno Zandri, led last year’s fight against the town’s plan to make $500,000 in repairs, using town money, to the privately owned but publicly used Simpson Court lot. The two led a group that gathered more than 2,500 signatures of registered voters on a petition to force a November 2011 referendum. Residents voted down the plan, 4,120-2,768.

In this year’s plan, the repairs would be the same, but the funding source would differ. In a 6-2 vote Tuesday night, the council gave the town the green light to apply for a grant from the state’s Main Street Improvement Fund, administered by the Office of Policy and Management. The town built the lot in 1961 on the land of Simpson Court property owners and has since been leasing it year to year for public parking.

Each of the four Simpson Court property owners would contribute $25,000 toward repairs under the current proposal, with half of that to be reimbursed by money from the grant. Holy Trinity School — which would as part of the project get repairs to a retaining wall on its property — would put in $10,000, without any reimbursement. If improvements are made, the owners would grant the town a 30 year lease.

Gross could not be reached for comment Wednesday, but Geno Zandri said that the group was discussing whether to petition for a referendum now, or wait to see if the town received the money or not. The public would have another chance to oppose the lot improvements if the money came in and the council made a resolution to accept it for use on the lot, Farrell said Tuesday night.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that if they get the grant, there will be a referendum,” Geno Zandri said. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s identical to what we had before. It’s taxpayers’ money no matter where it comes from.”

If residents decide to petition for a referendum on the resolution, they will have 30 days from Wednesday to obtain about 2,460 signatures, or 10 percent of those registered to vote, according to Town Clerk Barbara Thompson.

From there, the names need to be authenticated by the clerk’s office, Corporation Counsel Janis Small said. Then, councilors would have another meeting in which they would be given the opportunity to repeal their vote. If they choose not to, an election must be held within 60 days, Small said.

The last referendum cost the town about $30,000 to pay for ballots, installation of phones, poll workers, costs of renting special trucks for deliveries and other costs, Republican Registrar of Voters Chet Miller said.

It would be “a couple of months at least,” before a vote would be held, according to Small.

At the meeting, some councilors said they felt some residents who signed last year’s petition and some who voted had been provided misinformation or partial information by people working to overturn the decision.

John Sullivan, a Democrat, said Wednesday that he had seen this first hand at last year’s Celebrate Wallingford.

“What I have a problem with is when people don’t tell residents, voters, the facts. I’m sure that the greater majority of those soliciting told the truth and answered questions honestly,” Sullivan said. “However, I witnessed several instances where the solicitor was not telling the truth.”

He said he heard a solicitor embellish the plan in speaking to residents, saying there were connections between councilors and the mayor and the business owners at the site, and that he shouldn’t trust Sullivan when he came up to talk to him.

Geno Zandri denied Sullivan’s claim. “We were above board on everything we did,” he said. Zandri did say some voters may have been confused when voting because people had to vote yes to say that they didn’t want the project.

Though confusing to some, the wording was done by statute, Small said. Residents were voting to repeal a resolution, not voting in favor of something, she said. So residents were voting “Yes” to repeal the council’s decision to repair the lot, not “yes” for repairs on the lot.

Town Councilor Jason Zandri, a Democrat, who was one of two “no” votes on the mayor’s proposal on Tuesday, said he thinks it would be logical for those interested in holding a referendum to wait to see if the town receives the money or not. Jason Zandri is Geno Zandri’s son, and was heavily involved in the last referendum, before he was elected a town councilor.

Jason Zandri said he figured the Tuesday vote would go as it did. “I think everybody up there voted their conscience,” Zandri said.

He said he thinks the approval sets a bad precedent for future public-private parking lot repair projects.

Tom Laffin, a Republican, said it all comes down to the perception of the Simpson Court parking lot, saying these projects should not be portrayed as spending public money on private land.

“We’re going to lease it — in a sense we legally own it for 30 years,” Laffin said. “You can’t make the argument that it’s private property.”

The town clerk’s office and the Law Department each said no one had been by to pick up the paperwork for a petition as of late afternoon Wednesday.

Wallingford – Editorial Cartoon for Sunday / Editorial - Of lot and wall

Regarding the decaying retaining wall delineating Wallingford’s Simpson Court parking lot from Holy Trinity School playground, a fundamental question emerges: Who built it?

Perhaps, as Jeff Danziger’s editorial cartoon below avers, “We the People built it.”

This much-ballyhooed wall — technically determined to be on school owned property — was built by people who, at the time, took ownership for its raison d’être and subsequent construction. Then, as now, people are responsible for maintaining its structural integrity — defining anew its integral role in assuring safety and stability.

There is much riding on this behemoth of a wall other than sheer mass of density related to that which it retains. Children play here. Simpson Court parking lot’s physical stability is upheld. It’s a location with hybrid purpose — private/ commercial, with added benefit of municipal parking.

It can either become a protracted thorny-thicket topic (depending on one’s political/philosophical stripes) or, as columnist Steven Knight suggests in his “From Wallingford” commentary on this page, a let’s-make-hay-while-the-sun- shines opportunity for resolution.

Wedding a much-needed rehab of the parking lot to its abutting wall described above manifestly makes sense. In our news story of September 13, we noted that Wallingford built this lot and has leased it from businesses for public parking since 1961 for a nominal fee. A plan to upgrade the lot using $500,000 of town money last year was denied implementation by voters in a November referendum. Under the new plan, state funds would cover most costs — Simpson Court commercial property owners would pay $20,000 for the project and be reimbursed half, while Holy Trinity School, which abuts the lot westerly, would pay $10,000, receiving no reimbursement.

Sunlight for municipal hay, in this case, is afforded by what may indeed prove a providential state grant whose purpose and mission dovetail propitiously with town needs. It’s title — Main Street Investment Fund — is quintessentially appropriate for this off-Main project. It’s money intended for projects which improve local commercial centers: stimulating new businesses while keeping centers attractive to shoppers.

By all means, both private and public, keep Simpson Court’s vicinity attractive . . . and safe.

Town Council and civic debate over a multi-pronged proposition involving private, commercial, town and church entities seeking proper conclusion to a mutually- shared problem is, quite naturally, expected. At the end of the day (and before Knight’s cows come home), taking full advantage of a loan with limited shelf life is compelling — especially since safety and security are elements amplifying the percussive tick of Wallingford’s agenda clock.

We urge that reasonable accommodation and prudence guide this project (without rancor) to satisfactory conclusion while that sun shines, but before municipal cows come home.

WALLINGFORD - Wooding-Caplan lot project stalled

Many unhappy paving won’t be finished for Celebrate Wallingford, while others still think parking isn’t needed

As published in the Record Journal Sunday September 16, 2012

By Russell Blair
Record-Journal staff
rblair@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2225
Twitter:@RussellBlairRJ

WALLINGFORD - Work on a temporary municipal parking lot on the town-owned Wooding-Caplan property is stalled, but officials say they are confident, if permits come through, that construction will be completed before winter.

Town Engineer John Thompson said the town is still waiting for permits from the state Department of Transportation to begin work on the Wallace Avenue portion of the project. The town plans to create 100 parking spaces at a cost of about $200,000.

“We’re moving ahead but we’re not moving as fast as I would like,” Thompson said. “We’re pushing for the permits. The state knows it’s important to get this done.”

Thompson said town crews began a paving project on North Plains Industrial Road last Sunday and are storing the millings from that job to use for the temporary parking lot. Once the permits are approved, the work on the parking lot shouldn’t take too long, he said.

There are three aspects to the project: work to improve the parking lot surrounding the police station, which has already begun; the widening of Wallace Avenue into a standard, two-lane town road; and laying down millings to create a temporary lot with an expected lifespan of seven to 10 years.

Officials had hoped to have the lot done in time for Celebrate Wallingford, the two-day festival that will be held uptown this year, but that’s not likely to happen with the event three weeks away.

“Am I disappointed? Yes,” Republican Town Councilor John Le-Tourneau said. “Am I surprised? No. If this was a private entity, it would be done already, but because we’re a municipality we have to jump through so many hoops it’s incredible.”

Republican Town Councilor Craig Fishbein said it would be “a travesty” if the new lot is not done in time for Celebrate Wallingford.

“I think it stinks,” he said. “I brought this issue to the forefront in February with the intent of it being done quickly.”

Elizabeth Landow, the executive director of Wallingford Center Inc., the downtown business advocacy group, said she was told by town staff that the lot should be available during Celebrate Wallingford even if the project isn’t complete, but other arrangements have also been made.

“We hired a trolley and we’ll be using that to bring people from the parking lots at Doolittle Park and behind Brothers Restaurant,” she said. “But we’re keeping our fingers crossed that we can park cars [on Wooding-Caplan].”

LeTourneau and Fishbein believe the temporary lot will get heavy use because they say people are already parking there in its current condition: an unlighted patch of grass.

“Go on a Friday or Saturday night and look at the cars parked back there,” Le-Tourneau said.

In a letter to Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr., Landow said her organization supported the Wooding-Caplan project.

“Downtown revitalization, to which the town has historically committed so many resources, is at an important crossroad,” she wrote. “The proposal to install temporary parking in the Wooding Caplan area is a very positive step in continuing the process. ... Decent parking improves the downtown which is an asset of the entire town.”

Landow proposed additional improvements to the other town-owned lots downtown, including the repair and resurfacing of the pavement,striping, lighting improvements, better signage and landscaping.

But others have raised questions about whether there is a need for more parking. A 2004 study ordered by the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that there was adequate parking in the downtown area but “customers must be willing to park in rear lots and walk up to a block to their destination.”

Among the recommendations included in the study was better advertising and a marketing plan for the parking that’s currently available.

“Education is also the key to convincing people that parking in a downtown might mean walking as far as a block to reach their destination, but that it is probably less walking than they do each week at the grocery store,” according to the study.

Democratic Town Councilor Jason Zandri agreed.

“I think we need a better outlining of public parking in the downtown,” he said. “There’s plenty of parking behind Town Hall. It’s not that far.”

“For some reason, a couple of blocks seems onerous,” Thompson said, noting that in larger cities such as Hartford or New Haven it’s common to park and walk a block or two.

Democratic Town Councilor Nicholas Economopoulos said he disagreed with the project from the start, believing the town should spend money on improving other downtown lots.

“I can’t see spending money on something temporary,” he said.

Economopoulos said he wasn’t surprised that substantial work on the project hadn’t begun. He noted that last year he had proposed creating a parking commission to develop a plan for downtown parking.

“It’s another example of a lack of planning and a lack of follow-through by our town,” Economopoulos said.

Photos by Christopher Zajac, courtesy of the Record-Journal