Following lengthy discussion at a heavily attended January 15 Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing, commission members unanimously approved a new set of zoning regulations that would cover high-density, multifamily housing complexes that include an affordable housing component.

It was the fourth successive P&Z session at which members discussed the controversial topic, which has dawn criticism from some Walnut Tree Hill Road area residents who expect that the new rules would be used by a developer who plans to pursue the construction of a large multifamily complex on 35 undeveloped acres at 79 Church Hill Road. Vehicular access would be provided from the adjacent Walnut Tree Hill Road.

The new zoning rules, which had been known as Mixed-Use, Mixed-Income-10 Overlay Zone (MUMI-10) since they were first discussed by the P&Z on November 20, have been renamed as Incentive Housing-10 Overlay Zone (IH-10). The new rules are the fourth draft of the zoning proposal.

That name change followed certain changes being made to then-proposed regulations that would allow the mixed-use, or the commercial use, aspect of the rules to function in cases where the underlying land-use zone is a business zone, but not in cases where the underlying land-use zone is a residential zone.

In cases where the underlying zone is a hybrid zone, such as the Business Professional Office (BPO) zone, limited commercial uses would be allowed.

Under the IH-10 rules, because 79 Church Hill Road has underlying BPO zoning, certain ground-level commercial uses would be allowed at the proposed multifamily complex, which would have an affordable housing component.

In 2008, the P&Z changed the zoning designation from R-1 and R-2 Residential to BPO for property on both sides of Church Hill Road in the area extending from Church Hill Road's intersection with Dayton Street to the Exit 10 ramps for westbound Interstate 84. That area includes 79 Church Hill Road.

The types of business uses that would customarily be allowed at a BPO-zoned multifamily complex would include financial institutions, medical/dental facilities, and office space. Retail uses would not be allowed there.

The types of uses that would be allowed there by special permit would include adult day care, child day care, veterinary hospitals, places of religious worship, as well as personal services establishments which include businesses such as barber shops, beauty salons, day spas, nail salons, health clubs, fitness centers, gymnastics facilities, shoe repair, tailoring, dressmaking, photography studios, clothing rentals, counseling services, and pet grooming.

George Benson, town director of planning, noted that the developer who wants to build a multifamily complex at 79 Church Hill Road has indicated that he is interested in constructing only housing, not commercial facilities there.

That developer, Sirjohn Papageorge of Trumbull, doing business as 79 Church Hill Road LLC, has a purchase option to buy the land from owner Carmine Renzulli of Norwalk.

The development firm has sued the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA) in seeking to have a judge order the WSA to expand the municipal sanitary sewer service district, so that all of the 35-acre parcel is placed within the sewer district, not just a three-acre section of the parcel, as is now the case.

An Alternative For Developers

P&Z members created IH-10 zoning as an alternative for developers to the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act of 1990 (AHAA).

The AHAA process smoothes the legal path for a developer to construct a multifamily complex with at least 30 percent of its units designated as affordable housing, provided that the developer’s land use application is first rejected by a local land use agency and the developer then appeals that rejection in state court. In such court cases, the developer most likely would win that appeal under the terms of the AHAA law.

Because less than ten percent of the housing stock in Newtown is technically designated as affordable housing for low- and moderate-income families, the town is subject to AHAA court actions.

P&Z members have explained that the IH-10 rules would allow them some control over the design of multifamily complex, unlike the AHAA appeals victories by developers in which land use agencies have no such design control.

Under the terms of the AHAA law, the town in 2009 lost a costly, long-running court battle to a Danbury developer over his proposal to build a multifamily complex with an affordable housing component on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center. That project, known as Edona Commons, is partially built.

Through the AHAA process, that developer created his own set of customized zoning regulations for the complex, known as the Mixed-Income Housing District (MIHD) zone, which the court then approved.

Those MIHD rules allowed a much higher construction density than was allowed by the P&Z-endorsed Affordable Housing Development (AHD) zoning regulations, which the developer had rejected. The developer’s court victory effectively neutralized those AHD regulations.

Notably, in 2009 the P&Z had approved the construction of a multifamily housing complex on Washington Avenue known as The River Walk under the terms of the AHD rules, but that complex was never constructed.

Public Hearing

P&Z Chairman Robert Mulholland pointed out that the IH-10 rules would require that at least 20 percent of the units in a multifamily complex be designated as affordable housing.

Also, through the IH-10 rules, the P&Z is seeking to ensure that it has some design control over complexes, he said.

Mary Fellows of 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road told P&Z members that the town owns the Fairfield Hills core campus, suggesting that it be used for housing development such as that anticipated for 79 Church Hill Road.

The Church Hill Road area is congested, she said, adding that Fairfield Hills has many advantages as a site for a multifamily complex. The Walnut Tree Hill Road area already has much development, she said, in apparent reference to the 212-unit Walnut Tree Village age-restricted condominium complex there.

Mr Benson responded that the IH-10 zoning rules are not intended for any specific property, adding that such zoning rules seek to be protective of the public.

“We’re trying to do the best we can for the town,” he said.

The IH-10 zone would require a minimum 10-acre site size, sanitary sewer service, public waster service, and frontage on a major road, he said.

“Housing patterns are changing, and Newtown is changing. You can’t help it,” said P&Z member Donald Mitchell.

The town has identified seven sites locally where IH-10 zoning might be employed. Six of those sites are in Hawleyville.

James Roodhuyzen of 60 Schoolhouse Hill Road asked whether there is some way for the town to prevent a multifamily complex from being built at 79 Church Hill Road.

Mr Mulholland responded that such a complex could not be prevented, under the terms of the state’s AHAA process.

Mr Roodhuyzen asked how such high-density development would be permissible, when considering the hazards posed by heavy traffic on Church Hill Road near the site.

Mr Benson responded that the AHAA process does not allow traffic conditions to be the basis for rejecting a proposed multifamily complex.

Kenneth Chimileski of 22 Walnut Tree Hill Road observed that southern Walnut Tree Hill Road already has a 212-unit condo complex, adding that there are other more suitable places in town for new housing complexes.

Julia Nable of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road said that side streets, such as Walnut Tree Hill Road, should not have high-density housing complexes built on them.

The IH-10 zoning regulations are not protective of the public, she said.

Allowing three-story-tall buildings in a complex that has a commercial component is not appropriate and does not protect the rural character of the town, she said.

The public should be more involved in the process of formulating new zoning regulations, Ms Nable said.

Elizabeth Koschel of 20 Evergreen Road urged that when considering an eventual application for the development of 79 Church Hill Road, P&Z members think of that application in terms of it being “in their backyards.” The rear yard of 20 Evergreen Road abuts 79 Church Hill Road.

The irregularly shaped parcel at 79 Church Hill Road lies generally north of Church Hill Road, west of Walnut Tree Hill Road, south of Evergreen Road, and east of I-84.

Linda Jones of 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road urged that the P&Z work closely with residents in formulating zoning regulations.

Mr Mulholland acknowledged her concerns and urged that Ms Jones seek office as a P&Z member to implement her concerns.

Local developer/builder Michael Burton told P&Z members that the current AHD regulations are not workable rules, adding that he wants the agency to create a better set of rules covering affordable housing.

P&Z Review

P&Z member Frank Corigliano observed that if the P&Z does not enact the IH-10 rules, then developers pursuing constructing multifamily complexes with an affordable housing component through the AHAA process would effectively be allowed to create higher construction densities than the IH-10 rules would allow.

The P&Z’s zoning proposal represents a “fair compromise,” he said. “We’re pretty much between a rock and hard place,” he added.

Considering that the IH-10 rules would provide the P&Z with an opportunity to regulate the design of multifamily complexes, “This is the way to go,” said P&Z member David Ruhs.

P&Z member Jim Swift said it would be good if the P&Z had more information on what the developer is proposing for 79 Church Hill Road.

The developer has not disclosed how many dwellings he wants to build at the site.

Having the ability to influence the appearance of a multifamily complex is important said Mr Mulholland.

P&Z members then voted on what had been known as the MUMI-10 rules and are now known as the IH-10 rules.

Voting in favor were Messrs Mulholland, Swift, Mitchell, Corigliano, and Michael Porco, Sr.