P&Z Accepts Planning Study

On Affordable Housing

By Andrew Gorosko

Following discussion on the merits of a planning study performed to identify the areas of town considered the most suitable places to build “affordable housing,” Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have formally accepted that housing report.

The five-member panel, however, was not unanimous in accepting the 57-page study, which was prepared by Harrall-Michalowski Associates (HMA). The P&Z commissioned the affordable housing study in March 2009. HMA also prepared the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development for the P&Z.

Voting to accept the study on February 3 were P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean, Jane Brymer, Robert Mulholland, and Rudolph Pozek. Robert Poulin voted against accepting the document. Mr Poulin also had voiced concerns about the study when P&Z members briefly discussed it in January.

Ms Dean pointed out that the P&Z’s formally “accepting” the document is required if the town is to receive a $50,000 grant for the study from the state government.

Accepting the document does not commit the town to implementing the various recommendations made in the report, according to George Benson, town director of planning and land use.

The study was performed 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 terms “workforce housing” and “incentive housing.”

Of the several areas reviewed as potential locations for affordable housing, the consultant determined that three areas would be suitable places for such development due to their characteristics.

The 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).

Those areas are listed as suitable locations for affordable housing due to their access or potential access to sanitary sewers, public water supplies, and transportation facilities, plus their proximity to areas of existing concentrated development.

Discussion

In a discussion on the planning report, known as the Incentive Housing Zone Study, Ms Dean observed, “I would really like to accept that proposal.”

The consultants reviewed the whole town for suitable locations for affordable housing before recommending the three areas, Ms Dean said. Those locations meet the state’s criteria as appropriate places for such housing, she said.

The development densities for affordable housing complexes that are listed in the report reflect higher densities than are found in Newtown, she noted.

In accepting the housing report, the P&Z is not committing itself to the recommendations made in the study, Mr Benson reiterated. “We’re not really agreeing to anything,” he said.

Ms Dean observed that the P&Z’s acceptance of the housing study would be analogous to its past acceptance of another consultant’s planning study that was performed on “access management.” That 2010 report made a series of recommendations on how best to configure future “curb cuts,” or driveway intersections, along major local roads.

Basically, the P&Z asked HMA to study which areas of town would be most suitable for affordable housing, Ms Dean explained.

In opposing the housing study’s contents, Mr Poulin said, “I’m against government-mandated socialism.”

Mr Poulin questioned the consultants’ approach in performing the study. “This report gives no sub-data, whatsoever,” he said.

“The ‘median’ is not a good criterion,” he said of the use of that statistical device in the housing study.

“There ought to be bar charts in there,” he said of the graphic device often used to illustrate statistics.

Also, Mr Poulin objected to the “justification phase” of the document.

If the affordable housing described in the planning report were to be constructed, it would result in higher local property taxes, he said.

“I don’t like this document,” Mr Poulin stressed.

“This is a poor document. It shows only the pros and none of the cons,” of affordable housing, he said.

Mr Benson responded that the consultant prepared the report in manner typical of such planning reports. The consultant provided the information that the town had requested, Mr Benson said.

Mr Poulin said, however, that the report listed only the positive aspects of affordable housing, but none of its negative aspects.

“I dislike the justification for the incentive housing program,” Mr Poulin said.

“They wrote a document that [implies] incentive housing is like cream cheese,” he said.

P&Z members then voted to accept the report, with Mr Poulin dissenting.

Ms Dean stated that affordable housing complexes, such as the ones described in the report, tend not to contain very many school-age children.

It is the presence of school-age children in multifamily housing complexes, and the consequent local taxation to cover the costs for those children’s public education, which often is cited by opponents of such development.

Affordable Housing Goal

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.”