P&Z Considers New Zone For 'Affordable Housing'
A group of Walnut Tree Hill Road residents is monitoring the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) efforts to create a new zoning designation for high-density, multifamily housing, which would include an “affordable housing” component.
The group is paying close attention since one of the two local sites now being eyed by developers for such growth is land lying between Walnut Tree Hill Road and Interstate 84.
At a December 4 public hearing, P&Z members reviewed a six-page proposal for a Mixed-Use, Mixed-Income Overlay Zone (MUMI-10). The proposal under review is similar to a four-page proposal that the P&Z had considered on November 20, except that the revised version includes more detail and lists a range of design standards for such development. About 20 people attended the December 4 P&Z session.
The P&Z’s desire to create MUMI-10 zoning follows word that two firms want to develop high-density housing complexes at sites near Exit 10 and near Exit 9 of Interstate 84.
The MUMI-10 zoning designation would serve as a replacement zone for the town’s existing Affordable Housing Development Overlay Zone (AHD) regulations.
Also, the P&Z’s push to create MUMI-10 zoning comes in light of a Danbury developer’s past construction of an “affordable housing” complex in Sandy Hook Center whose plans the P&Z had rejected.
In 2009, developer Guri Dauti won court approval to build the 26-unit Edona Commons multifamily complex on Church Hill Road, under the terms of Mr Dauti’s Mixed-Income Housing District (MIHD) rules.
Mr Dauti had rejected using the P&Z-endorsed AHD regulations for his project, opting instead to create the MIHD rules, which allow a much higher construction density.
The courts ruled that the MIHD regulations were valid under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act, thus clearing the way for the construction of the complex, which is now partially built.
The proposed MUMI-10 zone provides for mixed land uses, mixed income levels of its residents, and a 10-acre minimum site size. The MUMI-10 proposal is a “self application,” in which the P&Z is the applicant for creating the overlay zone.
Developer Serge Papageorge is seeking to develop a multifamily project on a 35-acre site at 79 Church Hill Road, which is now owned by Carmine Renzulli. The number of units proposed has not been disclosed.
The irregularly-shaped parcel near Exit 10 lies generally north of Church Hill Road, west of Walnut Tree Hill Road, south of Evergreen Road, and east of I-84.
Also, an unnamed developer is seeking to build a multifamily project in the vicinity of Exit 9, on land off Covered Bridge Road, a side street that extends from Hawleyville Road. The number of units proposed has not been disclosed.
Having municipal zoning rules that provide for “affordable housing” is intended to help the town meet a state requirement that at least 10 percent of the housing stock in a municipality be formally designated as “affordable.”
“Affordable housing,” which has a technical definition, is housing that is sold or rented to occupants at prices considerably lower than market-rate prices.
P&Z Chairman Robert Mulholland said that MUMI-10 zoning regulations would provide the P&Z with some control over the design and appearance of multifamily complexes that include affordable housing.
P&Z member Michael Porco, Sr, noted that there are three mobile-home parks in Newtown.
George Benson, town director of planning, pointed out, however, that mobile homes are not considered “affordable housing” under the terms of state law because such residences are not “deed-restricted” for that purpose. Consequently, the presence of mobile homes cannot be included in the state’s minimum 10 percent affordable housing requirement for municipalities, he said.
Attorney Peter Scalzo of Bethel, who represents the unnamed developer interested in creating a multifamily/affordable housing project in Hawleyville, described aspects of the state’s affordable housing law to P&Z members.
Conflict of Interest
Resident Kevin Fitzgerald of 24 Old Farm Hill Road charged that there was a conflict of interest for Mr Benson in having Mr Scalzo sit at the applicant’s table with Mr Benson while the P&Z was holding the December 4 public hearing on the MUMI-10 zoning proposal.
“For the record, I see a conflict of interest,” Mr Fitzgerald told P&Z members.
“I see no conflict of interest,” Mr Benson responded.
“When you’re looking at affordable housing, you’re really going to change the character of the town,” said Mr Porco. He said he would produce a list of modifications for the proposed MUMI-10 zoning rules.
Mr Benson said he fears that a developer would pursue plans to construct a multifamily complex with an affordable housing component under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act and then prevail in court.
“I fear we’ll wind up with a couple of developments that we don’t want,” Mr Benson said.
The MUMI-10 proposal offers an alternative to the town, which would provide it with some control over a project’s design, he said. Mr Benson urged P&Z members to recall the lessons learned from the Edona Commons application.
Public Comment
Local builder/developer Michael Burton told P&Z members that he received a 2009 P&Z approval to construct a 26-unit multifamily complex off Washington Avenue in Sandy Hook Center under the terms of the P&Z’s AHD zoning regulations. The project, The River Walk, has not been constructed, although there was much public interest in it, Mr Burton said.
“I think your intent here is good,” Mr Burton said of the MUMI-10 proposal.
“This [MUMI-10 zone] could be a workable document for developers and the town,” he said.
Mary Burnham of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road said that she lives next to Walnut Tree Village, a 212-unit age-restricted condominium complex.
If the 35-acre site at 79 Church Hill Road gets approval for public sanitary sewers and public water, “We will get squeezed” between Walnut Tree Village and the proposed multifamily complex, she told P&Z members.
Ms Burnham asked why the MUMI-10 zoning includes mixed-use provisions that would allow a commercial component. She also asked why the regulations would allow structures that would be as tall as 42 feet.
Allowing 12 units per acre would constitute too high a construction density, she said.
“The less high, the better. The less dense, the better,” she said.
“Please look at the buffers…It’s very important to have large buffers,” she said. Buffers are undeveloped areas that lie between one property and the next.
“We already have a dangerous situation,” Ms Burnham said of traffic flow on Walnut Tree Hill Road. Area residents are concerned about more development in the area resulting in more accidents on the road, she said. “We live on a dangerous road,” she stressed.
Ms Burnham urged P&Z members to modify the MUMI-10 proposal in light of her concerns.
Pat Napolitano of 13 Whippoorwill Hill Road said he understands the P&Z’s intent in seeking MUMI-10 zoning as a protective measure, voicing concerns about the issues of traffic flow and the need for suitable buffers.
Bill Jensen of 171 Jennifer Lane at Walnut Tree Village told P&Z members that the traffic flow on Walnut Tree Hill Road is very heavy, especially in the morning.
Mr Mulholland said that the P&Z would closely review the traffic aspects of any eventual development application.
Julia Nable of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road told P&Z members that Walnut Tree Hill Road is the scene of many accidents, especially on the road section between its intersections with Church Hill Road and Evergreen Road.
Traffic stemming from the presence of a new housing complex would enter and exit that complex at Walnut Tree Hill Road, she said.
“It really would be a reckless decision if something like this is added to the area,” Ms Nable said.
Structures that are 42 feet tall would be too tall, she added.
“The people on Walnut Tree Hill Road have been through a lot…We’re well organized,” she said.
The presence of another multifamily complex would pose traffic safety issues for Walnut Tree Hill Road, she said.
“Our job is to try to control it as best we possibly can,” Mr Mulholland said of development projects.
Zoltan Csillag of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road suggested that multifamily development occur at Fairfield Hills, instead of Walnut Tree Hill Road.
“We certainly are going to fight this,” Mr Csillag said of any new high-density development on Walnut Tree Hill Road.
Jack Bestor of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road told P&Z members “We’ve already had to put up with one large development behind us [Walnut Tree Village], and now face the prospect of another one.”
The height of buildings in such a complex is an important factor, he said.
Mr Bestor said he appreciates the P&Z’s efforts in terms of crafting MUMI-10 zoning regulations.
Robin Fitzgerald of 24 Old Farm Hill Road urged P&Z members to carefully consider the implications of MUMI-10 zoning.
“Take your time with this and really consider everything,” she said, noting that such development could result in many new students for local schools.
Real estate broker Bryan Atherton, who represents Mr Renzulli, said “Density is good…Mixed-use is hot now…It is very, very desirable,” he said.
Ken Chimileski of 22 Walnut Tree Hill Road urged that Newtown not turn into a “city.”
In response to the public comments, Mr Mulholland said, “We’re going to take all of your input under advisement” in reviewing the proposed MUMI-10 zoning regulations.
The P&Z is expected to again discuss the MUMI-10 zoning proposal at its December 18 meeting when the public hearing on the topic resumes.
MUMI-10 Provisions
According to the general text of the proposed MUMI-10 rules, the intent of the zone is to allow affordable housing in mixed-use developments at locations with adequate transportation and utility services, in order to provide housing choice and variety for those working in Newtown, single-parent households, and aging households, among others.
The regulations seek to protect open spaces and rural areas of the community by encouraging development in “smart growth” locations, according to the text.
The rules promote the inclusion of affordable housing units in mixed-use, mixed-income developments consistent with topography, soil types, and infrastructure capacity, it adds. The rules seek to ensure high-quality design that is sensitive to the rural character of the community and the neighborhood surrounding the development in particular.
The zoning regulations would allow residential and commercial uses on a site.
A group of Walnut Tree Hill Road residents is monitoring the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) efforts to create a new zoning designation for high-density, multifamily housing, which would include an “affordable housing” component.
The group is paying close attention since one of the two local sites now being eyed by developers for such growth is land lying between Walnut Tree Hill Road and Interstate 84.
At a December 4 public hearing, P&Z members reviewed a six-page proposal for a Mixed-Use, Mixed-Income Overlay Zone (MUMI-10). The proposal under review is similar to a four-page proposal that the P&Z had considered on November 20, except that the revised version includes more detail and lists a range of design standards for such development. About 20 people attended the December 4 P&Z session.
The P&Z’s desire to create MUMI-10 zoning follows word that two firms want to develop high-density housing complexes at sites near Exit 10 and near Exit 9 of Interstate 84.
The MUMI-10 zoning designation would serve as a replacement zone for the town’s existing Affordable Housing Development Overlay Zone (AHD) regulations.
Also, the P&Z’s push to create MUMI-10 zoning comes in light of a Danbury developer’s past construction of an “affordable housing” complex in Sandy Hook Center whose plans the P&Z had rejected.
In 2009, developer Guri Dauti won court approval to build the 26-unit Edona Commons multifamily complex on Church Hill Road, under the terms of Mr Dauti’s Mixed-Income Housing District (MIHD) rules.
Mr Dauti had rejected using the P&Z-endorsed AHD regulations for his project, opting instead to create the MIHD rules, which allow a much higher construction density.
The courts ruled that the MIHD regulations were valid under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act, thus clearing the way for the construction of the complex, which is now partially built.
The proposed MUMI-10 zone provides for mixed land uses, mixed income levels of its residents, and a 10-acre minimum site size. The MUMI-10 proposal is a “self application,” in which the P&Z is the applicant for creating the overlay zone.
Developer Serge Papageorge is seeking to develop a multifamily project on a 35-acre site at 79 Church Hill Road, which is now owned by Carmine Renzulli. The number of units proposed has not been disclosed.
The irregularly-shaped parcel near Exit 10 lies generally north of Church Hill Road, west of Walnut Tree Hill Road, south of Evergreen Road, and east of I-84.
Also, an unnamed developer is seeking to build a multifamily project in the vicinity of Exit 9, on land off Covered Bridge Road, a side street that extends from Hawleyville Road. The number of units proposed has not been disclosed.
Having municipal zoning rules that provide for “affordable housing” is intended to help the town meet a state requirement that at least 10 percent of the housing stock in a municipality be formally designated as “affordable.”
“Affordable housing,” which has a technical definition, is housing that is sold or rented to occupants at prices considerably lower than market-rate prices.
P&Z Chairman Robert Mulholland said that MUMI-10 zoning regulations would provide the P&Z with some control over the design and appearance of multifamily complexes that include affordable housing.
P&Z member Michael Porco, Sr, noted that there are three mobile-home parks in Newtown.
George Benson, town director of planning, pointed out, however, that mobile homes are not considered “affordable housing” under the terms of state law because such residences are not “deed-restricted” for that purpose. Consequently, the presence of mobile homes cannot be included in the state’s minimum 10 percent affordable housing requirement for municipalities, he said.
Attorney Peter Scalzo of Bethel, who represents the unnamed developer interested in creating a multifamily/affordable housing project in Hawleyville, described aspects of the state’s affordable housing law to P&Z members.
Conflict of Interest
Resident Kevin Fitzgerald of 24 Old Farm Hill Road charged that there was a conflict of interest for Mr Benson in having Mr Scalzo sit at the applicant’s table with Mr Benson while the P&Z was holding the December 4 public hearing on the MUMI-10 zoning proposal.
“For the record, I see a conflict of interest,” Mr Fitzgerald told P&Z members.
“I see no conflict of interest,” Mr Benson responded.
“When you’re looking at affordable housing, you’re really going to change the character of the town,” said Mr Porco. He said he would produce a list of modifications for the proposed MUMI-10 zoning rules.
Mr Benson said he fears that a developer would pursue plans to construct a multifamily complex with an affordable housing component under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act and then prevail in court.
“I fear we’ll wind up with a couple of developments that we don’t want,” Mr Benson said.
The MUMI-10 proposal offers an alternative to the town, which would provide it with some control over a project’s design, he said. Mr Benson urged P&Z members to recall the lessons learned from the Edona Commons application.
Public Comment
Local builder/developer Michael Burton told P&Z members that he received a 2009 P&Z approval to construct a 26-unit multifamily complex off Washington Avenue in Sandy Hook Center under the terms of the P&Z’s AHD zoning regulations. The project, The River Walk, has not been constructed, although there was much public interest in it, Mr Burton said.
“I think your intent here is good,” Mr Burton said of the MUMI-10 proposal.
“This [MUMI-10 zone] could be a workable document for developers and the town,” he said.
Mary Burnham of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road said that she lives next to Walnut Tree Village, a 212-unit age-restricted condominium complex.
If the 35-acre site at 79 Church Hill Road gets approval for public sanitary sewers and public water, “We will get squeezed” between Walnut Tree Village and the proposed multifamily complex, she told P&Z members.
Ms Burnham asked why the MUMI-10 zoning includes mixed-use provisions that would allow a commercial component. She also asked why the regulations would allow structures that would be as tall as 42 feet.
Allowing 12 units per acre would constitute too high a construction density, she said.
“The less high, the better. The less dense, the better,” she said.
“Please look at the buffers…It’s very important to have large buffers,” she said. Buffers are undeveloped areas that lie between one property and the next.
“We already have a dangerous situation,” Ms Burnham said of traffic flow on Walnut Tree Hill Road. Area residents are concerned about more development in the area resulting in more accidents on the road, she said. “We live on a dangerous road,” she stressed.
Ms Burnham urged P&Z members to modify the MUMI-10 proposal in light of her concerns.
Pat Napolitano of 13 Whippoorwill Hill Road said he understands the P&Z’s intent in seeking MUMI-10 zoning as a protective measure, voicing concerns about the issues of traffic flow and the need for suitable buffers.
Bill Jensen of 171 Jennifer Lane at Walnut Tree Village told P&Z members that the traffic flow on Walnut Tree Hill Road is very heavy, especially in the morning.
Mr Mulholland said that the P&Z would closely review the traffic aspects of any eventual development application.
Julia Nable of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road told P&Z members that Walnut Tree Hill Road is the scene of many accidents, especially on the road section between its intersections with Church Hill Road and Evergreen Road.
Traffic stemming from the presence of a new housing complex would enter and exit that complex at Walnut Tree Hill Road, she said.
“It really would be a reckless decision if something like this is added to the area,” Ms Nable said.
Structures that are 42 feet tall would be too tall, she added.
“The people on Walnut Tree Hill Road have been through a lot…We’re well organized,” she said.
The presence of another multifamily complex would pose traffic safety issues for Walnut Tree Hill Road, she said.
“Our job is to try to control it as best we possibly can,” Mr Mulholland said of development projects.
Zoltan Csillag of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road suggested that multifamily development occur at Fairfield Hills, instead of Walnut Tree Hill Road.
“We certainly are going to fight this,” Mr Csillag said of any new high-density development on Walnut Tree Hill Road.
Jack Bestor of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road told P&Z members “We’ve already had to put up with one large development behind us [Walnut Tree Village], and now face the prospect of another one.”
The height of buildings in such a complex is an important factor, he said.
Mr Bestor said he appreciates the P&Z’s efforts in terms of crafting MUMI-10 zoning regulations.
Robin Fitzgerald of 24 Old Farm Hill Road urged P&Z members to carefully consider the implications of MUMI-10 zoning.
“Take your time with this and really consider everything,” she said, noting that such development could result in many new students for local schools.
Real estate broker Bryan Atherton, who represents Mr Renzulli, said “Density is good…Mixed-use is hot now…It is very, very desirable,” he said.
Ken Chimileski of 22 Walnut Tree Hill Road urged that Newtown not turn into a “city.”
In response to the public comments, Mr Mulholland said, “We’re going to take all of your input under advisement” in reviewing the proposed MUMI-10 zoning regulations.
The P&Z is expected to again discuss the MUMI-10 zoning proposal at its December 18 meeting when the public hearing on the topic resumes.
MUMI-10 Provisions
According to the general text of the proposed MUMI-10 rules, the intent of the zone is to allow affordable housing in mixed-use developments at locations with adequate transportation and utility services, in order to provide housing choice and variety for those working in Newtown, single-parent households, and aging households, among others.
The regulations seek to protect open spaces and rural areas of the community by encouraging development in “smart growth” locations, according to the text.
The rules promote the inclusion of affordable housing units in mixed-use, mixed-income developments consistent with topography, soil types, and infrastructure capacity, it adds. The rules seek to ensure high-quality design that is sensitive to the rural character of the community and the neighborhood surrounding the development in particular.
The zoning regulations would allow residential and commercial uses on a site.