Rendering of Annunziata’s plans for a new 27-unit development. Credit: Sam Gardner Rendering A state judge has cleared the way for 27 new apartments to be built at the site of a former Edwards Street firehouse — after dismissing an East Rock resident’s appeal of a key City Plan Commission approval for the project. State Superior Court Judge Latonia Williams handed down that decision on June 15 in the case Charles DelVecchio v. New Haven City Plan Commission. The underlying lawsuit concerned an East Rock neighbor’s appeal of the City Plan Commission’s May 2025 approval of a 27-unit residential development at the site of the former Firehouse 19 at 15 Edwards St. In particular, the plaintiff, DelVecchio, sought to overturn the commission’s approval of a special permit to allow first-floor residential use as part of the 27-unit project. Williams ultimately sided against DelVecchio’s appeal and found that the commission acted appropriately in its handling of the new-housing application. “In sum, the commission was acting within the scope of its lawful authority when itdecided the application; the commission’s approval of the application is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to prove that the commission acted illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion in approving the application,” the judge wrote. “Accordingly, the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.” The property’s owner, East Rock Real Estate’s Albert Annunziata, did not respond to a request for comment by the publication time of this article as to what his plans are for this property now that DelVecchio’s appeal has been dismissed. The debate over the future of the former Firehouse 19 dates back to December 2024, when some neighbors first raised concerns about Annunziata’s pursuit of variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to build a five-story, 23-unit apartment building at that site. The existing building has two stories and a loft. The new-housing application spurred pushback from neighbors, who argued that the five-story proposal would be out of scale with the neighborhood, cast shade that would negatively impact adjacent gardens and solar panels, and boost density without providing sufficient parking. After a two-and-a-half-hour meeting featuring impassioned testimony and even a compromise proposed by the ward’s alder, Caroline Tanbee Smith, the BZA denied the variances on the basis that the developer had failed to demonstrate a hardship necessitating relief. So Annunziata moved forward with a plan that didn’t require any zoning relief: He proposed a shorter but more sprawling building that would be four stories tall instead of five, though still large enough to accommodate four additional apartments, bringing the total number of units to 27. The new plan would create 23 studios, two one-bedroom units, and two two-bedroom units. One of the first-floor studios, an A.D.A.-accessible unit, would be designated for a tenant making 50 percent of the area median income — or $39,620 for a household of one, as of October 2025. The other apartments would rent at market rates. In May 2025, the City Plan Commission approved the site plan for the project and granted Annunziata a special permit to replace the firehouse’s ground-floor commercial space with housing in a general business zoning district. Charles DelVecchio, who owns a three-family house next door at 13 Edwards St., subsequently filed an appeal in state court in June 2025 in an effort to overturn the City Plan Commission’s decision. “We were never, ever, about opposing redevelopment and new housing. That was never the case,” DelVecchio said in a recent phone interview with the Independent. “We just wanted thoughtful development that follows the zoning rules and respects the surround[ing] neighborhood, and it just doesn’t seem like the Board of Zoning’s decision was respected for the reason they denied it.” In his appeal, DelVecchio and his lawyer John Parese wrote that the City Plan Commission “usurped” the authority of the BZA; approved Annunziata’s application despite an alleged failure to satisfy requirements; and exceeded its authority by approving the expansion of a non-conforming side yard. The non-conforming side yard refers to the fact that the firehouse sits 3.5 feet from the property line. That’s because the firehouse was built before the city’s zoning rules mandated five feet or more. The City Plan Commission, represented by the city’s corporation counsel’s office, rejected DelVecchio’s claims. A brief filed by Asst. Corporation Counsel Jonathan Bedosky stated that Annunziata’s application complied with all applicable criteria. In response to DelVecchio’s three specific claims, Bedosky wrote that the City Plan Commission did not bypass the BZA because they reviewed entirely separate applications and the City Plan Commission applications did not require variances. Bedosky also wrote that Annunziata’s application did satisfy all requirements, and that, in terms of preserving the historic nature of the building, the commission found that the façade on Edwards Street will remain largely intact. “The materials proposed for the addition include materials to reflect the historic character of the neighborhood, such as thin brick veneer, thin stone veneer, and fiber cement siding panels,” according to the brief. Finally, regarding the existing non-compliant side yard, the commission did acknowledge that the side yard must be no less than five feet in a general business district. Still, the side yard — which is “a legal prior non-conforming use” — is entitled to zoning protections under the Zoning Ordinance, according to the commission. The construction planned for 15 Edwards includes a “wedding-cake” style setback, which the commission argued would avoid further minimizing the legally non-compliant side yard and instead have the side yard distance increase as the height of the building increases. In the end, Judge Williams sided with the City Plan Commission and dismissed DelVecchio’s appeal. DelVecchio used to live at 13 Edwards St. and now lives about a mile away. He said 13 Edwards is currently occupied by renters. He emphasized that the pushback from himself and other neighbors was not due to a dislike for new housing, but that he had public safety concerns due to how close his property is to 15 Edwards. “It really doesn’t seem that a 27-unit apartment building should be allowed to be built next to a three-family house that are three feet away from each other,” DelVecchio said. “To pretty much double the height and expand the parking lot, it has such a negative impact on the surrounding properties.” He pointed to the BZA’s rejection of the initial plan. “To not appeal the decision and rather try to pursue this special permit — it just seems like this entire process is getting circumvented.” DelVecchio said that a fire safety report should have been required from the fire marshal’s office in order for the plans to be approved. “This special permit process, I hope that the City of New Haven looks at in the future because I do feel that fire safety studies should be a requirement before special permit approvals are given, because it really puts New Haven residents at risk without having a fire safety study,” he said. As of right now, DelVecchio said that he and his lawyer haven’t decided whether to continue their fight to appeal the judge’s newly issued decision. New Haven Fire Department Asst. Chief Shakira Samuel, who previously served as deputy fire marshal, declined to comment on the specific case of 15 Edwards St. because she wasn’t familiar with the details. Still, Samuel told the Independent, “Whenever construction is being done, new construction, renovation, or so forth, and especially that is that many units, plans will have to be submitted to the Fire Marshal’s Office for review, to make sure it’s up to the current fire safety codes.” So, even if the City Plan Commission didn’t require a report from the fire marshal for approval, in order for construction to begin, plans must still be reviewed by the fire marhsal’s office. Samuel said a building like this will generally be equipped with a sprinkler system, a fire alarm system, life-safety devices, and more. The post Judge Dismisses Firehouse-To-Apartments Appeal appeared first on New Haven Independent. ...read more read less