Three Suitable Areas—

P&Z Reviews Report On Affordable Housing

By Andrew Gorosko

A consultant’s draft study performed for the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has identified three areas of town considered to be the most suitable places to create “affordable housing.”

The $50,000 study, which was paid for by the state, was conducted in view of the state requirement that Newtown, among other municipalities, substantially increase its stock of affordable housing to better serve the needs of people of various income levels. The term “affordable housing” is synonymous with the term “workforce housing.”

The P&Z is expected to discuss and possibly act on the draft 57-page document, known as the Incentive Housing Zone Study, at a Thursday, February 3, session. The meeting is slated for 7:30 pm at Newtown Municipal Center, 3 Primrose Street.

Harrall-Michalowski Associates, a planning consultancy, performed the study for the town. The firm also worked as the P&Z’s consultant on the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development. Of several areas reviewed as potential locations for affordable housing, the consultant determined that three locations are suitable places for such development due to their particular characteristics.

Those areas are: the town-owned Fairfield Hills campus; the western section of Mt Pleasant Road (Route 6) in Hawleyville; and a northern section of South Main Street (Route 25). Due to limited local sanitary sewer capacity, there are only a few areas in Newtown that are appropriate for such housing, according to the report. The three areas deemed suitable for such development would comply with the various government requirements on the provision of affordable housing, it adds. “These areas have access or the potential for access to sewer and water infrastructure, and transportation facilities, and are near areas of existing concentrated development,” it states.

The study includes some suggested modifications to the existing Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse (FHAR) zone, which would allow affordable housing to be created in certain existing buildings at the former state psychiatric hospital. The study also provides some suggested zoning regulations and some architectural design standards that the P&Z could employ for the Mt Pleasant Road and South Main Street areas to permit mixed-use development with townhouses and/or garden apartments at a development density of ten units per acre. The proposed zoning regulations, coupled with financial analyses and maximum construction density projections, would provide the P&Z with a planning framework with which to formulate developmental incentives for creating more a diverse and more densely built local housing stock, which includes affordable units that are consistent with the town’s visual character, according to the report.

Fairfield Hills

Fairfield Hills is recommended as a site for affordable housing based on its general accessibility, the availability of land and public utilities, the potential for in-fill development and new development, and the town’s ownership of the property. In-fill development is growth that occurs on undeveloped land that lies amid previously developed lots. Fairfield Hills has both sewer and water utilities, a central location, transportation accessibility, and the availability of land, according to the document. “The fact that the town can control future development as the owner of the property makes this area a very strong candidate” for affordable housing, the report adds.

Mt Pleasant Road

The consultant states that the western section of Mt Pleasant Road, located to the east of the Bethel town line, is recommended as a location for affordable housing based on the availability of sanitary sewers and a public water supply, its potential for in-fill development and new development, and its accessibility. The best area for such growth lies along the north side of Mt Pleasant Road, where there is the greatest potential for development and redevelopment, it adds. In its analysis, the consultant found that the area is conducive to affordable housing because of its transportation features, availability of sewer and water utilities, and its current mix of land uses, including its high-density elderly housing developments.

South Main Street

The consultant also recommends as a potential area for affordable housing the section of South Main Street lying between its intersections with Borough Lane and Mile Hill Road. The area has good accessibility, the availability of sanitary sewers and a public water supply, and the potential for mixed-use in-fill development and redevelopment, the reports states. That area has some redevelopment potential for mixed-use projects including affordable housing, it adds. The area is relatively close to Interstate 84, and has sanitary sewer and public water service, the consultants state.

Two other areas were considered by the consultants as potential locations for affordable housing, but were ranked lower than the three recommended areas.

One of those lower-ranked areas includes a 245-acre section of Sugar Street (Route 302) which extends westward from its intersection with Boggs Hill Road toward its eastern intersection with Head O’ Meadow Road.

The other place is a 194-acre area including the section of Church Hill Road extending eastward from the Exit 10 interchange to the traffic signal in Sandy Hook Center. That location also includes the section of Riverside Road lying between its intersections with Church Hill Road and Dickinson Drive.

‘A Guide For Thinking’

At a recent P&Z session, agency members briefly discussed the draft housing study.

Robert Poulin served as chairman at the session in the absence of Lilla Dean.

Mr Poulin termed the subject matter of the report as “socialistic,” raising issues about the content of the document.

“I don’t believe in socialism, and therefore I’m not very happy with this document,” he said.

George Benson, town director of planning and land use, explained that the planning document is designed to provide a base of factual planning information from which the P&Z could formulate certain zoning regulations on affordable housing.

The P&Z has long had a set of zoning rules known as the Affordable Housing Development (AHD) regulations. Mr Benson said the housing study’s findings could serve as the basis for possible revisions to the AHD regulations.

P&Z member Robert Mulholland said of the housing study, “This is only a guide for thinking.”

In March 2009, the P&Z approved having the housing study performed.

The state wants all municipalities in Connecticut to have at least ten percent of their housing stock designated as deed-restricted affordable housing intended for low-income and moderate-income families.

Local dwellings that now meet the state criteria as affordable housing include some units at Riverview Condominiums on Bryan Lane, and also two houses on Philo Curtis Road, which were built by Habitat for Humanity. Of the 49 dwellings at Riverview Condominiums, 13 units are classified as affordable housing.

In January 2009, the P&Z approved builder/developer Michael Burton’s planned River Walk condominium complex on Washington Avenue in Sandy Hook Center, where eight units of the 24 units would be designated as affordable housing. That project, which is based on the AHD regulations, has not yet been built.

In 2007, the P&Z and the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA) rejected Dauti Construction, LLC’s, proposal for Edona Commons, a 26-unit condominium complex on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center, which would include eight units of affordable housing.

P&Z members have generally criticized the Edona Commons proposal because the project would require many existing town AHD regulations to be modified to allow the construction of a much more densely built project on a physically rugged site than the existing AHD rules would otherwise allow.

WSA members turned down providing a sanitary sewer connection for the project, saying that the application for sewer service did not meet the pertinent criteria for receiving sewer service. 

In December, Dauti won two Connecticut Appellate Court cases, which upheld his past Superior Court victories over the town in his drive to build the Edona Commons complex.

Town officials have been reviewing whether the town should seek to have the Connecticut Supreme Court formally review those appellate court victories.

Affordable Housing

Under the state’s definition of affordable housing, Newtown falls far below the state’s ten percent goal for local affordable housing. The state’s definition requires that such housing have long-term deed restrictions placed on it to keep such dwellings “affordable” in the context of the regional real estate market.

While in practical terms, some local housing, such as mobile homes and accessory apartments, may be “affordable,” because those dwellings are not deed-restricted in terms of affordability, they do not meet the state’s definition of affordable housing.

In a typical affordable housing complex, a land use agency offers a developer a “density bonus” as an incentive to create affordable housing, which is intended for moderate-income and low-income families.

Such a density bonus allows the developer to build a larger number of dwellings than would be normally allowed at a site, provided that a significant fraction of the units are designated for moderate-income and low-income families, and are sold at prices significantly lower than the market rate for such dwellings. The higher prices of the market-rate units on the site subsidize the affordable units.

On the topic of affordable housing, the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development states that the town lacks an adequate supply of housing for a broad spectrum of ages and incomes. Also, many people who work in town do not have an opportunity to live in the town where they work, the plan adds.

“Due to the lack of affordable housing, some Newtown residents will not continue to reside in town, as their personal circumstances, incomes, and housing needs change over time,” it adds.

A goal of the 2004 Town Plan is to: “Strive for a more balanced supply of housing types that will accommodate the housing needs of Newtown residents and those working in Newtown.”