A text amendment which would grant the Ridgefield Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) the power to allow developers some latitude with aspects of the zoning code if they include a minimum percentage of affordable housing units was hotly debated during a recent commission meeting.
The practice, known as inclusionary zoning, proved intensely controversial with some Ridgefield residents and inspired both impassioned debate and accusations of corruption, falsehoods and claims the Connecticut government is engaging in communist plots.
The text amendment itself only allows for a small change to the Ridgefield zoning code. If passed, it would allow multifamily housing developers to designate at least 15% of the units as affordable housing ”” as defined by the Connecticut Department of Housing ”” and to petition the town’s PZC for exemptions from other aspects of Ridgefield’s zoning code.
Those exemptions include permitting higher overall density for the project, higher ratios of coverage to lot area, and reduced parking requirements. Alternatively, developments consisting solely of single-family dwellings can pay a per-unit fee to convert affordable units to market-rate units. That fee is presently set at 300% the median annual income for the Danbury metro area. The PZC would have the power to reject any of these requests.
The text amendment drew 28 written comments between the publication of the first draft in November and the most recent meeting. Chairman Robert Hendrick, who noted the number of comments was unusually high, said the amendment was designed to decrease the likelihood of large affordable housing developments such as those permitted under 8-30g.
“Inclusionary zoning is a concept that planning and zoning commissions were empowered to adopt around the same time as the famous 8-30g law came into state statute,” Hendrick said.
The law permits housing developers to bypass local zoning codes other than those pertaining to health and safety, provided at least 30% of the units are deed-restricted affordable housing units. However, if a town or city is able to make sufficient progress toward having 10% of its overall housing supply deemed affordable by the state, it can impose a four-year moratorium on 8-30g construction. Progress toward that goal and a new moratorium after the previous one expired in 2018 is a key goal of the amendment, according to Hendrick.
“It doesn’t actually create any new apartment buildings in residential areas,” he stressed. “It doesn’t create apartment buildings at all, actually. It doesn’t pack our schools. It doesn’t add any particular residences despite the hyperbole out there. The regulation is not by itself increasing the population in Ridgefield or increasing pressure on anything in terms of our infrastructure.”
“I would encourage the commission to pursue this goal,” said Mack Reid, the only member of the public to speak out in favor of the amendment during the meeting. “People are always afraid of change, we moved here in 1955 and I remember my mother freaking out because they were going to pave Cooper Hill Road, and we survived that.”
Another resident, Linda Lavelle, complained that outside interests such as large real estate developers were funding the bills and research promoting affordable housing. She argued that the state’s regulations are “ignoring what people have always done to achieve affordability, like taking on roommates, working two jobs like my dad, and learning additional job skills like I had to do with three kids to support.”
Instead, Lavelle urged the town to pursue a “biennial housing assessment” and to encourage the state subsidize repairs of single-family homes.
“We need to fight this if we don’t want to become a socialist, communistic (society) governed by one titular head,” proclaimed Thomas Pesce, a resident who also railed against the PZC for accepting the terms set by the state. He argued that various condos in town, which he had seen listed for sale should qualify as sufficient affordable housing, though multiple members of the commission told him that they did not fit the “capital ‘A’ affordable” criteria set by the state.
“We have our own destiny to consider,” Pesce declared as the conversation grew heated and members of the audience corrected him on his math.
“You may have your own destiny, but not your own regulation,” replied John Katz, the longest-serving member of the commission.
The commission ultimately decided to table discussion of the matter, hoping to hear from the Board of Selectmen before their next scheduled meeting on Feb 21 when they would propose revisions to the amendment.
You incorrectly use the term “allow affordable housing” and permits it” when, in fact, the proposal MANDATES affordable housing throughout all of Ridgefield for any development of 4 or more units. Most other municipalities in Connecticut apply such a requirement in limited areas with access to public utilities, nearby stores and transportation.
Further, by making small subdivisions economically unfeasible, it forces those who must sell property they can no longer afford, inherited or otherwise, to sell to those who would choose 8-30g type development, generally higher density housing, wherever in Ridgefield.