How do you propose tapping the brakes, Dave? 8-30g already trumps any local regulations- you don't have a brake pedal to push. Brookfield, Trumbull and now Ridgefield have a clear case for a moratorium based on the development (thanks to 8-30g) that has already occurred. I don't see a clear case for Newtown to request a moratorium... yet.
Nobody is suggesting shutting the doors on new neighbors. What neighboring towns are doing, and what we should be doing too, is to tap the brakes on all of the multi-family residential development proposals so that we can spend 6 months updating our regulations such that if you want to build dense residential housing here, XX percent of it needs to be affordable (we will never make any headway on increasing our percentage of affordable housing otherwise, short of 8-30g), and the rest needs to be done in as low an impact manner as possible. Low impact on traffic, health & safety, the environment and on the cost of town services.
Hey, there you go! Richard solved it. Thanks, that seems so easy- we'll just get rid of the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court. Seriously, the 2nd amendment doesn't create violent criminals or mental illness. The Supreme Court doesn't create violent criminals or mental illness. The problem is not the tools, but the criminals & the mental illness. The state of Connecticut seems to be focused on the tools, like Richard, while ignoring the users of those tools.
Ned, please familarize yourself with 8-30G, and then please share the unique flaws that may be helpful in formulating a denial
An 8-30g project can be denied only on very narrow grounds – i.e., if it presents health, safety or other concerns that exceed a town’s need for affordable housing.
According to the TOG website, “projects cannot be rejected for incompatibility with a Town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD); density; traffic congestion; height; aesthetics; concerns of neighbors or the community; and failure to comply with local zoning regulations.”
8-30g proposals are rarely denied by planning and zoning officials because the burden of proof on appeal is on the town. Appeals are costly, but a municipality can be successful in a court case if it has sufficiently established that the concerns leading to denial are factual and substantive.
The town should certainly measure its performance against the statewide strategies. Unless I missed it I only know of one small cluster of homes that would meet the affordable housing program. Given the 500 or so new units being added in the last 10 years I think that 4/500 would not meet the metric to allow for a moratorium. I mean, fingers crossed for a Christmas miracle but I suspect we will see a few 8-30's sent our way in a method to avoid the Nimby mob. Thanks, Nimby mob.
