Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pre‑app: developers told to clarify affordable‑housing rules, incentives and parking for 530 Old Post Road conversion
Summary
The commission advised applicants converting an office building at 530 Old Post Road to 10 apartments (one affordable) to correct references to state statute 8‑30g and the town's 6‑1‑10 workforce housing rule, to specify which zoning incentives they intend to claim, and to provide clear parking and mechanical/heating details.
Fifth 530 Old Post Road Partners LLC presented a pre‑application on March 11 to convert an existing office building at 530 Old Post Road into 10 residential units, including one affordable unit. Planning staff and commissioners focused on conflicting regulatory citations in the applicant’s narrative, the affordable‑housing formula to use, parking computations and mechanical system details.
Why it matters: the proposal invokes two different regulatory frameworks — state statute 8‑30g (a developer affordability statute) and the town’s local workforce‑housing regulation 6‑1‑10. Commissioners and staff warned the application text incorrectly referenced a mandatory 30% set‑aside tied to 8‑30g and also mis‑cited 6‑1‑10 as a Connecticut statute. They asked the applicant to make the regulatory approach clear before the formal filing.
Statute vs. local rule. Planning staff told the applicant that the narrative’s opening paragraph misstates 8‑30g and that the project’s path to incentives is more likely under local regulation 6‑1‑10. Staff emphasized the applicant must say explicitly which incentives under 6‑1‑10 it seeks and then show the zoning data (FAR, gross square footage, height) that justify those incentives. As staff noted, if the project adds the enclosed first floor area the building could become nonconforming for FAR and will likely require the local incentive language to be applied and documented.
Affordable unit and parking. Commissioners said the applicant should match the 6‑1‑10 tables to calculate the required affordability level for one unit at 10 units (table‑driven) and that the parking standard differs if the ground floor remains residential. Staff reminded the applicant that mixed‑use incentives reduce required parking; in an all‑residential conversion the parking requirement is calculated per bedroom (town schedule 6‑1‑59/50‑5 referenced), and the applicant should confirm how many spaces will be needed for the proposed bedroom mix. The applicant’s drawings showed a change that eliminates surface parking but did not provide a clear zoning table; staff asked that zoning and parking calculations be included with the formal submission.
Mechanical and energy details. Commissioners asked the design team to reconcile an energy‑efficiency narrative that described electric heat pumps with another schedule that referenced a gas‑fired furnace. The applicant said it intends heat‑pump heating and cooling and will confirm hot‑water and range fuel choices with the mechanical engineer.
Next steps. Staff told the applicant to correct the narrative references (remove incorrect 8‑30g wording unless they are applying under that statute), use the 6‑1‑10 tables for the affordability set‑aside and parking rules if they intend to use town incentives, and to provide zoning math for FAR/height/area and parking counts on the next submittal. The commission advised early staff coordination to avoid avoidable resubmittals.
End: The applicant will revise the narrative and drawings and return with clear zoning computations, an updated parking plan and aligned mechanical/energy specifications.
