Council refers Adelaide parcels to planning and zoning after months of debate over Riverside community garden

The New London City Council voted 7-0 on Feb. 3 to refer a proposed sale of three parcels on Adelaide Street, including land currently used as the Riverside community garden, to the Planning & Zoning Commission under Connecticut General Statutes § 8-24.

Residents urged the council to delay or rework the sale and to protect the garden. "It is also very expensive to move a garden," said Mary Jo Logan of 121 Pequot Avenue, who described the garden’s fencing, raised beds and shed and said the plot provides food for neighbors. "Decisions that impact gardeners, any community space, really, should be vetted, should take time, should have input."

Why it matters: The parcels are being offered to Habitat for Humanity for development of affordable housing. Councilors and speakers described a tension between the city’s affordable housing goals and the garden’s role as a long-standing community food source. Councilors said the referral will allow Planning & Zoning to review whether a sale is consistent with the city’s plans and zoning rules; it does not itself authorize a sale.

Public comment and local officials’ response

Several residents told the council the garden has existed for roughly a decade, serves many families and would be costly to move because of fencing, raised beds and the need for soil replacement. Robert Stoller, who identified himself as living at 19 Evergreen Avenue, told the council, "soil is the basis of everything in agriculture," and said soil suitable for growing is rare in New London.

Shanice Austin, who said she lives at 1132 Ocean Avenue, asked the council to "refer the sale of the Adelaide properties to Habitat for Humanity to Planning and Zoning for proper vetting," and added, "Food access is also important." She said gardeners were being displaced "without a plan" that had been publicly revealed.

Council response and legal context

Attorney Darren Londrigan told the council he was not aware of any legal, binding contract that protects the garden on the property. Councilors repeatedly described the Feb. 3 action as a referral only: it sends the proposal to Planning & Zoning for a report under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-24. Councilor Hart said he would offer an amendment directing Planning & Zoning to include the community garden in their discussion so the garden’s investment would be considered on the public record.

Amendment attempt

Councilor Hart moved to amend the referral language to insert the phrase "removal of the community garden" immediately before references to the potential sale, to ensure Planning & Zoning considered impacts to the garden. The council voted 4-3 on the amendment (Roll call: Rosario, Hart and the council president voted yes; Councilors Natartez, Dice and President Pro Tem Pack voted no). The amendment failed.

Final action

After discussion and more public comment, the council approved the referral by a 7-0 vote. Councilors and the mayor said they want to find a "win-win" that preserves community food access while advancing affordable housing; several councilors and the administration described city staff, Parks & Rec and local nonprofits as partners that could help identify alternate sites or mitigation measures if development moves forward.

What happens next

Planning & Zoning will review the proposed sale and report back to the council under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-24. Any future sale, contract terms, or funding commitments would require further council action. Several councilors urged continued work with Fresh (a local community gardening partner), Habitat for Humanity, and city departments to explore relocation options and potential costs for moving fencing, raised beds and soil.

Ending note

Speakers emphasized both housing needs and food access, and the council limited its Feb. 3 action to a statutory referral that begins a public review process rather than a sale or demolition decision.