Yale’s Alexandra Daum: The lot would be something between “permanent” and “temporary.” Credit: Laura Glesby Photo Hubbard reads a statement from CMT Chair Miguel Pittman into the record. Credit: Laura Glesby photo Yale’s plans to build a parking lot in place of the former rubber f actory at 69-75 Daggett St. hit a bump in the road Wednesday evening when a procedural resolution kicked off a debate over the nature of “permanence” in the world of development. Upon a spur-of-the-moment request from Hill Alder Angel Hubbard, the Board of Alders Community Development Committee decided not to take action — at least not yet — on a resolution related to the parking lot proposal. The resolution on the table would simply certify that the proposed 89-space surface lot would not necessitate an amendment to the university’s Medical Area Overall Parking Plan. According to Yale’s Associate Vice President for New Haven Affairs and University Properties Alexandra Daum, the proposed lot would provide parking exclusively for temporary construction workers or contractors, meaning that it wouldn’t necessitate an overall parking plan amendment per the city’s zoning ordinance. While the resolution was in some ways a formality, it centered around a proposal that has generated controversy among Hill residents and architectural preservation advocates. At a recent community meeting, some called on Yale to try to preserve the abandoned factory, which for decades also served as the hub of an underground arts scene. Other critics advocated for a more community-oriented use of the space. While no members of the public showed up in person to testify Wednesday, Hubbard read into the record a letter authored by Hill Community Management Team Chair (and her frequent political rival) Miguel Pittman, Sr. “At this time, the Hill North community management team does not support the proposed demolition and conversion of this property into a surface parking lot,” Pittman had written. “The Hill neighborhood has historically borne the impact of institutional expansion and land use — decisions that have reduced opportunities for housing, economic development, community service uses, and neighborhood investment.” During Daum’s presentation to the Community Development Committee, Fair Haven Alder Frank Redente asked her about the “historical significance” of the building. “We don’t have any information on that at the time. It’s not relevant to the parking plan,” said Daum. She soon clarified, “We certainly have that information, but tonight, what’s in front of you has to do with the parking plan. So we didn’t bring historical information to this meeting.” “Well,” asked Redente, “how do you feel about the neighbors’ concerns that a parking lot doesn’t necessarily fit the needs of the neighborhood?” “We’re working with the neighbors,” Daum responded, noting that she’s attended two neighborhood meetings on the parking plan so far. “We are there because we care. We’re there, listening, because we want to know.” She said that the building is a “safety hazard right now for folks that are occupying it when they’re not supposed to be.” “We can’t listen to every one individual voice,” Daum added. “We have to take it in balance and understand what’s best for the safety of that site and also what the community wants to see.” As for access to the proposed parking lot, Daum said that the university intends to restrict access to temporary contractors and construction workers by way of a key card system. “Those key cards will only be granted to contractors, not to any of our full-time employees,” Daum said. If Yale decides to open up the parking lot to full-time employees, she added, the university would have to return to the Board of Alders for permission. The 89 spaces “will be easily gobbled up by the contractors that are all working all over campus,” said Daum. Downtown/East Rock Alder Christine Kim asked Daum about “how long this temporary parking lot would be foreseeable.” Fair Haven Alder Frank Redente and Hill Alder Angel Hubbard. “We’re not saying that it’s a temporary parking lot,” clarified Daum. The lot will be used by “employees working on temporary construction projects,” but the “parking lot itself is not temporary. That is what it will be used for for the foreseeable future. We don’t have another plan for the site.” Daum added that “if and when we do, we will obviously have to come [back] to this board and to the community to talk about that. But it’s a permanent parking lot.” Hubbard soon followed up to confirm. “This is going to be a permanent parking lot for construction workers working on temporary [projects] — is that what you’re saying?” she asked. “That is what I’m saying,” Daum confirmed, “with the caveat that when I say ‘permanent’… It’s not like it is deeded that it’s gonna be for thousands of years a parking lot.” “I never want to say this will never, ever, ever be anything else, because, of course, needs change, plans change,” Daum said. But “for the foreseeable future, with what we have now, absolutely — there’s no plan other than this to be a parking lot.” That answer prompted Hubbard to quietly request that committee chair and fellow Hill Alder Carmen Rodriguez “pass over” the item, postponing any discussion or vote on the matter until a future meeting. Rodriguez followed suit. After the meeting, Hubbard explained that she had understood the parking lot to be a “temporary,” interim plan for the lot. She noted that Daum had told community members at a prior meeting that Yale may eventually turn the parking lot into something else, like a medical building. Daum approached Hubbard after the meeting to clarify and apologize for the confusion. “The intent is to build a parking lot until we build something else here. The intent is absolutely for it to be something else in the future,” she said, adding later that “nobody wants” the site to remain a parking lot forever. At the same time, Daum said, “We don’t have other plans for the parking lot” at the moment. She said that she used the word “permanent” in her presentation to the committee in order to err on the side of caution. She didn’t want to commit to a finite end to the use of the property as a parking lot, she said, since there are currently no plans in motion to that effect. “I was shying away from the word temporary” because “this is a complicated world,” Daum said, and she didn’t want to over-promise. She reflected that neither “temporary” nor “permanent” are accurate terms to describe the proposed parking lot. It’s something in between. “I don’t move nothing until I hear from my constituents,” said Hubbard. “I’m still trying to find the balance of ‘how will this benefit Ward 3?’” In her view, Hubbard said, her neighborhood doesn’t benefit from either an abandoned factory building or a permanent surface lot. She agreed to meet with Daum and other Yale representatives to discuss the best way to move forward, with the potential for another community meeting. Meanwhile, on Wednesday night, the City Plan Commission also deferred its mandatory review of a site plan for the proposed parking lot until a future meeting. The post Daggett Lot’s “Permanence” Probed appeared first on New Haven Independent. ...read more read less