Notes from the Board of Aldermen (July 1, 2024)

Housing on High Street; Construction Projects; and the 'Street Takeover' Ordinance

We jinxed ourselves. One of my Aldermanic colleagues believed the July 1 meeting would be quick, considering the night’s agenda items. But even in my limited experience in various positions, generally, meetings are never cut and dry.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing though; these meetings provide an opportunity for the public to hear and have questions answered via their representative. Due diligence is an admirable trait — and there were many questions on several proposed ordinances related to housing on High Street and ‘Street Takeovers.’

The housing ordinances concerned 159-161 High Street (which is adjacent to the Milford train station parking lot) and 203 High Street (the former Catholic Family Services building). See both aerial shots below:

These properties belonged to the City of Milford and Mayor Tony Giannatassio aimed to have the plots back on the tax rolls (i.e., so the City could collect revenue from the new owners). In terms of tax policy, selling the properties made sense. However, on May 25, the Milford Mirror reported that the mayor was “looking to increase the city’s affordable housing stock.” Affordable housing and overdevelopment have been sensitive issues in Milford over the past few years, particularly under the Ben Blake administration. One memorable fight centered on the now-closed St. Gabriel Catholic School. Back in 2020, Robert H. Smith Jr. — CEO of Metro Star Real Estate Development — proposed building a 175-unit apartment complex on the property. However, after much backlash from neighbors, Smith dropped the plans.

There are also concerns about constructing too much housing under Connecticut State Statute 8-30g — a mandate requiring all 169 state municipalities to have at least 10% of their housing stock be “affordable.” Additionally, developers can develop 8-30g housing that is exempt from local zoning regulations.

My personal opinion: ideally, housing regulations should be local. And I frankly have concerns regarding over-development, architecture, preservation of space, and protecting Milford’s natural beauty. Most of the apartments sprouting on seemingly every square inch seem too cookie-cutter and not aesthetically appealing — or at least jarring in comparison to the surrounding buildings and/or landscape. Now, there is also the balance of promoting economic growth and limiting regulatory burdens on every business willing to call Milford home. New buildings and housing are required to spark innovation and migration to our city.

And there is also the legal reality. State statutes cannot change unless the General Assembly has the will to act. (So contact your state representative or state senator if you want changes in housing policy). Residents of High Street, rightly so, voiced their concerns about potential Section 8-30g housing or buildings that are architectural outliers near downtown Milford that could devalue their properties.

Members of the Board of Aldermen (BoA) followed suit, asking what protections could the mayor guarantee to prevent over-development issues on High Street. Mayor Giannatassio assured the BoA that the city would have “ultimate control” over any development, and would outline conditions in its request for proposal (RFP) to ease residents’ concerns. He noted that 159-161 High Street was initially intended to be more parking for the train station, but this was no longer possible. Instead, there will be three apartments, one of which will be deemed “affordable.”

He also shared that this ordinance would prevent Section 8-30g housing on High Street. With these assurances, the BoA voted for the ordinances. Only Alderman Win Smith opposed the property sales to highlight over-development issues.

The other major discussion during the July 1 meeting concerned “An Ordinance Adopting Chapter 14, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, All-Terrain Vehicles, Dirt Bikes, Mini Bikes, Mini Cycles, Motor-Driven Cycles, Pocket Bikes, etc.” — otherwise dubbed the ‘Street Takeover’ Ordinance.

During Public Comment, a few citizens raised an issue that the ordinance was “overly broad” in scope, especially whether E-bikes — a street legal vehicle — would also be prohibited per the language. Police Chief Keith Mello, who was present at the meeting, told the public that this was not the case. He added that every “Motorized Recreational Vehicle” listed per state statute was already deemed illegal and that the ordinance only applied in street takeover scenarios.

To summarize his support, Chief Mello told the BoA that the ordinance would be a deterrence — and be an “additional tool” in stopping motor gangs from harassing Milford residents. This ordinance was also the first of four steps to reduce crime in the city.

One major change to the ordinance was removing Sec. 14-60: Sale of gasoline for illegal purposes. This section, I believe, placed too many “policing” burdens on local gas station owners and attendants, who could have been punished for something unbeknownst to them. It stated, in part: “No owner or employee of any retail dealer of gasoline shall sell, offer for sale, or attempt to sell any article or product represented as gasoline for use in any Motorized Recreational Vehicle as defined in this Article V.” The amendment to remove this section, introduced by Alderman Matt Arciuolo, was unanimously approved.

Ultimately, the BoA unanimously approved the ‘Street Takeover’ Ordinance.

Other agenda items during the evening were an ordinance recommending a 4.0% cost of living adjustment for the pensions of all non-uniform employees who retired on or before Dec. 31, 2021, and the approval of a “Master Municipal Agreement for Construction Projects (MMAC)” between the Connecticut Department of Transportation and the City of Milford. Alderman Smith and I voted “no” on both measures. The former would ultimately raise taxes; the latter, did not allow for Milford’s discretion over funding (similar to the Homeland Security contract) even though it was a 10-year agreement. Although Public Works Director Chris Saley told the BoA the city hasn’t had “any issues with the state,” my standard-operating philosophy is not only distrustful of bureaucracy but also favors localism: that Milford residents, as represented by the BoA and/or city employees, should have more say on how any federal or state agency tries to assist the city.

As always, if you have any questions and/or concerns, feel free to reach out in the comments section below or email me at afowler@milfordct.gov.