A planned housing complex on this property at 751 Weed St. in New Canaan is the subject of a fierce battle over the future of this residential neighborhood.
The three-acre corner property at 751 Weed St. in New Canaan, once a stylish estate, is now something of an eyesore. Sold to local real estate developer Arnold Karp in 2017 for almost $4 million, the 10,000-square-foot, Colonial-style manor’s paint is faded and peeling, the formerly lush grounds a mess, and the previously glistening pool and elegant poolhouse unsightly. Once, to live there would have been a dream. Now, for many town residents, and especially the neighbors, it’s become a nightmare.
In February 2022, an application to the New Canaan Planning & Zoning Commission, seeking “amendment, zone change and site plan approval of 751 Weed Street” was filed. The 50-page document explained an intent to legally circumvent local zoning regulations in order to build a 102-unit residential development with 30 percent affordable housing, in an area zoned exclusively for single-family homes.
Ordinarily perhaps a few townhouses subdividing the acreage of 751 might get P&Z’s reluctant approval. But a five-story complex that would loom over a main-roadway entrance to the “Next Station to Heaven,” as longtime locals affectionately call their beloved burg? No chance, right?
Wrong. Enter the Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure, better known by its statutory citation as 8-30g.
The edgy drama would make for a pretty fair reality TV show, with the protagonists being the mild-mannered but steely businessman Karp versus amiable but harried First Selectman Kevin Moynihan, each buttressed by expert legal counsel. Other cast members would be residents opposing the project who hired their own lawyers, using a Facebook page to grow membership, and a GoFundMe drive to support the cause.
Then come the guest-star politicians and local officials, all voicing opinions but careful not to sound like they don’t fully support affordable housing, lest they be labeled NIMBYs (“not in my backyard”).
The existing house at 751 Weed St. in New Canaan has fallen into disrepair and is regarded by many in town as an eyesore.
“Another acronym is BANANA — build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone,” quips Karp, who lived in New Canaan for 25 years before relocating to Greenwich. Probably a wise move, as “he’s made himself very unpopular here,” says Moynihan, though Karp’s headquarters remain in a high-end New Canaan residential/commercial complex he built and owns.
More and more people in one of Connecticut’s toniest towns are laser-focused on a topic, affordable housing, that has also become one of the state’s major talking points, with similar battles breaking out across Connecticut, and more sure to follow. Indeed, when the Weed Street proposal was to be open for public comment during the March P&Z meeting at Town Hall, it had to be taken off the calendar because too many people insisted on attending and being heard. It would be rescheduled in a much larger space.
A rendering of the proposed five-story, 102-unit complex that developer Arnold Karp wants to build on the property.
8-30g explained
Drafted and enacted in 1989, 8-30g (see sidebar below) was designed to overcome exclusionary aspects of many suburban Connecticut towns by allowing developers to skirt unfavorable zoning rulings as long as 30 percent of the units in a proposed complex were made affordable to low- and moderate-income households for 40 years.
While the New Canaan dispute is playing out in one of the state’s Gold Coast municipalities, where, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median value of a house is over $1.2 million and median household income over $200,000, a similar situation could unfold in any Connecticut town without 10 percent of its dwelling units deemed affordable, or without having been granted a four-year moratorium by the state Department of Housing for having such construction underway. New Canaan earned a moratorium for a previous affordable housing project, but it expired last year. The town is trying to get a new moratorium approved, but in the meantime, developers are able to utilize 8-30g to bypass P&Z.
Under 8-30g guidelines, “affordable” mainly means housing sold or rented for which people or families pay 30 percent or less of their income, when it is less than or equal to 80 percent of the town’s median income.
Only 31 Connecticut municipalities, including the eight most-populated ones, have at least 10 percent affordable housing, and thus are exempt from 8-30g. That leaves 138 which are not.
Cities with a great many multi-family buildings, such as Hartford (40 percent), New Haven (33 percent) and Bridgeport (21 percent), easily achieve the threshold. Towns with mostly single-family homes do not. New Canaan, as of last year, is under 3 percent. Of the 138 towns that are non-exempt, only 44 even hit 5 percent.
If an affordable housing application is denied by the local P&Z commission and the developer applies for 8-30g, P&Z must prove that its decision is necessary to protect substantial public interests in health, safety or other matters, and that such public interests clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing. Under 8-30g, P&Z must approve an affordable housing application even if it does not comply with lot-development standards in the zone, including height, coverage, setbacks, density and parking requirements, character of the zoning district, or use limitations.
“8-30g definitely puts a very significant burden on the local commission, there’s no question about that,” says Ira Bloom, the attorney for New Canaan and other towns, and a senior partner at the Westport firm of Berchem Moses. “And it’s a difficult burden. But this is the law we have. It expresses a policy adopted by the legislature and has not really changed. Every year there are proposals to modify it and none of them pass. So I make sure the local boards understand it and what they can and cannot do.
“There are certainly some developers deeply committed to providing affordable housing. There are others who start out seeking approvals and then switch to the 8-30g process if they can’t get what they want. So there’s all kinds of people filing the applications.”
This diagram illustrates the approximate size of the proposed Weed Street complex compared to the house on the adjoining property.
Getting political
Gov. Ned Lamont, at a plaque dedication last year for an affordable housing complex in his hometown of Greenwich, encouraged towns to be more proactive so Hartford doesn’t have to get involved. “We don’t need the state government to tell us what to do if we’re doing the right thing,” he said. “We’ve got to continue to take the lead or else folks do step in.”
Congressman Jim Himes, who represents much of Fairfield County, including New Canaan, plus part of New Haven County, recently noted that affordable housing is vital for seniors, millennials and those employed in the town. “We’ve got a crisis in terms of the availability of affordable housing in Connecticut, but particularly in the Fourth District, where right up until the top of the income distribution, people find it hard,” he said. “If you’re in the workforce — teachers, firefighters, even if you’re just starting out in a job that ultimately could be high-paying in Fairfield County — it’s hard to find housing. That has real implications. It’s hard for our seniors to stay in the communities they’ve lived in all their lives, and hard for young people to move here and add economic vitality to our region.
“We’re talking about how we can create the kind of housing so more people can move to where the jobs are and not be stressed by the inability to find housing, or pay a huge chunk of their income for housing. It’s a big challenge but we’re taking it up.”
Another benefit often cited regarding housing diversity, especially in upscale communities, is for more sharing of the best education opportunities. According to U.S. News & World Report, of the 50 highest-ranked high schools in Connecticut in 2021, only seven were in towns with at least 10 percent affordable housing.
To try and ensure that towns continue making more affordable housing a reality, Connecticut state law, enacted in 2017, requires that at least once every five years each municipality submit or amend an affordable housing plan to the state. The plan must specify how the municipality intends to increase the number of affordable housing developments within its borders. The deadline came and went June 1, with less than half of Connecticut’s municipalities complying.
New Canaan submitted a plan, which in its executive summary, states that the town is “flush with oversize housing units, but lacks smaller-size units appropriate for seniors, young families and young adults.” The plan puts forth four strategies including maintaining a “rolling” 8-30g moratorium to allow the town to “manage the type, form and location of affordable housing”; encouraging “private construction of housing” to support underserved groups; and conducting studies that “inform where existing housing stock should be conserved” and “where higher-density housing stock should be developed.”
Signs either supporting or opposing the proposed New Canaan building complex dot the area.
Opposing views collide
As the New Canaan story plays out, it’s basically Karp, insisting he’s not a predatory developer only in it for the bucks, squaring off with the town’s highest elected official, Moynihan, who says he approves of affordable housing, just not where he and many of his constituents don’t want it. The longtime acquaintances are more than willing to take each other to task.
Karp: “For five years I’ve said that I’m going to build something with greater density at 751 Weed Street. Moynihan turned down everything we wanted to build there. I said what the town needs is 600 units of senior housing, and here’s a great place to build 80 or 90 of those units. Nope, he didn’t want that, or a group of small houses. I kept saying we’re going to build something. I guess he thought I would wait forever.”
Moynihan: “It seems like everyone in town is against his plan. I understand why neighbors feel it would be quite a change for their neighborhood. I told him I was hearing rumors about him using 8-30g. I asked him why doesn’t he just build townhouses there, that he’d make more money. He said he knows he would, but wants to do this. It makes no sense to me. If it was an outside developer I’d feel differently, but he has a business here, so it’s a stupid strategy. I had a lot of respect for him but this to me is a dumb move.”
Karp: “I could have potentially made more money quicker by building townhouses, but they didn’t really want those either. I asked Kevin, ‘Where’s the next place the town’s going to build an affordable housing project?’ He said, ‘Oh, we’re not.’ That’s not the right answer. While I’ve been painted as the bad guy rocking the boat in New Canaan, people should worry that if I don’t build it, somebody else will, and not a four-story building. They’ll offer one for seven or eight stories. He said 751 Weed Street is the wrong place to build it. Well, jeez … it’s two blocks from downtown and less than half a mile from the train station. Where would he suggest?”
Moynihan: “I was surprised by Arnold’s (8-30g) filing because I never expected him to. To me it’s out of character for him to want to do this. I’m sure there’s going to be some kind of resolution. I don’t know exactly what his game plan is but he’s obviously got some kind of strategy. It may make sense for him but probably doesn’t make sense for New Canaan.”
New Canaan First Selectman Kevin Moynihan opposes the plan to build an apartment complex on Weed Street in New Canaan.
Karp: “This application can’t be stopped, but the truth of the matter is it shouldn’t be. Everybody in that neighborhood says move it elsewhere. Everybody elsewhere says put it somewhere else. It has to be built. It’s a need. Kevin’s view is that there are other places it should be built first. Then come up with something that works. Work with, not against, private developers. Don’t make it harder, or the buildings will get taller and bigger.”
Moynihan: “This woke people up. Arnold was quoted as saying he would work with the town. I don’t know why he didn’t sit down and talk to the town. He had that opportunity. 8-30g is nuclear for any developer.”
Who would live in the new affordable housing is also an issue. For upscale communities that have few minority and/or low-income residents, there can be some unease. But times change, insists Karp, and so should attitudes. “When people say New Canaan would be losing its character, what’s the character? That it has very little affordable housing, or that we’re working to provide more? I’d rather be the second part of that than the first,” he says.
“Some are overly concerned that it could be bringing in an element of citizens they may not be comfortable with. But if they open up affordable housing to people working or living in the town, like teachers, bank tellers, library workers, employees in the local stores, seniors, et cetera, then nothing changes. They’re already here, and we need to provide housing they can afford. It’s not like people are going to move from the communities they’re in and all of a sudden run to New Canaan.”
Arnold Karp of Karp Associates poses in front of the house at 751 Elm St., in New Canaan, Conn. June 28, 2022.
Locals unite to fight
On a sunny spring afternoon, Liz Moore was pushing signs into the ground that drivers would see on Weed Street in New Canaan. “SAVE WEED STREET” read one; “Affordable housing YES! Overdevelopment NO!” was the other.
The expansive backyard of Moore’s home abuts the pool and pool house inside the three-acre 751 Weed St. property. She explains that the rear of her house would face the development’s parking lot, with lights on at night, vehicles coming and going anytime, and the noise of people outside at any hour. She and neighbors also fear the specter of heavy, loud construction disrupting their tranquil home lives for years.
Moore explains that when moving there four years ago she and her husband purposefully bought in a single-family housing zone. “I’m from Chicago, and we came here from New York City, where we lived in a high-rise,” she says. “I support affordable housing, but it’s not right to have it forced into areas not zoned for those size buildings. And it would tower over our house.”
Chris DeMuth Jr. lives with his family on Weed Street, a few houses from 751. “Imagine you buy a home in a quiet residential neighborhood where you can raise your kids, and a developer buys the house next door to build a high-rise of mostly luxury condos, using an affordable housing law as a cover for a money-making scheme,” he says. “We want more diversity in our town; we want affordable housing. But as it’s written, 8-30g allows developers to exploit the law.”
DeMuth started a Facebook page entitled “Save New Canaan’s Weed Street,” which explained what he and many other residents worry would happen if the project were to go forward. It linked to a GoFundMe drive to cover expenses for privately hired legal counsel. “Historic Weed Street is under threat from developer Arnold Karp intent on putting up a high-density housing complex where a single home currently stands,” he wrote. “We oppose this project and seek better alternatives for building affordable and workforce housing in New Canaan.”
DeMuth further explained what he considered the danger of allowing the complex to be built. “It will destroy this neighborhood — snarling traffic, crowding schools, crushing home values and casting a once safe and quiet street into the shadow of a high-density high-rise,” he wrote. “If you live near this project, [it] will turn your home life upside down. Everything you moved here for is at stake. Their plan is to cram over 300 people into a lot currently occupied by a single-family home.
“Every housing project they erect gives them the money and influence to build the next one, and the one after that and the one after that, until there is nothing left of the town you once knew.”
Karp refutes DeMuth’s assertions. “It’s not factual and it’s not accurate, but it takes on a life of its own,” he says. “None of them want to come and sit down and speak to me. Any of the neighbors could have.”
The developer claims traffic patterns will not change significantly because cars come and go at differing times, not all at once. Schools would not become overcrowded, he says, because childless millennials and seniors will make up much of the tenant base. “And there are strict rules as to how many people can live in an apartment,” he explains, adding that there has been no proof that home values suffer with affordable housing nearby.
Nevertheless, within weeks of Karp’s intentions becoming known there were over 2,800 people signed to a change.org petition to stop the development, 900-plus joined the Facebook group, and more than 400 contributed over $84,000 for legal costs. Also, a poll asked, “Should New Canaan boycott Karp Associates?” the name of his firm. Respondents suggested not working with any real estate agent who did business with Karp. Quickly the tally was 161–1 to boycott.
“The fund is for regular people to fight a big developer with deep pockets, friends in the municipal government, and silent investors,” DeMuth says. “The negative impact on our sewers, water use, traffic, pedestrian safety, nearby wetlands, dark-sky compliance, and schools should give the town sufficient reason to reject this project at this location.”
Also on the GoFundMe page: “We have engaged two law firms with extensive land use and zoning law experience. A civil engineer has also been retained to provide a professional engineering review of the proposed plan.
“The media, town officials, and town lawyers seem to suggest that this law is impossible to defeat. We contend otherwise. The law cannot override sewer, water, safety, traffic or wetlands concerns or violations.”
Focusing on specifics
Karp and Moynihan have views of 8-30g that conflict because they have dissimilar goals. The dispute could take place in any Connecticut town vulnerable to 8-30g, as home ownership, land values and other considerations come into play. Both are steadfast in their beliefs.
Karp has been harshly criticized by New Canaanites in dozens of letters to town officials and acidic comments on a local website. He was labeled as someone “ruining” and “mugging” the town.
Projecting a calm demeanor while absorbing the vitriol, Karp, whose company has won multiple awards for homebuilding and design, is nonetheless taken aback by the fervor. “I’m dismayed,” he says. “People may not like the project, but they’ve made it personal. It’s business, but I also feel that it’s the right thing to do to build housing that is available to people in the community. I understand that for some it’s an emotional issue, but it really shouldn’t be.
“Nobody’s going to build something that’s two stories. It just doesn’t make economic sense. And to build anything new you need more density. But without 8-30g some towns would never build. All these communities say they’re under attack. They’re not. They just did nothing for 33 years, or didn’t do enough.”
Moynihan, a town resident since 1981, had a 35-year career as a corporate lawyer, then retired and took volunteer roles in local government and for charitable clubs. He ran for first selectman in 2017 on not much more than a whim. “I never expected to win,” he admits. “When I did I thought, ‘Holy cow, now I gotta do this job.’ ”
Lack of available town-owned land and the cost to buy more are issues that Moynihan feels New Canaan faces more than some neighbors. “Unlike Stamford and Norwalk, which get money from the state to build affordable housing, we get no money at all, so we’re on our own, and yet they set a (10 percent) goal with 8-30g,” he says. “You can’t argue with the policy behind the statute, but in a town like ours, which is pretty much 90 percent built out, it’s hard to find property. We have no more that works.
“Hartford is hopeless for New Canaan. The kinds of policies they put forth … now they’re talking about Fair Share [see sidebar below] which would mean 1,350 affordable housing units here, which is ludicrous. Even 750 is ludicrous. You need land. In other towns the land costs maybe one fourth what it does here. You simply can’t build affordable housing if the land costs as much as it does. The town’s not going to go out and start buying land at the cost it is to build affordable housing. It defies the law of economics.”
All the more reason not to clash with private developers, counters Karp. “They should embrace people like me, a private developer owning land and willing to build on it,” he says. “All they have to do is step out of the way. Towns need to be proactive, not reactive. They all wake up and there’s a private developer who says, ‘I’m going to make use of 8-30g’ and they’re shocked and hurt. Well here’s the easy answer — work with the private developer.
“In Greenwich a builder proposed a project with 30 units in a historic building he owns. P&Z turned him down; they didn’t like it. Fast forward 60 days later and he’s back with a new application, under 8-30g. Now he’s going to build 80 or 90 units and bypass local zoning. You need people who understand that change is inevitable, and should be able to manage it on a local level. When 8-30g is used it means they haven’t done a great job managing local planning and zoning.”
The developer additionally explains that it’s unrealistic for residents to expect new construction for affordable housing to be under four or five stories, because the numbers don’t add up. “You have to build density,” he says. “In our current (Weed Street) project, if we build 100 units, 30 percent of them are affordable, so people who get those apartments are going to pay between $1,400 and $1,800 a month in rent. For every unit of affordable housing you build, let’s be honest, you’re losing money for the next 40 years. You can’t amortize a $500,000-per-unit building cost, plus land, at $1,400 a month.
“So the 30 affordable housing units times $500,000 is $15 million that I’ll see zero return on for 40 years. It’s not the best investment of my life. That’s why you have to build big buildings.”
Michael Dinan was raised in New Canaan. Several years ago he started newcanaanite.com, a website for local news and views. “The 8-30g law has been on the books for 30-plus years, but New Canaan has largely been spared because no one has come in with it before,” he says. “It’s been floated for possible use while developers were in the negotiating process with the town. Now it’s an open question of whether more will come in.
“One thing about 751 Weed Street or any other project, it’s always a negotiation until P&Z makes its decision. Everything is on the table between the property owner who has the project in mind and P&Z. It could be that at the end of all the talk about an affordable housing application, that we end up with something more similar to the senior housing project that Karp proposed four years ago. We just don’t know yet. 8-30g is a very strong leverage tool for the developer but it doesn’t mean that’s the project you end up with.”
Fueling the fire
While the Weed Street project meanders through meetings and various legal and permit issues, New Canaan now has another 8-30g development to contend with. In May, an application to redevelop a property at 51 Main St. was delivered to P&Z. The current building there, dating to 1889 and formerly owned and operated for 65 years by the American Red Cross, would be moved closer to the road, with a multi-family residential structure, to include affordable housing units, built behind it. The agent for the company, 51 Main Street LLC, listed in Connecticut Secretary of the State records, is Arnold Karp.
Additionally, residents in another part of town where Karp owns a property on Hill Street are trying to proactively prevent an 8-30g affordable housing project there before one is proposed. While Karp has not applied for 8-30g there, he acknowledges that both affordable and market-rate units are on the table. “At this time, we have made no decision and are considering various types and sizes of housing for that location,” he says.
In early June, Moynihan explained at a Board of Selectmen meeting that the town did not qualify for a new four-year moratorium because it didn’t have enough affordable housing units currently being built. The state Department of Housing uses such units, or points, to decide on moratorium applications.
A frustrated Moynihan noted that once an affordable housing project currently underway is completed in November, the town would likely qualify, but again stressed that the likelihood of achieving 10 percent affordable housing, which would end having to contend with 8-30g, was remote. “The only way you get there is to urbanize New Canaan,” he said. “Ned Lamont’s Greenwich has fourteen 8-30g projects. So you’re going to see the urbanization of downtown Greenwich, with seven-story buildings.”
At the same meeting, Selectman Nick Williams, a Republican like Moynihan, was even more blunt in his assessment of the situation. “As a town we’ve made great strides in affordable housing,” he said. “The fact is, we’re up against a state that’s controlled by a [Democratic] political party that has a snake-like wrap around us. Hartford doesn’t give a damn about New Canaan. 8-30g is a bad law. It doesn’t make sense. What’s playing out now is unfortunate, but that’s simply a byproduct of a state that’s run by one political party. There’s no opposition. It’s like Russia.”
Attorney Timothy S. Hollister, a partner at law firm Hinckley Allen’s Hartford office, is in the unique position of having been involved with the original 1989 drafting of state statute 8-30g as a young volunteer lawyer, its modification a decade or so later in a much more central role, and its usage when representing clients. Here he provides perspective on 8-30g’s history, its current standing and potential future changes. He is counsel to the company seeking to develop 751 Weed St. in New Canaan.
Attorney Timothy S. Hollister was involved with the creation of the 8-30g statute in 1989 and its modification years later.
In 1989, what were your thoughts on the creation of 8-30g?
We knew that it was a sea change for Connecticut because the original bill was modeled on what is called Section 40b of Massachusetts law, which had a pretty big impact in that state. We knew that towns would at least initially be resistant, and that certainly turned out to be true.
Does 8-30g need further modifying, as many suggest?
What people forget is that it got major modifications in 2000. There was a recognition that some procedural things needed to be clarified. The advocates were pressing to make it broader and more applicable, while many of the towns were saying it should be stricter and less available. There was a second blue-ribbon commission, of which I was a member. There were many municipal representatives on that commission. Its recommendations passed on a vote of 27 to 4, which meant that the town representatives on it were satisfied that their concerns had been addressed. In the last two years the real consideration has been should we make 8-30g more broadly applicable, and should we streamline some of the procedures. Because when a town or other opponents dig in their heels it can be a slow and expensive process. I don’t subscribe to the towns that say it has been a failure and we need to get rid of it.
Have you found over the last few decades some upscale towns becoming more accepting of affordable housing?
I can’t look into people’s hearts and heads. But over the 32 years the statute has been in effect we have gone from towns pretty much resisting every application to the majority over the last eight to 10 years resulting in either an approval or sometimes a quick settlement after an appeal to the court. The rules are very clear, so when the town attorneys and planners recognize that an application is going to succeed one way or the other, there’s much more support, cooperation and collaboration than there ever was in the ’90s when everything was a pitched battle. Everybody now knows what is a good application and what isn’t.
Opponents of the 751 Weed St. project in New Canaan say that they moved to town knowing zoning is one house on one acre, or something close to that. And now they’re seeing major zoning changes made.
I’ve heard it said many times that zoning is a promise. But it is not a promise. Zoning is the power specifically handed down by the state legislature to the towns. 8-30g was originally conceived because the legislature felt that the towns were not responding to a growing need across the state for more affordable housing in the 1980s when housing prices were escalating double digits year after year.
What about when people in small Connecticut municipalities say a big affordable housing complex would diminish the charm of their town?
The traditional system in our courts is that judges are directed to defer to local land use decisions. It’s documented in the first blue-ribbon commission report that in the 1980s, when single-family homes on large lots were proposed, it was a rubber-stamp approval. When multi-family apartments or anything for low-income residents was proposed, there would be denials, often for what I’ll call specious reasons, like ‘this would change the character of the town.’ The legislature realized that nothing multi-family or affordable outside of the center cities was getting built, and that needed to change. The core of 8-30g is to tell judges to no longer defer to local choice. If the zoning commission turns down an affordable housing application and there is an appeal, then we’re going to make the zoning commission prove a substantial public health and safety issue on which their denial is based. If they don’t prove that, then the property owner gets approval. The legislature felt that towns, left to their own devices, were not being responsive to the needs for affordable housing, and the mechanism they chose was to shift the burden of proof in court to the town to justify a denial. That’s what 8-30g is all about.
With Connecticut towns often making the same zoning rulings of a generation ago, such as approving only single-family homes on large plots of land, more and more advocate groups have emerged demanding change.
What are said to be exclusionary-driven leanings are being challenged, often successfully, by coalitions with enough widespread support to influence town governments and politicians in the state legislature. And while the groups have their own voices and platforms, most are in lockstep calling for minorities, workforce and low- to moderate-income people to have more and better housing opportunities other than merely the most densely populated cities. The state is facing a shortage of more than 90,000 units for its lowest-income residents.
Open Communities Alliance (OCA) is a Hartford-based organization focused on the promotion and enforcement of fair housing policies in the state. In 2020 it was instrumental in calling for revisions to Woodbridge’s zoning policies which reserved the vast majority of its land exclusively for single-family homes on large lots, and banned the development of multi-family housing of three units or more. Subsequently the town’s zoning regulations were amended to allow for future affordable housing opportunities.
“Modernizing outdated exclusionary zoning policies is the right thing to do — because it corrects decades of discriminatory and segregating policies — and the smart thing to do — because it will provide a critical boost to the state’s economy, in terms of job creation and increasing property tax revenue to towns across the state that desperately need it,” OCA Executive Director Erin Boggs said during the process. “Across the state, towns like Woodbridge have been hamstrung by a political paralysis that has prevented them from meaningfully following their state and federal obligations when it comes to zoning. The state has done nothing to enforce the law. We are working to change that.”
OCA has been pushing for Connecticut to enact “Fair Share” legislation, one of two housing bills at this year’s session of the state’s General Assembly, with the other seeking to loosen zoning codes around transit stops.
Under Fair Share, the state’s Office of Policy and Management would assess the need for affordable housing in different parts of Connecticut. Towns would then share the responsibility to meet that need.
The number of affordable housing units sought in a town would be based on wealth, median income compared with other towns in the area, the percentage of housing considered multi-family, and poverty rate.
About 20 nonprofit groups and commissions support the Fair Share measure under an umbrella organization, Growing Together Connecticut, hoping to add 300,000 new units of affordable housing during the next decade.
OCA has recommended the numbers of affordable housing units needed in each municipality. Fairfield County, with its mostly upscale towns and outdated zoning regulations, shows the most need for more units.
This map from the Municipal Fair Share Council shows the number of affordable housing units needed in each town in Connecticut, as recommended by the Hartford-based Open Communities Alliance.
Ultimately the Fair Share bill was not passed this year, but did advance out of the Housing Committee. “It was also referred to the Office of Fiscal Management and received a fiscal note of about $440,000,” says Boggs. “That is important, because now we know that implementing the proposal is very doable.
“The fiscal note is how much it would cost to implement Fair Share, to have an equitable system of zoning in the state that would address entrenched segregation, allow the market to generate thousands of affordable units, and inject billions of dollars into the Connecticut economy. Given the positive tax implications, this would quickly pay for itself.”
The other proposed bill regarding affordable housing sought to allow denser residential construction around train stations with affordability requirements. There would be no public hearing process to build in those areas, and decisions on permit applications would have to be issued within 65 days of submission. After a lengthy public hearing, the bill didn’t advance.
Another group, Desegregate Connecticut is a coalition of 80 organizations advocating for more affordable housing. According to its data that tracks every district in the state, single-family homes are allowed by right on 91 percent of Connecticut’s land, while just 2 percent allows for multifamily housing of four or more units by right.
“Moreover, 80 percent of our land requires a ‘minimum lot size’ — the minimum amount of land required to build a home — of one acre or more, and nearly 50 percent requires 2 acres,” says Peter Harrison, director of Desegregate Connecticut. “These regulations make it impossible to build different types of homes affordable to people of all ages and incomes, including medium- and higher-density, multi-family homes.”
Boggs and Harrison are resolute that statutes like 8-30g, which, unless successfully appealed, orders zoning commissions to allow affordable housing of any size to be built in their towns, must remain in place. Desegregate Connecticut submitted testimony last year in opposition to a bill intended to weaken 8-30g. It did not pass.
“In many towns, particularly those where economic opportunity is concentrated, 8-30g is the only tool for securing approval of mixed income, multi-family housing,” Harrison says. “Without the statute, Connecticut would produce even less housing than it does today, further exacerbating the high levels of racial and income segregation plaguing our state. The legislature must focus on reforms that will generate more homes rather than threatening one of the few mechanisms for building multi-family housing in high-opportunity communities.”
Boggs thinks 8-30g is mostly working as intended, to more or less force towns without 10 percent affordable housing to allow developers to build where they choose.
“But it was never intended to be the only tool in the toolbox,” she says. “We need to complement it with something like Fair Share. While we hoped 8-30g would inspire towns to plan and zone and be on their way to the 10 percent level, in reality most wealthier suburban towns have not taken that opportunity over the last 30 years. Fair Share wouldn’t replace 8-30g. It would help towns get to 10 percent and be out from under it.”
About Author
