Division Clear Regarding Controversial Southington Apartment Project

SOUTHINGTON, CT — A controversial apartment development going before the town's zoning board Tuesday night has been approved for town tax breaks should it pass muster.

The Southington Town Council, however, wasn't unaninous and the council's top two officials actually opposed granting a seven-year abatement that would save the developers some $3.6 million in taxes in the West Street project's first two years, with savings in following years as well.

The council last week voted 5-2 to support the conditional tax breaks (depending on the project's Southington Planning and Zoning Commission approval).

Prior to the vote, council members had mixed opinions on the development and whether it should benefit from a significant easy of tax responsibilities.

Dallas, Texas,-based developer — Anthony Properties LLC — is looking to build a mixed-use development featuring eight buildings total, including 244 residential units (10 percent of which set aside as affordable housing), a clubhouse and pool and about 17,500 square feet of commercial space.

Those in favor of tax breaks were council members Michael Del Santo (Republican); Tom Lombardi (Republican); Jim Morelli Jr. (Republican); Christopher Palmieri (Democrat); and Jack Perry (Democrat).

The two dissenters were Southington Town Council Chairperson Victoria Triano and Southington Town Council Vice Chairman Paul Chaplinsky Jr., both Republicans.

Absent from the Feb. 27 council meeting were Valerie DePaolo (Democrat) and William Dziedzic (Republican).

The PZC is conducting a public hearing and a possible vote on the application Tuesday night at 7 p.m. at the John Weichsel Municipal Center assembly room, 196 N. Main St., Southington.

The project would be at 1177 , 1193 and 1303 West St. and the land where the development would happen is owned by Southington resident Roger C. Toiles of Spring Street.

According to Louis A. Perillo III, Southington's economic development director, the annual tax revenue for the project, based on the current tax rate, is $1.8 million a year or, about, a half mill.

Perillo said the tax break plan, which is allowed by the state legislature for so-called "enterprise zones" like this one, would allow the developers to avoid paying any taxes the first two years after the project's completion.

Then, he said, the tax breaks would be 50 percent off; 40 percent off; 30 percent off; 20 percent off; and 10 percent off in years three through seven.

The full, $1.8 million plus in annual taxes would not be recoped by the town until eight years after completion.

Perillo, who said this is the "best use" of the property, recommended council members OK the tax abatement.

He said the applicant is also working with the state Department of Transportation on road reconstruction linked to the project to alleviate traffic worries.

According to Petrillo, not approving tax breaks could jeopardize the future of the $91 million development and dissuade future developers from choosing Southington.

He went as far as saying the council was risking not only this project, but future projects should it say "no."

"I think the road you are traveling down is seriously dangerous," Petrillo said in response to questioning from council members.

Of the two council opponents, Chaplinsky Jr. — a former member of the zoning board — was most vocal against the plan.

He said the town had already rezoned the previous industrial site for a mixed-use zone and the tax abatement wasn't something he supported.

Chaplinsky also said opposing the development or, at least, the tax abatement was something the town council had a right to do if it saw fit.

"We're talking about 200 or 300 additional residential condos in an area where that was not previously zoned and I do believe that this council has a voice as to whether we think that's appropriate or not," Chaplinsky said.

"I personally don't think its a good use of the tax abatement. I would like to see the tax abatement enterprise zone for much larger commercial industrial use."

He said community impacts that come with an increased population are not something he wants to see in town, nor is it something people tell him they want.

"To me that's not exciting," Chaplinsky said. "I hear time after time from the residents in our community that residential development and increasing residential density is something that they don't want and that's something that we have to represent."

The majority who supported the tax abatement said the council was not a zoning board and shouldn't be able to vote "no" on a land-use matter.

"This is obviously a project that comes with many opinions, for or against, and I don't think that is this board's job," Councilman Lombardi said.

How Tuesday's zoning board meeting will go on the proposal is unclear.

PZC officials said the applicant still needed more time to address questions raised by town staff, resulting in the PZC tabling the matter last month.

While no testimony was heard at past PZC meetings, several letters of opposition to the project have now been submitted to the town by area residents.

They all expressed concern about an increase in traffic in the area and the unforeseen impacts of having a large population of people settle in Southington at the new development.

According to Petrillo, Southington could use the added tax revenue, even if it has to wait a few years to reap the full benefit.

"This abatement will go toward, hopefully, getting this project through planning and zoning, through the Department of Transportation and, eventually, constructed and we can enjoy some substantial taxes, about a half a mill," Petrillo said.

For the minutes of the Feb. 27 Southington Town Council meeting, click on this link.

For the agenda of the March 7 Southington Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, click on this link.

From Feb. 28: 'Action on Large Apartment Project Postponed By PZC'