Last week, I was contacted by Cheshire Republicans to provide a statement on the Housing Bill. However, they did not share with me their poor understanding of the bill in question prior to publication. Had they done so, I could have explained the facts before they released highly inflammatory commentary on the bill.
In their defense, these individuals are not lawmakers, and do not spend their time reading complicated statute. However, I have continuously offered my time to discuss any concerns.
Since this article has been published without fact-checking, I offer this point-by-point rebuttal for the benefit of my constituents. The article in its entirety is below in black, and my responses are in red. _____ Legislation that will upend local planning and zoning and severely curtail residents’ ability to successfully protest against proposed high-density housing projects is headed to Governor Ned Lamont for signature. HB5002 tips the scales in favor of bureaucrats, housing advocates, and developers over elected P & Z commissions whose mission is to steward measured, affordable growth in their communities. The state House and Senate approved the bill late last week. Spanning 92-pages and 2,634 lines, the omnibus bill is ladened with mandates for increasing affordable housing stock in Connecticut’s 169 municipalities. It wrests control of residential growth from the hands of local elected officials and grants it to Hartford legislators and policy makers, who are heavily influenced by housing advocates and developers. It also seeks to limit protests against projects by increasing the required number of petitioners needed in order for a protest to be considered. For towns like Cheshire — former agricultural towns with vast expanses of open acreage — the impact of the bill, if enacted, will be profound.
This is a highly inflammatory comment, not backed by any specificity of fact. Existing land-use laws already allow for high-density housing on “developable land,” or tracts deemed feasible for this type of construction. Specifically, the law authorizes four single-family houses, six duplexes or townhouses, or ten multi-family units per acre. With many of Cheshire’s remaining farms and orchards designated “developable,” these spaces are prime real estate for developers of high density projects.
While some of this is true, to think it's bad for Cheshire is just a lack of understanding of both current and new law. There is an option for towns to set 10% of developable land to allow for higher density developments, but no mandate. If they do this, it is easier to become exempt from 8-30g, something PnZ has been asking for at least the last decade. It is not mandated. There is no penalty. In this 10% option (again, not mandated), you would need to treat triplexes like single family homes.
Specific to the inflammatory comment about the orchards, this bill literally has no effect on the sale of Norton Farms. First, orchards aren't always developable land. Developable land does not include land already committed to a public purpose (parks or open space), any land that has a deed restriction, wetlands or steep slopes. The town gets to choose where the 10% is located, and it doesn’t need to be only in one spot, meaning just because a large swath of land goes up for private sale, it doesn’t automatically become high-density housing! If the owner of an orchard wants to sell it to a developer, we can't stop them, there's a free market. You don't want the government telling you what you can and cannot do with the land you own. In fact, there is also a way for the land owner themselves to ensure it doesn’t become a housing development. It's called placing a "restrictive covenant" on the deed, which has been available to landowners for generations. They can restrict that land to always be an orchard or farm, for instance. Then any buyer would have to stick to that. If the town wants to buy it and deed restrict it to open space, they can. The bottom line is that this bill has literally nothing in it which affects the sale or use of Norton Farms or any of our farmland. If that land is sold to a developer, that is because the owner of the land chose them as the buyer, it has nothing to do with state or local government.
The Cheshire Record asked Reps. Liz Linehan and Jack Fazzino how HB5002 will benefit the citizens of Cheshire, given that the town is already dealing with unprecedented development. Won't this law put significantly more pressure on already stressed resources?
Through a press aide, Rep. Linehan replied:
"As a pro business moderate, I believe in removing constraints to the free market so we can get more housing supply and jobs, and drive down costs. The bill, supported by the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA), helps to overcome Connecticut's housing shortfall and its constraints on our states' economic potential. As many of the controversial provisions of the bill have been removed, it mainly incentivizes communities to follow Federal Fair Housing Laws, and helps towns like Cheshire to enhance our options to meet the 8-30g moratorium.
Additionally, many people in my district are young professionals and can now take advantage of the first-time home buyer tax advantaged account, which supports keeping well-educated families and higher-paying jobs here in the state." HB5002 not only removes many of the obstacles to high density development, but pressures communities to meet affordable housing targets set by the state. Among the countless requirements of the proposed law are provisions that will:
Impose complex and costly reporting requirements on towns to prove they’re complying with affordable housing mandates. (lines 5-28)
We already do this. This makes it easier for towns to apply for a moratorium by getting the information they need about how much affordable housing is in town. Our town already works closely with the Cheshire Housing Authority, so this literally makes very little difference to Cheshire. This was an ask by Greenwich, because their housing authority isn't cooperative. That’s not the case in Cheshire. But if it were, its just sharing of data.
Dictate how a town will manage its housing authority and fair rent commissions. (lines 39-147; 2157-2215)
Lines 39-147 was removed from the final bill, and does not apply.
Also, Cheshire already has a Fair Rent Commission and has for years. This provision has no effect on Cheshire.
Tell towns how many affordable housing units they are required to build. Regulators in Hartford will determine our housing needs based on the region’s overall need. It then will derive a “mandatory affordable housing target,” which will become part of Cheshire’s 8-30g plans submitted to the state. (Lines 601-700)
This is not a mandate of housing units whatsoever. This provision mandates you do a Housing Plan… which Cheshire already does. Fair Share sets a goal of units. The state asks that towns create a plan (which Cheshire does), and let the state know the plan and if they can or cannot meet that Fair Share number. There is no penalty if they can't meet it. If they can meet the goal, they'll get extra funding.
Prohibit towns from requiring off-street parking for developments, even if streets are already overcrowded (lines 318-324);
Sort of. It says PnZ cannot require a minimum number of parking spaces in developments with 24 units or less, and that the developer may only consider number of parking spaces due to public health and safety. Above that number of units, they can require the developer to do a third-party study… and PnZ can require that number of spaces determined by the study, plus up to an additional 10%. This is important to keeping rents low, as 20% of the cost of rent is parking (on average). If developers don’t have to offer parking in smaller developments which may be on the bus line, for example, then rent will be lower. Given that a two bedroom rents for around $3k a month in Cheshire, this is an important distinction, especially for single parents who need a two or more bedroom, but not two or more parking spaces. Additionally, it means less town space is taken up by giant parking lots that may go unused. The market will dictate if units in Cheshire need parking.
Severely restrict residents’ right to block zoning changes that would allow multi-family developments. Until now, a zoning change could be thwarted if 20 percent or more of the property owners within the vicinity of the affected area opposed it. The law raises the opposition threshold to 50 percent of property owners. The law also makes it much easier for P&Z override community opposition. Now, two of commissioners must vote to reject a protest. The proposed legislation lowers the requisite vote to a simple majority. (Lines 371-385)
Prior, it was 20% of land, which could be one owner if they own the largest lot in the neighborhood. We changed it to 50% of land OR 50% of owners, so that one large landowner wouldn't be solely responsible for the protest. Before this, if that one landowner doesn’t want to protest, you were basically screwed. Regarding the change to the PnZ vote…Yes, that’s true. So, ask your PnZ how they'd vote in certain instances, get to know your local boards. I suspect here in Cheshire, not much will change.
Allow developers to convert commercial buildings to residential property comprising up to nine units – known as middle housing developments -- without a special zoning hearing. (lines 213-219);
Pardon my levity, but this is a giant nothingburger. Residents don't really seem to have much concern over commercial areas, and this is only applicable to conversion of commercial space to 9 or less units. For an example, if offices over a strip mall are vacant, the owner can convert them to apartments… as long as there are 9 apartments or less.
Prioritizes towns eligible for “discretionary infrastructure funding” according to their “fair share” allocation plan. In other words, the state will reward towns applying for clean water, sewage, economic development, and housing assistance grants according to the existence and merits of a plan. (lines 579-600)
This is true… it's state discretionary funding, meaning grants, not town aid, not state money which is specifically given to reduce property taxes. Towns don't plan for this in their budgets, and like all grants, you have to meet certain criteria. STEEP already prioritized Transit Oriented Districts in Housing grants, so not much change here.
Launches a pilot program for portable showers and laundry facilities for the homeless (lines 356-358)
To complain about this is immoral! The state is developing a mobile shower unit for homeless people. Do you not believe that all humans should have the ability to be clean and reduce the possibility of illness and disease? Seriously, we should be more concerned that the author of this Substack takes issue with this program, than the program itself.
Prohibit “hostile architecture” on public properties that discourages the homeless from sitting, lying down or sleeping in the building itself or in the structure itself at street level. (lines 701-709)
My same answer applies here. Know what "hostile architecture" is? For example, large metal spikes built under an underpass so that a homeless person can't use that area to protect themselves from the elements in harsh New England winters. This is about humanity, and I support it wholeheartedly. I think the more important question is why doesn't the Cheshire Republican Town Committee support these provisions? I hope that if they had taken the time to actually learn what this bill is about, they would support these provisions and more.
