Affordable Housing Rule

Changes Again Rejected By P&Z

By Andrew Gorosko

For a second time, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have unanimously rejected a land developer’s request to liberalize the zoning regulations on “affordable housing,” in connection with his intention to develop a multifamily complex in Sandy Hook Center, which would contain some affordable housing units.

Following discussion at a February 19 session, P&Z members unanimously rejected developer Guri Dauti’s proposed rule changes on affordable housing. Voting against the requested zoning regulation changes were Chairman William O’Neil, Sten Wilson, Lilla Dean, Robert Poulin, and Jane Brymer.

 Mr Gauti had attempted to revise the zoning regulations, to effectively allow him to build a 12-unit multifamily affordable housing complex in Sandy Hook Center. Such a complex would hold four units designated as “affordable housing” for people meeting certain income limits.

The rule change proposal, which was aired at a January 29 public hearing, had met with stiff opposition from nearby residents, including 95 petition signers, who charged that the area is already too densely developed.

In June 2003, the P&Z turned down another set of affordable housing rule revisions that Mr Dauti had requested. Those proposals also met with heavy opposition from nearby property owners.

In his latest rule change proposal, Mr Dauti wanted the 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 wanted 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.

Mr Dauti apparently sought the rule changes as a key step in his desire to develop approximately 4.5 acres that he owns at 95-99 Church Hill Road, near the westerly corner of Church Hill Road and Dayton Street.

Attorney William Denlinger, representing Mr Dauti at a January 29 P&Z public hearing, however, had stressed that Mr Dauti’s rule change proposal is not site-specific, pointing out that it would apply to various properties in town. Had the P&Z revised the rules, the regulatory changes would have applied to ten local properties.

P&Z View

Before the P&Z voted on February 19, Mr Wilson said he did not believe that Mr Dauti had shown that the requested rule changes would benefit the town as a whole. Mr Wilson said it was apparent that Mr Dauti’s ownership of 95-99 Church Hill Road was the motive for the proposed rule changes.

Ms Dean noted that last June, at Mr Dauti’s request, the P&Z had changed the zoning designation for that property from EH-10 (Elderly Housing) to R-2 (Residential). Ms Dean said that the zone change was a fair change to make because altering the zoning designation transformed land that was essentially useless for elderly housing development into a site where two single-family houses could be built.

Ms Dean noted that the P&Z’s current regulations, which allow affordable housing to be developed on sites as small as six acres, is fair. “Six acres is pretty small for affordable housing,” she said.

 Mr Poulin said he had mixed feelings about Mr Dauti’s requested rule changes, but was inclined to turn them down. “I can’t find any strong arguments for it,” Mr Poulin said.

Mr O’Neil said the town needs affordable housing, even if that housing is not “affordable housing” as defined by state law.

But the chairman added, he does not like the specific regulations that Mr Dauti proposed for affordable housing. The rule changes would not result in much affordable housing on Mr Dauti’s property. State law would require 30 percent of the potential 12 units, or four units, to be designated as affordable housing.

Mr O’Neil added he does not believe that residents want relatively small pockets of affordable housing scattered on sites across town.

Ms Dean noted that the area near 95-99 Church Hill Road experiences heavy traffic. Nearby residents do not support Mr Dauti’s development proposal, Ms Dean said, adding that such objections are a factor in the P&Z’s review of the matter.

Ms Dean stressed she is an advocate of creating affordable housing, but does not favor Mr Dauti’s requested rule changes.

On that note, P&Z members voted on Mr Dauti’s application, rejecting it unanimously.

Background

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 housing complex on the approximately 4.5 acres that he owns at 95-99 Church Hill Road. Such a complex would include five affordable units.

In that application, 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 latest request to allow up to three dwellings per acre on a site of at least four acres.

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.

When the Riverview project was approved by the P&Z in the mid 1990s, only 25 percent of the dwellings, not 30 percent, were required to be “affordable” units.