Committee approves cooperation agreement, tax abatement for Whaley Avenue redevelopment with historic-preservation MOA

A joint meeting of the City of New Haven’s Community Development and Tax Abatement Committees on Jan. 28, 2025, approved a cooperation agreement that authorizes the city to work with the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, the Glendower Group (an instrumentality of the housing authority), Glendale Group Inc., and St. Luke’s Development Corporation / St. Luke’s Glendale LLC on a redevelopment of properties at 117–125 and 129 Whaley Avenue, 10–12 Dickerman Street and 34–36 Berry Street. The order the committee read and approved includes a tax abatement pursuant to section 28-4 of the New Haven Code of Ordinances and authorizes a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to document and preserve historic buildings pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

The redevelopment plan calls for residential units with ground-floor commercial space and supportive services. Presenters told the committee the project will include 49 affordable units; project materials and testimony say 44 of those will be project-based (targeting households at or below 50% of area median income) and five will be aimed at working families (50–80% of median). Presenters also said the development will set aside six units for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The developers described the new construction as five stories, LEED Platinum-standard building systems for the affordable units, and commercial and health-and-wellness space on the first floor.

The cooperation agreement described a tax-abatement structure of $450 per unit annually over a 40-year period; presenters characterized that payment stream as an alternative to current municipal property-tax payments (which the housing authority does not pay as a municipal instrumentality). The redevelopment team also listed one-time fees and financing sources during the presentation, including an estimated $300,000 in building permit fees, a Federal Home Loan Bank application for $500,000, a federal ETA grant awarded to St. Luke’s Development Corporation, private equity commitments and permanent debt. Presenters told the committee that project-based rental subsidies (vouchers) and the tax abatement are both necessary to make the financing feasible.

Committee discussion focused on the MOA with the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Committee members asked how the MOA ties the demolition of an existing building (the Papa John’s property referenced in the presentation) to rehabilitation of an alternate historic property on Henry Street. Presenters said the SHPO required documentation and historic rehabilitation as part of permitting for demolition; they said the MOA requires the developers to document the affected building and either submit that documentation to SHPO or to rehabilitate Henry Street according to historic standards. One developer representative said, “we will comply with the order” and that SHPO would review the Henry Street submission.

A motion to read the revised order into the record was moved and seconded, the public-comment period was closed for the vote, and the committee approved the order. The order as read by the committee authorizes the city to enter into the cooperation agreement with the Housing Authority of the City of New Haven, the Glendower Group, Glendale Group Inc., and St. Luke’s Development Corporation / St. Luke’s Glendale LLC for redevelopment of the listed properties, to include a tax abatement under section 28-4 of the New Haven Code of Ordinances, and to enter into an MOA concerning documentation and preservation of historic buildings pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Committee members who spoke in favor described the project as consistent with prior committee guidance and with the city’s affordable-housing objectives. At least one committee member noted the item had been discussed in the same committees in previous years. There was no recorded roll-call vote with individual member votes in the transcript; the chair called for voices and the ayes were recorded, and the chair announced the ayes had it. The committee then adjourned.

Notes: The transcript contains instances where numbers and terms are garbled (for example an early statement transcribed as “4,053 residential units” appears inconsistent with later, clarified testimony referring to 49 affordable units). The article reports the figures and conditions as stated during the committee presentation and in the read order; where the transcript recorded conflicting counts, those conflicts are noted above.