Citizen Voices Concern about Changes to GDC Project

Elmwood Renaissance by Patti Sanko-Lowry 24 Grove Street I am here tonight to address the Council in regard to the September 16th communication from Mila Limson, Town Planner regarding her intention to approve modifications to SDD 48; in particular the elimination of the 4 penthouse dwellings approved for the original school building. Earlier this year, GDC applied for a special permit which enabled them to begin a partial demolition of the original school house building for the sole purpose of looking at the structural members so that they could determine if the building would be able to handle the addition of a fourth floor. In a meeting in April Tom Gissen, then Vice President, told me that they were going to have to eliminate the 4 penthouse units on the original Talcott School building because of the very concerns highlighted in this Administrative Amendment. So why wasn’t this part of the application in July? Why are you now being asked to look at this as ”an unanticipated and immediate danger to the occupants of the building; [and that] delay in construction on the building would further its deterioration as a blighted property creating health, safety and welfare issues with respect to the general public and the Elmwood residents in particular?” According to GDC’s building schedule this building isn’t scheduled for renovation until March of 2006. The SDD ordinance was changed in March, 2004 giving the Town Planner the authority to administratively approve, without limit, additional applications for changes to SDD applications within a twelve-month period as required to address an unanticipated and immediate health safety and/or welfare need. Prior to this revision she could only approve one per 12-month period. The example of potential use cited by Corporation Council during the March ’04 public hearing was that a couple bought a condo and shortly thereafter the husband was diagnosed with a medical condition that required equipment in the house that must be powered 24/7. He wanted to install a generator outside his unit. This situation was clearly an immediate health need. Because his unit was part of an SDD application and the developers of the complex had already had a recent approval, he was required to go through the usual public process. GDCs application does not comply. The safety issue doesn’t actually exist at the moment, and could probably be remedied with appropriate structural improvements. GDC did not include the removal of these penthouse units along with the lost pergolas, trellises, canvas canopies, French doors, larger windows and natural materials that were removed from the July application. They knew about potential structural issues then. This invalidates their argument for “immediate safety needs” – they knew about this at the time of their prior application. Why are we giving up the 4 luxury view units serving the true empty-nester – single floor, 1- to 2-bedroom units with garden patios? And what view will the mid-rise penthouse owners have of this building without these penthouses and gardens? 24 rooftop HVAC compressors (with the accompanying noise) aligned in military precision on a flat membrane roof. Very industrial. And what about the lost tax revenue associated with these 4 units. Conservatively over 10 years the lost revenue amounts to half a million dollars. Can we ask for nothing in return from this developer? We’ve given so much and received so little. Now we’re losing tax revenue on top of it all. Because of the negative tax implications, the weakening of the luxury design approved in the SDD application and the curious timing of this new request, we recommend that you deny this application and send it back with a recommendation to the Town Planner to have the structural reports reviewed with an eye to making these luxury penthouses possible. Other options include adding a rooftop garden to the existing building, or perhaps a return of the hardscaping and garden features lost in the July application in exchange for this reduction in scope.