NewCanaanite.com recently received the following letter(s) to the editor. Please send letters to editor@newcanaanite.com for publication here.
***
Editor,
Public concern about large housing with affordable units is understandable, but more information is required to fully comprehend all of its implications. Both the Town and the State recognize the need for increasing affordable housing without the use of taxpayer public funding, but each has entirely different ways to achieve the goal.
New Canaan added a small surcharge to the construction permit fee. This surcharge provides “seed money” for our Housing Authority and the Authority is diligently building more affordable housing with private financing. The State, on the other hand, wants private developers to do this job. In order to provide incentives through the often quoted General Statute 8-30g, the State allows developers to build 7 housing units for each 3 affordable units without regardless to— and even in violation of —all local zoning. For example, under 8-30g a developer who builds 30 affordable apartments can build a 100-unit building and the Planning & Zoning Commission would be powerless to stop it.
The State has another requirement too. Every municipality—whether New Canaan or Bridgeport or any other— must have 10% of its dwelling units designated as “affordable.” (Notes, that “affordable” ONLY refers to units which meet specific States legal definitions, nota real estate term).
Now Canaan has approximately 7,500 homes, so that means the Town must have 750 affordable units. While the Housing Authority is continuously building them, as of now we only have 220; so the State expects us to build 530 more. (Our units will rise to around 260 with the completion of the next phase of Canaan’s Parish).
If more additional units are to be built on a 8-30g basis, developers would have to build a total of 1700_units in New Canaan—or 17 large buildings, similar to the one now being proposed for Weed and Elm.
Needless to say, although adding 17 such large buildings in New Canaan would be unimaginable, neither Planning & Zoning nor the Town has any power to stop such additional development pursuant to 8-30g. Residents who wish to oppose such additional development must direct all their petitions and protests to the Governor and leaders of our state legislators.
Laszlo Papp, past chairman of Planning & Zoning Commission
Hi Laszlo, thank you for this letter and also for all you did getting the ‘seed money’ program started in New Canaan – we all owe you a debt of thanks.
As you know this State law has been around since 1989 so this issue is not really new, but with the strong housing market it appears to be getting more attention by developers and residents. The issue for New Canaan has been the long term planning to deal with this law, so there is more the town could, can and should do rather than only point to Hartford as the issue. For those interested here is a good data set from the State which I believe shows the current affordable housing stock by town https://data.ct.gov/Housing-and-Development/Affordable-Housing-by-Town-2011-2020/3udy-56vi. If people download this they will see the town with the highest affordable housing percentage is Hartford at 39.87% of its stock and Warren has the lowest at 0.12%. Only 31 towns in the State have more than 10% of their stock affordable. Some close towns to us shake out as follows:
Weston 0.22%
Redding 0.47%
New Canaan 2.94%
Ridgefield 3.05%
Darien 3.56%
Wilton 3.58%
Westport 3.72%
Greenwich 5.35%
Norwalk 13.5%
Stamford 15.65%
Thank you, Laszlo for this clarification (and visual imagery), specifically pointing out that this is a matter requiring focus on state, not local decision- makers.
Laszlo, you are thoughtful and wise, as usual.
I respectfully, but whole-heartedly disagree.
Laszlo makes a clear argument as to the extreme punitive nature of 8-30g, and its ramifications, but then asks for P&Z and town officials to be absolved for being ill-prepared and non-compliant because the law is too hard. Sounds like an argument my kids would use….”But it’s not my fault!” This was no surprise. State affordable housing laws have been in place for over thirty years. If anything this argument illustrates how essential it was for New Canaan to ensure our moratorium didn’t lapse. However according to the New Canaanite we are still “hard at work re-applying”.
I don’t buy into the blame Hartford for everything. Sure, I believe measures should be taken to amend 8-30g and please write to the Governor, but where is the town’s responsibility in all of this? Laszlo says, “We have no power to stop this.” Here’s an idea: Identify usable sites in town for affordable housing and find a way to build more units. I acknowledge that attempts have been made with Canaan Parish and raising seed money etc etc. However, according to Laszlo’s calculations we are 500 plus units short. It’s not like we almost made it to the finish line. New Canaan is 7% shy of the 10% goal. Protecting taxpayers from publicly funding affordable housing may be a noble goal, but taxpayers are ultimately left dealing with the repercussions.
To state we are powerless implies we should just roll over and have no tools at our disposal. I disagree and I believe so do most of New Canaan’s residents.
Excellent points.
I would like to add a little perspective to the conversation.
To provide a scope of magnitude of the challenges of 8-30g, each of the projects at Millport, Canaan Parish, and the Vue are around 100 units (first two are affordable, Vue is not, Canaan Parish is currently half completed). To meet the 8-30g standards, we need to find the land and construct five and a half additional projects of equivalent size. Each of these projects takes years to coordinate, design, approve, prepare for, and construct. The rough cost would be in the $250,000,000 range (financed with both equity and borrowing). This is clearly a massive undertaking even if everyone in Town would agree on exactly where these developments would go and what they would look like (does anyone think that would happen in New Canaan?).
I also want to provide my observations from testifying on an 8-30g review bill proposed in the Senate. Out of approximately 60 speakers, around 75% were STRONGLY in favor of forcing towns to do more for affordable housing and either wanted to strengthen requirements in 8-30g or implement more stringent rules (beware the “fair share housing” proposals). Those of us in favor of reviewing the totally anticipatable yet detrimental aspects of the bill were in the clear minority.
It will take a concerted effort by suburban communities throughout the state in order to prevent even more onerous conditions being imposed on us.
Scott:
At Canaan Parish photo op you stated the application for moratorium process is extremely difficult and there is only 1 Consultant in all of CT who can assist with the application. Could you please answer the following questions.
1) what agency and individuals were responsible for the lapse in the moratorium.
2) what agency and individuals are currently working on the moratorium ?
3) Who is the consultant that is helping with the application now?
4) Were any individuals on the NC HSG authority and/or Cannan Parish involved with the application process previously and/or currently?
Very concerning citizens can’t get this information. Rest assured, we will.
Respectfully,
Greg Moore
Greg,
Thank you for your inquiry. I will do my best to answer your questions.
It was never my intention to say that there is only one consultant in all of CT who knows how to complete the 8-30g application. What I said was that the application is very complicated (I believe ours will be in excess of 600 pages, but that should be confirmed), very few of them have ever been filed and that it is extremely difficult to find someone to do it. The Town had been lucky enough to contract with a woman who had just filed one for Ridgefield last time, but she has long since retired. While it was not my responsibility, I attempted to help by reaching out to several law firms and architectural contracts to try to entice them into the process. None were interested.
1) I don’t think that your question is phrased correctly. 8-30g moratoriums expire after 4 years. Many folks and parts of the town government continually try to achieve enough points to get to the next moratorium level. This is extremely hard to do and takes a ton of time and money to achieve. We would have succeeded had not the state frozen previously approved funds and had we not run into Covid/related supply chain issues.
2) The moratorium paperwork flows through Planning and Zoning.
3) Apologies that I do not remember the name of the woman working on the moratorium application. P&Z can provide that.
4) I do not know on what date she was hired.
5) HANC provides supporting data for the application. Canaan Parish is under the HANC umbrella.
I hope that this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Scott
Thank you for your response. At least we now know that P&Z has many questions to answer.
Agreed, the mandate is coming from Hartford. But there are tools our P&Z should be using.
How is it that there are no affordable housing units at The Vue? It added how many more living units to New Canaan, actually decreasing our affordable housing percentage.
P&Z, in conjunction with our housing authority, should be requiring affordable housing in every high-density building.
Agree and why wasn’t this done sooner. A local requirement which gets us to the 10%. Can it be done retroactively?
Please note there will be a Public Hearing on Affordable Housing Policies on Thursday, March 3, at 2 p.m. via Zoom. The Housing Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly will hold a public hearing on S.B. 169. This is a one-page bill that simply says: “The Commissioner of Housing shall conduct a study of the affordable housing policies, as set forth in section 8-30g of the general statutes, and the effects of such policies in the state, to identify any recommended amendments to said section to improve affordable housing opportunities for residents in the state.
***Please email written testimony to:hsgtestimony@cga.ct.gov in a Word document or PDF format. Please include your full legal name, street address, city and state.
Please see link to article below that includes the registration link:
http://www.icontact-archive.com/archive?c=373633&f=150120&s=162924&m=1209244&t=71a27f127e6b935ac625ab928c966905ca3ff835a0f4be31914ec2841d9a3eb2
****There is a lottery for speaker testimonies so it may be better to email a written testimony.
Given the sobering reality Scott Hobbs points out, perhaps we should consider a larger area, where 400-500 units could be built. This would allow the town to meet the state requirement in one fell swoop, or come close to it, and avoid destroying the character of 5 or more residential neighborhoods, of unknown location, which will only add to the anxiety many of us are experiencing due to the Weed/Elm proposal. Also, the immediate village can’t handle much more density.
Two areas of Waveny Park come to mind (I know, gulp)— the west side of Lapham Road, and/or the field and south woods along the Merritt. All of these locations are on the outskirts of town and tie-in with exits 35/ 36, State roads Rte. 124 and Rte. 106, and seldom-used Lapham Road, which is superior to anything close to the downtown area. Furthermore, building in the woods of the park, along the Merritt, would have minimal effect on neighboring property values, and have zero loom impact to neighbors. Obviously, any solution will require major compromises, but I believe we should think big and be done with it. As Scott points out, the pressures from the State for more affordable housing will only grow.
Hi William,
If you are looking for property that the town already owns / controls for such a scale development, from what I can tell the list is below (its present use is reflected in my note). Parking of course if converted to housing would require decking or digging to avoid too many lost slots in town. Moving / dealing with the Police Station and the general complex there is a discussion that is already ongoing.
Lumberyard ~2.9 acres – parking
77 Main Street 3.7 acres – Town Hall, Vine Cottage and parking
16 Locust Ave 1.3 acres – parking
South Ave & Morse Court ~ 1 acre – Parking
Park Street ~.75 acre – Parking
76 South Ave 2.45 Acres – Parking
156 South Ave 2.9 acres – Senior living
174 South Ave ~1.8 acres – Police Station
Farm Road ~ 20 acres – woods between High School and Saxe
Talmadge Hill Road ~7.4 acres part parking and part undeveloped
This is before you talk about Waveny where 215 Lapham Road has 50 Acres, which is woods and the mulch pile. Waveny proper (677 South Ave) has 202 acres and I would think very unpopular to develop.
Thanks Giacomo. Looking aerially, the Waveny woods are an obvious choice. There is easy access to/from major roads, and there are no neighbors to disturb. If we leave this to developers to do incrementally, it will cause a lot more pain over a longer period of time.
Exactly – there is zero financial incentive for developers to actually see New Canaan get to the 10% level as then the 8-30g hammer would go away (actually the developers would destroy financial value for themselves if we did get to 10%). As with most things we need to solve this ourselves as a community, or others will attempt to ‘solve’ it for us.
The mulch pile looks to be too low to be joined to town sewers. Otherwise, the site is flat, close to parks, schools, Talmadge Hill and the Merritt. Maybe the sewage could be pumped up to the level of Waveny House and Lapham Center, which are on town sewers.
HB 5429 Testimony today from Francis Pickering, ED of Western CT Council of Governments. A must read to oppose this bill. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/PDdata/Tmy/2022HB-05429-R000314-Pickering,%20Francis,%20Executive%20Director-WestCOG-Oppose-TMY.PDF
I have noticed that the land opposite Waveny along Lapham road is having a number of trees cleared. Is that being done to expand the “disc golf” course? Having walked in that area for many years, I am wondering what the town is doing there.
Hi Paul, Those trees were tagged following a recommendation from the tree warden. The selectmen approved a $7,560 contract with Almstead Tree and Shrub Care Company at its meeting last week. It’s not done to expand the disc golf course. The trees that are tagged were identified as dead or dying, posing a safety risk to those who walk that area (disc golf players, primarily, but others, too). -Mike
Even if one disregards that building housing in Waveny Park would cut up the jewel of New Canaan, building housing in the Park is not an option. More particularly, placing it on Parcel E of the Park (the appx. 51 acres along Lapham Road), is not possible for a plethora of reasons, including: (1) when Parcel E was transferred by Ruth Lapham Lloyd to the Town there were deed restrictions placed on the Parcel that limit its use to recreation, health, horticulture, public park and gardens; and (2) it is park space and Connecticut General Statues sec. 7-131n provides that if park space is taken for another purpose the town needs to replace it with similar land that is at least equal in acreage and value to the park land taken. Fifteen to eighteen acres of this area was proposed in 2009 to be used for senior housing and the project did not move forward since it was not a viable option, and Attorney General Blumenthal at the time stated that if the project moved forward, “We have a responsibility that the public or charitable use of land in the donation is used for that purpose, and this land in Waveny was a charitable gift and has a restriction on its use.” “We would intercede if there were a violation of the charitable intent.”