PZC Resolves Lawsuit for Mixed-Use Facility on Brook Street

For the first time in about three decades, apartments will be built in Rocky Hill after the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to resolve a lawsuit with the developer of a proposed project on Brook Street that included residential and office space. 

W.E. Winbrook IV LLC had The plan included 144 housing units and 5,750 square feet of office space on a 9.8-acre parcel of land. The commission, however, , saying the housing component was a bad fit for the neighborhood. 

W.E. Winbrook took the town to court and after negotiations with the attorneys for the developer and the town, a settlement was reached. However, the commission still had to vote to resolve the settlement at its meeting Wednesday night or the town and the developer would go back to court.

The decision means that a project with apartments, excluding ones with over 55 age restrictions, will be built in Rocky Hill for the first time since the early 1980s. During that time, the town was experiencing a boom in multifamily housing and s were built. The commission put a moratorium on multifamily housing because former PZC Member Barbara Surwilo said the town was “running a four to one ratio” with apartment buildings to single-family housing.

Let Patch save you time. Get great local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone every day with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.

On Wednesday night, Councilor Surwilo was “concerned” with the site plans and urged commission members to reject the settlement.

“I thought your denial was correct. Our town attorney is incorrect,” she said.

Surwilo said she was worried about the ramifications that could come from a decision in favor of the settlement.

“If you set this precedent now, there will be a rash of new apartment zoning applications," she said. "They will be able to point to this one as the reason for approving theirs."

Resident Krista Mariner was also against the project and said a large apartment complex across from  is “nonsensical” from a public safety standpoint.

"My concern is for the residents, not the settlement," she said.

Last October, the commission presented the developer with 20 to 25 issues with the site plans including traffic volumes, signage and architecture, according to his attorney Timothy Hollister. After working with the town for six months, the commission still had three problems with the plans, which led the members to deny the application. Those issues were the following:

• Compatibility of the apartments with , which is owned by Michael Hanratty
• Impact on the property values on Hanratty's property, which is adjacent to the proposed site
• If sufficient controls were in place for apartments

According to Hollister, the developer "was able to make peace" with Hanratty and the owner of Firematic even submitted a letter in support of the development to the commission. Hollister added that Hanratty, who previously indicated he may have to sell his property if the project went through, will not be moving.  

“He is content,” Hollister said about Hanratty. He added that the following revisions to the plan address the commission’s other issues with the site.

• The office component of this mixed-use development has been revised to both increase the building size and to provide for an initial structure and two additional expansion modules. Specifically, the office structure has been revised to include a first phase of 5,260 square feet medical office, with two expansion modules of 1,980 square feet each, resulting in 9,220 square foot structure at full build out.
• Building 2 and 3 have been moved to the rear of the site and rotated 45 degrees, to provide maximum space for interior landscaping and more accessible parking, and to maximize the distance between these buildings and the Firematic parcel.
• The clubhouse, pool, mailboxes, and dumpster area have been clustered and are now centrally located.
• The residential main entrance has been moved to the parcel’s eastern frontage.
• A landscaped berm has been established behind the Firematic parcel to provide additional screening.
• The grading along the former Sword parcel has been revised to provide additional screening.
• Building 1 has been moved approximately 20 feet further away from Brook Street.
• Forty (40) covered parking spaces have been provided.

“The town will know exactly what will be built,” Hollister said about the revisions.

Hollister said there are two ways to control development in town with one being through regulations and the other was through a special permit, which was in direct response to a  by

“You have the ability to craft regulations to control it," Hollister said.

Goldberg would argue during the over one hour public hearing that the regulations state each structure in a mixed-use project must serve multiple purposes (for example apartments would need to be located about office space or vice-versa).

“You cannot change something that is in the regulations," he said. "You cannot change the intent of the regulations for the betterment of the developer.“

Chairman Alan Mordhorst, who was not on the commission when the project was rejected, disagreed with Goldberg. He said he reviewed the regulations for mixed use developments and it stated that each building in the project did not need to serve multiple uses.

"Do you really want one apartment above each office," Mordhorst said. "Or do want some structures dedicated to commercial and some dedicated to residential. That is what I believe the intent of these regulations were." 

Ronald Angelo, who voted against the project in October, said the plans "needed to be tweaked" and felt the commission has "to live and die with the legal opinion of the town attorney."

"You have tweaked exceedingly well," he said about the revised plans.

Commission members Henry Vasel and Jeff Zepperi said even though they did not agree with the mixed-use project at that location, they supported the motion.  

“I don’t believe it was the intention of the regulations to allow a residential development on this piece of property,” Vasel said. 

During the public hearing, resident Allen Greenspan said he supported the proposal and added it would bring in $350,000 in tax revenue for the town and create temporary jobs.

"It helps our town grow. We need to maximize our tax base," Greenspan said. "I want to see people come into our town and stay in our town."

Vice President Steven Essick wrote a letter to the commission showing support for the project because it would create "cost effective market rents for young professionals" and "possible wage relief for businesses." The developer said that and also voiced their support of the development. 

Construction on the project, which still needs approval from the Connecticut Traffic and Metropolitan Development commissions, could begin by the end of the year, according to the developer Howard S. Rappaport.

"We are happy with the decision by the commission and we look forward to building a high quality project for Rocky Hill," he said following the meeting.

Enjoy reading Patch? Show us some love! Follow us on Twitter or like us on Facebook.