During a public hearing on August 17, many Staffordites turned out to learn about the future of the building that once housed the Borough School. Frank Vacca of BSC Group came before the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) to apply for a Special Permit that would allow the developer to build 20 residential apartments under the 8-30g CGS statute for affordable housing at 36 Prospect Street. The statute allows developers to override local zoning laws in the name of creating more affordable housing.
Some estimates suggest that Connecticut has a shortage of over 86,000 affordable housing units — a problem that is often exacerbated by misinformation about what “affordable housing” means. Vacca said the term often is unfairly stigmatized. Partnership for Strong Communities says, “The common definition of an affordable home is one where the resident spends no more than 30% of their income to pay the rent or mortgage.” Therefore, rents for affordable housing units are often based on the median income in a given town. Importantly, affordable housing is often mixed into larger developments that include market-rate housing. Vacca says the Borough School property will consist of a mix of one-, two-and three-bedroom units for new graduates and young families, with 30% of the units designated as affordable housing.
Of the entire proposal, Vacca says it seeks to revitalize the existing building and restore the 1920s character. Vacca also pointed out that said the 40 parking spaces required for 20 apartments would be located at the rear of the building and on the western edge. There will be an accessible, free-standing, modular ramp of commercial grade for ADA compliance, along with other minor upgrades to improve handicap accessibility. Utilities will be on the southwest corner of the site and screened from view. The trash area, located at the south end of the property, will also be screened.
Vacca indicated that Blue Bird Construction — which has entered into an agreement with the town to buy the property — hopes to keep as many existing trees as possible and will maintain the historic wall on the property. The plan also adds a few new trees in accordance with regulations, and evergreen plantings will provide screening on the western side of the property. There will be one site sign located on the corner of Howland and Prospect Streets. An area that is currently paved will be replaced by a lightly sloped grassy area to let water runoff filter into the ground. Currently, the building’s runoff discharges into the town system on Prospect Street.
Commission Chair, Dave Palmberg, asked that the applicant consider adding a grass swale halfway down for added runoff protection and suggested tying the roof leaders tie into the infiltration units. Vacca said they did not do this because the plan reduces the impervious surface on the lot but would be willing to look into it.
Current regulation allows for 12 units, but the applicant is proposing to allow 20 units under 8-30g. Palmberg noted the submission is lacking an Affordability Plan and an Affirmative Action Fair Housing Plan, which is required by State statute. Frank Vacca said he will get these to the Commission.
After roughly 15 years of vacancy, revitalization of this property is certainly welcome, but there were still questions from the community. Donald Passardi said it would be nice to have extra parking spaces provided for people off-site in the neighborhood. But also expressed concern over water use and traffic in the neighborhood. Palmberg pointed out that the proposed housing is a less intense use of the space than the original school.
Brian Goepfrich noted the retention wall on the High Street side and asked if they had any plans to repair it. Vacca said they could look into it. Goepfrich also asked about parking lot lights. Vacca said the majority of their lights are dark-skies compliant.
Laura Lybarger said any improvements to the building will be a delight for the neighborhood as it has become an eyesore. She asked about fencing on Howland Street. Vacca said they intend to remove the access stair, fence the rear of the property, and remove the access point. Additionally, the wall is to be restored.
With some requirements still outstanding, the commission did not vote and instead continued the matter to their next meeting.
[This article was written using the official minutes from the PZC meeting minutes.]