Earlier this week, I published an article about some of the items working their way through the legislative session that have grabbed the First Selectman’s interest, but I’ve had my eye on some other bills, and they all have to do with housing (like this one and this one).
I’ll say from the outset that housing issues are my personal pet peeve. That’s why I’m writing this as a column and not a news story.
During this legislative session, I’ve been monitoring a group called CT169Strong, which opposes housing bills currently advancing through the legislature. They have been holding webinars and sending emails urging followers to call their elected officials to put a stop to most, if not all, of these bills. There’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to inform people and asking them to take action, so here are recordings of their recent webinars to give you a sense of their stance:
The CT169Strong website has a convenient list of all the “bad bills” they are tracking if you want to take a deeper dive into what’s being discussed here. More importantly for Staffordites, our State Senator Jeffrey Gordon, who is currently seeking re-election and lives in Woodstock where he served for many years on that town’s Planning and Zoning Commission, often works with this group. On Thursday evening, I received an email from Senator Gordon’s office with a short press release, which you can read below:
Sen. Gordon Continues Support of Housing Affordability Local Decision-Making in Senate Debate
Supports towns’ voices in residential development for attainable housing, while leveraging existing resources during three-hour senate debate.
HARTFORD – State Sen. Jeff Gordon (R-Woodstock), former Chairman of the Woodstock Planning & Zoning Commission for 15 years, supported housing affordability and local decision-making during his three-hour debate yesterday on a measure that would exempt commercial properties that seek to become residential development projects from local planning and zoning commission regulations.
“We want to do something meaningful for housing affordability and more housing units. However, this bill has too many unintended, yet foreseeable, consequences. The bill was not properly and carefully thought through. It fails to provide guardrails to ensure that land use addresses public health, public safety, public welfare, livability, and environmental concerns. These are important considerations when deciding about housing where people and families will live.
"I am not against the concept of moving commercial property to residential use. However, this bill is a missed opportunity to achieve several different goals, like incentivizing the use of existing commercial buildings for safe and healthy housing, providing affordable housing opportunities, and reclaiming properties through environmental remedies. What we need is a better process that respects local decision-making. The people of Connecticut know best what is best for their own communities,” said Sen. Gordon.
The legislation effectively allows developers to convert commercial buildings into residential units under "as-of-right" statutes, which would preclude public input and fast-track large projects with limited oversight. During the debate, Sen. Gordon explained how this policy would overlook the unique needs of the state’s communities and lacks guardrails to ensure that developers create attainable housing—rather than luxury units that otherwise do not address the state’s current housing needs.
Additional Informational Resources
This press release came after Senator Gordon debated S.B. 416 – An Act Concerning the Conversion of Commercial Real Estate to Residential, which the CT Mirror describes this way: “S.B. 416 would require that towns allow developers to convert commercial buildings such as office buildings, former shops and hotels into residential spaces without a special zoning commission hearing, or as-of-right. Developments would still have to follow building and fire safety codes.” View the full Senate debate here.
Desegrate Connecticut defines "as-of-right" development this way: "As of right means that public review of zoning regulations occurs at the district-level instead of the project-level. Once the requirements for a district is (sic) defined, a project application within the district is reviewed for compliance with the zoning code by town staff, without needing to undergo a public hearing, variance, or special permit/exception. If an application meets the criteria outlined in the district’s zoning code, it will be approved."
Many of CT169Strong’s complaints are that these bills attempt to circumvent local zoning ordinances. What interests me is that the group never seems to address the reason these bills were needed in the first place: Local Planning and Zoning officials in towns like those represented in these webinars have not, historically, done enough to address the issue of affordable housing.
For what it’s worth, another special interest group is on the other side of this debate. Desegrate Connecticut says, “Connecticut has not been pro-homes. Many communities have closed that portal and severed those connections through exclusionary land use policies. Some of the people who support these policies think Connecticut won’t continue to grow or shouldn’t. They want to freeze Connecticut in an image that was simply not accessible for many people, particularly in communities of color. Everyone in our state suffers from maintaining the status quo.”
Listen, I don’t know the details of every bill passing through the legislature. I’m just not that much of a policy wonk. The CT169Strong folks bring up a lot of points around environmental health and safety concerns for some of these bills. They may be right, but it’s hard to take them seriously when the speakers represent some of the wealthiest zip codes in the state which have, in the past, used these exact issues to continue employing exclusionary zoning. And this is where the problem lies, right? People speak about their commitment to creating affordable housing but don’t take action until they are forced to (more on that later), and so the state is now imposing its will on communities.
I’ve lived in many places, including affluent towns that, historically, have done everything in their power to ensure affordable or low-income housing (yes, there is a difference) does not come knocking on their door. I've also lived in the adjacent towns that end up bearing the brunt of development because they don’t employ exclusionary zoning laws like large lot sizes or sewer avoidance ordinances.
On Greenwich’s website they describe zoning this way: “The zoning regulations of towns throughout CT restrict the size and location of multi-family buildings. This generally reflects goals to preserve community scale but also to address environmental challenges and pressure on ageing (sic) infrastructure systems.” We all understand the purpose of zoning, right? But what many don't understand is that those regulations have been used as a way to keep people who cannot afford giant lots and big houses out of their towns.
I’ve watched these housing struggles play out in a number of ways. When I was a young reporter in Glastonbury, my editor told me how, years before, the town claimed they couldn’t put affordable housing in a particular area because it was in a flood zone and then built retail and office spaces in the same location. For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen that area flood (not even the year when a flood trapped a bunch of hunting dogs and horses in town for an event in flood waters by the river) and there were pre-existing homes in the same area, much closer to the Connecticut River than the proposed development. It’s the equivalent of saying we can’t build in downtown Stafford because, historically, it has flooded.
More recently, however, I’ve watched as developers forced projects on Glastonbury using the 8-30g statute–and neighbors complained about increased traffic on what was already one of the busiest roads in town (think Rt. 190 on steroids) and in a location across from a small shopping center with a grocery store. After a couple of run-ins like that, the town actually started working to develop its own affordable housing proposals because the statute can only be used in towns that don’t already have their “fair share” (aka 10%) of affordable housing units. To my mind, the 8-30g statute worked exactly as it should. The local officials were forced to act in order to maintain some control over the development.
In Greenwich, a group called Greenwich Communities formed to address affordable housing in reaction to the 8-30g statute or, as The Greenwich Times reported, “Greenwich Communities is the town’s ‘number one tool’ to prevent large 8-30g projects.” They have been proposing developments on their own terms, some of them 100% affordable. Huzzah! The statute worked. It forced the local officials to do their jobs.
Like many towns in our corner of the state, Woodstock is very rural and has a small, aging population. I lived there during the height of the COVID-19 lockdowns, and I watched as huge, expensive properties that had been on the market for years finally got snapped up.
Obviously, the housing market is wacky right now, but before writing this column, I did a quick Zillow search, with a maximum price of $400,000, which is just slightly above the median home price in Connecticut ($393,802 according to Zillow as I write). That resulted in 11 properties in Woodstock, all but two of them are just land. The two houses seem affordable at first. One is a cottage of just over 700 square feet, has no pictures of the inside, and has an “Investors take note!” message in the description. All my fellow real estate junkies will know what that means: It’s a mess! The other house listing has pictures of the dark, dingy inside that would require quite some work to be habitable for most people, but as the listing says, “This property offers so much for the person with a great imagination!” Sure, imagination and another $100,000 or more for renovations.
This did not shock me. When my husband and I were looking to buy a house, we were living in a tiny cottage on our friends’ Woodstock property. It was idyllic and we would have loved to stay nearby, but houses in our price range that did not need a ton of work were few and far between. Even the total disasters were being snapped up immediately because it was the height of the housing craze. Now, there’s literally not a single option for the average person who wants to buy a move-in-ready house in all of Woodstock. The situation is the same, but with even fewer options, in Union. When I did the same Zillow search for Stafford, there were also 11 options, but they represented a much wider array of options – from move-in ready condos and houses to land to properties that needed a lot of work.
To be clear, just because a house costs less than the state's median home price doesn’t make it “affordable” (especially given the current interest rates), and it doesn’t address the issue of affordable rental units. Not everyone has a down payment for a house. To me, this search illustrates the problem created by the historically problematic zoning policies of towns across the state.
So, given his interest in the topic of zoning and local expertise, I reached out to Senator Gordon’s office to ask what he's done in Woodstock to "do something meaningful for housing affordability" as his press release says he is eager to do. Here is his response:
“Affordable housing, and attainable housing, is not limited to one bill or initiative. It is a combination of policies and decisions that creates an environment that promotes land use development that fits a certain community’s needs and constraints. In Woodstock, I was involved in a strategic overhaul of zoning and subdivision regulations whereby there was a streamlining to ease the permit process, and to make the process less financially burdensome to applicants, without compromising such important items as public health, safety, welfare, and environmental concerns. I also worked to update regulations that now enhance housing options and better utilize accessory apartments, alongside a community-informed Affordable Housing Plan. The Plan of Conservation & Development was revised to include extensive public input, promoting sustainable growth and mixed-use developments. New business regulations in town aimed to foster responsible economic growth and to diversify the property tax base. Also, continued support for local agriculture has grown stronger, ensuring its role as a backbone of our local economy.”
Many towns rely on accessory apartments, or additional dwelling units (ADUs) as they are often called. They are often used in cities with sky-high housing costs, like Los Angeles or Portland, Oregon to encourage property owners to build in a place where buildable lots are limited. The topic has even come up at past PZC meetings in Stafford, though I really don’t see this as a scalable solution to affordable housing. It requires current property owners to have the space, money, and desire to build an apartment on their land. That doesn't solve a housing crisis.
I understand the desire to keep communities like Woodstock rural. CT169Strong likes to cite the State's own open space goals when fighting back against the legislation, though creative reuse of existing buildings is one of the ways communities typically fight sprawl and is at the center of some of the bills CT169Strong fights against. It's also something Stafford has outlined as a priority in its Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).
I like driving by cow pastures as much as the next person. It’s part of why I live in Stafford, but the other part is that this is where we could find a reasonably priced, livable home. I get the desire to preserve rural communities. What I truly don’t understand is these towns' failure to see the writing on the wall and take action to increase affordable housing options on their own terms.
I think every person on a zoning board in a rural town should be touring Highland Park Terrace in Stafford. The mixture of artfully disguised duplexes and cute bungalows is a wonderful example of the kinds of developments rural communities (and historic areas) can build to maintain their character while addressing the need for something other than giant McMansions on acres of land.
Due to their remote locations and a lack of housing demand, developers are not likely to come in and build huge apartment complexes in most rural towns anyway. It’s just not profitable. That’s why we see so many towns from Fairfield County represented in these CT169Strong events. Those towns are on commuter rail lines, have other public transportation, and are near major job centers. They are cash cows! And let me tell you, when I was in my 20s, living in Fairfield County and commuting into New York City, I would have loved more affordable housing options with a shorter commute. Instead, I lived in the attic of a rundown Victorian house across from the train tracks in Norwalk and climbed a fire escape in all types of weather to get to my apartment–and paid a pretty penny for the privilege.
My frustration over these kinds of housing issues is why I’ve been glad to see Stafford’s Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) discussing ways to increase the availability of affordable housing in town. That 8-30g statute has already increased the number of units that will go into the former Borough School. Recently, when a property owner and his contractor went before the PZC, asking to put three units onto a lot where only two were allowed according to the zoning regulations, the PZC pointed out to the property owner that he could use 8-30g to circumvent the town’s regulations. Judging by the social media reaction to my story about that, people felt the PZC was being unfairly obstructionist, but what I saw was a commission handing a developer an opportunity to not only get what he was asking for but an opportunity to actually fit even more housing onto the same lot if he so desired.
Stafford faces many of the same challenges as other small towns when it comes to increasing housing stock. Chief among them is access to sewer and water, but these are not insurmountable–it just takes some creative thinking.
To my mind, the zones along 190 in West Stafford are ripe for mixed-use development. We already see homes and businesses sitting side by side. The former Country Village Shoppes would be the perfect place for a mixed-use development with retail and office space on the bottom, and housing up top. A mixture of housing and community spaces is what’s being proposed for the Witt School. Hopefully, as the PZC works its way through the Plan of Conservation and Development equitable housing solutions and smart commercial development go hand-in-hand.