Affordable Housing Rule Change Proposal Draws Opposition

By Andrew Gorosko

A developer’s second attempt to revise the zoning regulations, to effectively allow him to build a 12-unit multifamily affordable housing complex in Sandy Hook Center, has again met with stiff opposition from area residents, including 95 petition signers, who charge that the area is already too densely developed.

Developer Guri Dauti wants the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) to rewrite its intricate zoning regulations on Affordable Housing Development (AHD) to allow multifamily affordable housing complexes on sites as small as four acres. Currently, six acres is the minimum size for such a complex.

Mr Dauti wants the P&Z to allow up to three dwellings per acre on sites that range from four acres to six acres in area. The current construction density limit is four units per acre on sites that are at least six acres. 

Under Mr Dauti’s proposal, such condominium complexes could only be built in areas that have public water and public sewer service, such as Sandy Hook Center.

Attorney William Denlinger, representing Mr Dauti at a January 29 P&Z public hearing, stressed that Mr Dauti’s rule change proposal is not site-specific, pointing out that it would apply to various properties.

In June 2003, Mr Dauti unsuccessfully sought zoning rule changes from the P&Z that would have allowed him to proceed with planning for a 16-unit multifamily affordable housing complex on approximately 4.5 acres that he owns at 95-99 Church Hill Road, on the north side of Church Hill Road, near its intersection with Dayton Street.

Last June, at Mr Dauti’s request, the P&Z converted the zoning designation for that property from EH-10 (Elderly Housing) to R-2 (Residential) zoning.

Last June, Mr Dauti had sought to rewrite the zoning rules to allow up to four dwellings per acre on a site of at least three acres, in contrast to his current request to allow up to three dwellings per acre on a site of at least four acres.

As currently written, the zoning regulations do not allow the creation of multifamily affordable housing complexes on relatively small sites, Mr Denlinger told P&Z members.

“The market price of housing has gone off the skids here in Newtown,” Mr Denlinger said of climbing local housing costs. The Town Plan of Conservation and Development calls for a variety of local housing types, he said. The town plan encourages the creation of “affordable housing,” which is short supply locally, he said. The town has not had much affordable housing developed during the past decade, he added.

The only private local “affordable housing” complex is Riverview Condominiums, which is located off Bryan Lane, behind Sand Hill Plaza. Of the 49 condominiums there, 13 units are designated as deed-restricted, affordable housing for people whose incomes fall below certain state-set limits. The market-rate housing in such high-density complexes subsidizes the creation of affordable housing units.

Mr Denlinger said it would be better for the town to have relatively smaller “pockets” of affordable housing, rather than large complexes. There are relatively few locations in town where smaller complexes could be developed, he said.

P&Z View

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil pointed out that the current zoning regulations only require 30 percent of the units in a multifamily affordable housing complex to be designated as deed-restricted “affordable housing” for people falling under certain income limits. In effect, only four of the units in a potential 12-unit complex envisioned by Mr Dauti would be designated as affordable housing, Mr O’Neil noted.

Mr O’Neil suggested that if the P&Z is agreeable to changing the zoning rules as requested by Mr Dauti, that Mr Dauti be willing to have the percentage of affordable units in a complex increase from 30 percent to 70 percent, or eight units.

P&Z member Lilla Dean suggested that 50 percent of the units on relatively small sites be designated as affordable housing. Ms Dean pointed out that multifamily complexes are built with a “density bonus” compared to single-family residential development. Only two single-family houses would be allowed at the 95-99 Church Hill Road site, she noted . 

If the percentage requirements for affordable housing units within multifamily complexes on small sites increased markedly, whether to build such a complex would then become a “business decision,” Mr Denlinger said.

Analysis

Based on the real estate information that was provided by Mr Dauti, his requested zoning regulation changes would apply to ten local properties, including the 95-99 Church Hill Road site, according to Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker. Those sites include developed and undeveloped properties in town ranging from four to six acres, which have both public water and sewer service.

Depending on certain variables, the aggregate number of multifamily dwellings allowed would range from 120 units to 177 units, she noted. Based on the requirement that 30 percent of the units in such complexes be designated as affordable housing, it would translate into between 36 and 53 affordable housing units being created, she added.

Ms Stocker pointed out that it is unlikely that all ten properties would be developed as multifamily affordable housing complexes. Not all of the acreage of those properties would be calculable for construction density limits, so the potential aggregate dwelling-unit yield of those sites would be somewhat lower than 120 to 177 units, according to Ms Stocker.

Public Comment

P&Z members received approximately 95 petition forms at the January 29 session from local residents, most of whom live in the general area of Mr Dauti’s Church Hill Road property. Those petition signers oppose the requested zoning rule changes.

Jack Bestor of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road, who opposes Mr Dauti’s proposal, asked P&Z members what is the point of having zoning regulations, if the P&Z modifies those regulations to meet the particular needs of a developer.

Zoning regulations exist to protect the public, Mr Bestor said. Mr Dauti’s rule change proposal would allow more condominiums to be built near Walnut Tree Village, a 189-unit condo complex now under construction on Walnut Tree Hill Road, he said. The area is “overdeveloped,” Mr Bestor said.

Mr Bestor urged P&Z members to carefully consider making any revisions to the AHD zoning regulations.

Megan Williams of 82 Church Hill Road, who organized the petition drive in opposition to the Dauti application, told P&Z members that approving Mr Dauti’s requested rule changes would evolve into an eventual approval for a multifamily affordable housing complex at 95-99 Church Hill Road. 

Mary Ann O’Donnell of 97 Church Hill Road said she recently moved to that address, near Mr Dauti’s property. Ms O’Donnell spoke against the potential construction of 12 multifamily dwellings at 95-99 Church Hill Road.

Traffic in the area is very heavy, she said. It would be unfair to allow more such development in the area, she added. Ms O’Donnell said she moved from Long Island to Newtown to get away from high-density development.

Last year, Mr Dauti’s proposed rule changes, which the P&Z rejected, drew heavy opposition from nearby property owners. Their concerns included the architectural character of such a complex, its relatively high construction density, the additional traffic that it would generate, its effect on property values, and the difficulties of developing the steep site.

P&Z members are expected to act on Mr Dauti’s current requested zoning rule changes at an upcoming session. If the P&Z were to approve Mr Dauti’s rule change application, the developer would still need other P&Z approvals, such as a site development plan approval.