PZC nixes Slate expansion

NORTH HAVEN — A controversial project to build a private school in a residential neighborhood near Sleeping Giant State Park will not move forward — for now.

After hours of public hearing sessions that began in April, the Planning & Zoning Commission quashed the proposal Monday night, foiling the Slate School’s plans to build a second campus in town. School representatives said they will appeal that decision.

Located on Mansfield Road, Slate School’s existing campus serves grades K-6. Administrators last year announced plans to construct an “upper school” nearby that would serve roughly 90 students in grades seven through 12.

The plan, which sought to repurpose a decommissioned church at 5100 Ridge Road in addition to constructing a new building, raised the ire of neighbors who claimed it would be out of character with the rural neighborhood, was too big for the site, would cause traffic and noise issues, and would create adverse environmental impacts.

Head of School Julie Mountcastle and school founder Jennifer Staple Clark told Hearst Connecticut Media in an email Wednesday morning they “intend to appeal the decision” and were disappointed with the vote.

“We appreciate the amount of thought and effort that they put into this application and were hopeful that they would reach a different outcome. We believe that we presented an application that complied with the zoning regulations and addressed all of the concerns of the Commissions and staff,” the email said. “We believe that we presented an application that complied with the regulations and that we are entitled to an approval based on the facts.”

Asked what avenues were available to challenge the decision, North Haven Land Use Administrator Alan Fredricksen said it would need to be litigated in the courts.

Prior to the meeting, Mountcastle and Staple Clark said in another email they looked forward to the decision, suggesting there were “no legal grounds ... to deny our application.”

“Our commitment to the environment and to our community is unparalleled, and we hope the Commission can see through the erroneous claims from a small number of opposed neighbors,” the email said.

But by a vote of 3-2, commissioners heeded the concerns of residents and rejected the site plan after one member’s motion to approve a special permit failed along the same lines.

Chairman Vern Carlson, Vice Chairman E. Richard Wilson and board member Brian Cummings voted against the project, while James Giulietti and Secretary Theresa Ranciato-Viele favored approving the application.

“Their rejection of the application was absolutely the correct outcome, but we understand it was not an easy decision,” Gary de Simone, a resident who helped spearhead the effort against the project, said in a written statement. “The Commission rightly determined that the application did not meet the standards or promote the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and did not conserve the value of present and future dwellings and encourage the most appropriate use of the land, as is required.”

Residents opposed to the project had hired an attorney to present their concerns at meetings and commissioned experts who reported on potential problems with the proposal. Meanwhile, Slate School had its own attorney advocating for the proposal and experts who rebutted the residents’ concerns.

During an Aug. 24 public hearing session, for example, Dan O’Neill, a traffic engineer who gave testimony for the opposition, contended the sight line at the nearby intersection of Outer Ridge Road and Mt. Carmel Avenue did not meet Department of Transportation criteria. He said an increase in traffic associated with the school would increase the risk of accidents and also claimed the sight line for the school’s driveway design was “deficient.”

Meanwhile Dave Sullivan, the traffic consultant for Slate School, told the commission the proposed design already was sufficient but the school easily could meet O’Neill’s more stringent criteria by mowing the lawn within the town right-of-way.

Sullivan also said the school would not contribute to safety hazards, claiming the Mt. Carmel Avenue intersection had only been the site of two crashes in 10 years and therefore was not an existing safety issue.

A recording of the meeting is available on the town’s website.

Commissioner Giulietti pointed out that conflicting information posed a problem for the board.

“We have very well-credentialed traffic engineers giving exactly opposite opinion, very credentialed appraisal experts giving exactly opposite opinion and very good attorneys telling us — one telling us we have to grant this and one telling us we don’t,” he said during the Aug. 24 meeting. “It worries me when two people with equal credentials — one says absolutely a disaster and the other says no, no problem at all.”

Prior to Monday’s vote, town engineer Andrew Bevilacqua gave a third opinion: he did not have think the sight lines were an issue.

But Carlson, who chairs the commission, said he often saw bikers and joggers on the road.

“The road is narrow in most places. It’s windy — it’s up, it’s down. And I think the sight lines are a little short,” he said, indicating he thought the development could propose a problem for public safety.

Wilson, the vice chairman, said he believed “that size school on that size property is going to affect the value of the homes at least in the immediate area.” (Experts had also given opposing opinions on whether the school would lower property values.)

Meanwhile, Giulietti said he had not seen sufficient evidence to convince them the plan would negatively impact the neighborhood.

Ranciato-Viele shared his view, also pointing out a church was already permitted on the site.

“That church may have been lightly used before. There’s absolutely no guarantee that church will be lightly used next week, next year,” she said.

The decision was more fraught than when the plan went before the Inland Wetlands Commission, which approved it almost unanimously. Even then, experts had clashed on possible consequences of building a school on the site.

Environmental consultants for the opposition warned the school would threaten nearby wetlands and could lead to algal blooms. But an engineer working on the school’s design plans said the determination was based on erroneous calculations, and a wetlands scientist advising Slate School claimed there would be no adverse impacts.

Slate School’s existing campus also faced opposition when it was proposed in 2017.