By Brandon T. Bisceglia
The Orange Town Plan & Zoning Commission at its April 19 meeting continued its review of a draft plan for an affordable housing plan that it is mandated to enact.
The draft was presented to the commission by the South Central Regional Council of Governments, of which Orange is a member. It stems from a state effort to get Connecticut municipalities to make further progress on creating affordable housing in the state.
Housing in Connecticut, or the lack thereof, has been increasingly debated over the last few years, especially as the coronavirus pandemic brought an influx of homebuyers to the state, straining an already-limited stock of available housing and raising prices for homeowners and renters alike.
Affordable housing also tends to be concentrated in the state’s cities, despite longstanding state regulations allowing developers to circumvent some local rules if they include affordable housing in their plans that are meant to more evenly distribute housing across the state.
To comply with those goals, the SCROG engaged economic planning and real estate consultancy RKG Associates to create a plan for each town in the group.
Commissioner Kevin Cornell said that the draft plan was largely fact-driven, but that there were some opinions in the document that he did not agree with.
He cited one section in which the report noted that many of the people who work in the retail establishments on the Boston Post Road would “find it challenging to afford housing in the community where they work.”
TPZC Chair Oscar Parente suggested that it was merely a statement of fact – not a goal being set forth by the plan.
“I don’t see where it says that ‘Orange is committed to…the Town Plan and Zoning Commission should commit itself to x, y and z,’” he said.
Cornell also noted that the report does not appear to give the town credit for more recently approved developments that have affordable housing components.
Zoning Enforcement Officer Jack Demirjian pointed out that, despite the approvals, a number of those developers had not yet taken out permits – including one at Smith Farm Road with 46 units, 80 percent of which will qualify as affordable.
“I think we should include all the approved projects that are in the pipeline,” said vice chair Judy Smith. “We just specify, these are approved, but it’s x number of more units.”
Parente noted that, except for a few items, most of the plan was closely aligned with the town’s own plan of conservation and development.
Cornell later in the meeting returned to the issue of people who work in town being able to afford living in town.
“Is that a goal of the town?” Cornell asked.
“I think when we had our meeting with the authors we said that would be a consideration that we would like to make. You know, take a fireman or a policeman, a teacher. To the extent that we could make more housing available at different price ranges, allow them to stay in town, that would be a positive thing.”
“Right, but that would be a municipal worker,” Smith responded. “But this could be a retail worker working in a store on Route 1.”
Parente agreed that it wasn’t necessarily a goal to allow all people working in town to live there.
“I think it’s a true statement, though,” he said of that unaffordability.
The commission as a whole found some of the language vague and unnecessary, and came to a consensus that it would replace some of the action items as written with language with the POCD.
The commission is not required to open a public hearing on the plan, and chose not to have one. The plan must be filed by June 1, although the commission can request an extension.
These are the same obfuscated reasonings that have been put forward by the Commissioners and politicians since the Rolling Hills Estates Affordable housing application of 1991. It was pointed out then, many Town workers, and likely more so now, could not afford to live in Town. The former Tax Collector, a Selectman, and others had to leave for these reasons. You cannot count affordable units until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Period. Sticking such residences in one part of Town, has the opposite affect of meshing within the community. It creates a stigmatized “side of the tracks.” 30 years have passed, and it is the same song. This is why the legislation is coming down hard on certain communities.