Norwalk housing authorities, redevelopment agency recommend reassigning tasks, share data and map brownfields to speed affordable housing work

NORWALK — The Norwalk Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee heard detailed feedback from the Norwalk Housing Authority and the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency on the city’s Affordable Housing Action Plan during its meeting on April 1.

Committee Chair (Committee Chair, Norwalk City Affordable Housing Ad hoc Committee) opened the meeting and invited agency staff to review items on the plan’s action matrix. Adam Bobowski, representing the Norwalk Housing Authority, identified several items he recommended the city reassign or clarify because the housing authority either lacks control, lacks capacity, or requires funding to complete them.

Bobowski said the housing authority cannot “control over the City of Norwalk's website” and therefore recommended the city — not the housing authority — publish an online table showing affordable-housing eligibility at the time of application. He suggested the authority would “participate in providing information to the city,” but that the city should host and maintain the resource so it can include eligibility rules for multiple programs and private developers’ set-asides.

Housing Coordinator Michelle (Michelle, Housing Coordinator, Norwalk City) told the committee she had consolidated action items into a live spreadsheet to track responsibilities and progress. She agreed to gather funding and program data from the housing authority and other partners so the city can present “a chart of everything, federal, state, and local dollars,” including tax abatements, even if local capital contributions are currently limited.

On annual reporting, Bobowski said it is unclear what the city would track if the city has not provided substantial operating or capital funds for affordable housing in recent years. He noted, however, that the housing authority’s audits are public and staff can provide requested data.

On streamlining applications for workforce and set‑aside units, the housing authority said a single application would be difficult because many private owners use proprietary software and different screening criteria. Instead, Bobowski recommended posting guidance about where to apply, wait-list status, and basic pre‑application steps so applicants do not waste time applying to closed lists.

On homeownership counseling and first‑time buyer education, the housing authority pointed the committee to HUD‑approved counseling organizations it regularly refers residents to, noting “those agencies are HUD approved counselors. Their classes are free.” Committee members discussed using city space — including the Envision Center and a City Hall swing space — to host periodic in‑city hours from those providers.

Redevelopment Agency staff flagged a separate set of items. Ivan (Ivan, Norwalk Redevelopment Agency) told the committee the agency will release a Brownfields GIS map within “the next month or 2,” the result of consultant work to consolidate assessment data. Ivan said the agency will post the resource on its website and make it available via norwalkct.gov so developers and others can identify candidate sites and zoning.

Both agencies warned the committee that many proposed new programs require staffing or capital that neither agency currently has. For example, educating smaller-scale developers or community groups about financing would require funded staffing or consultants; creating a low‑interest or forgivable-loan program for small-scale developers would likewise need substantial predevelopment funding for architects, engineers and legal work.

Committee discussion also covered use of tax‑lien properties and the idea of a right‑of‑first‑refusal for the housing authority. Council member Nicole Ayers raised whether properties that fail to sell at tax sale could be repurposed for affordable homeownership or rent‑to‑own programs; city staff noted Connecticut law and current city practice (tax‑lien sales) differ from other jurisdictions that donate foreclosed properties to nonprofits.

Bobowski described an existing housing authority homeownership pathway that uses HUD’s Section 8 voucher: eligible voucher holders may apply their housing subsidy toward a mortgage instead of rent. Norwayk’s program currently serves about 15 participants, he said, and typical vouchers subsidize roughly $1,500 a month. He cautioned the federal program has limits, such as making a voucher available for a shorter term (for example, 15 years) when used for homeownership unless the household qualifies as disabled.

Planning and Zoning developments discussed at the meeting were reported by Planning staff member Steve (Steve, Planning & Zoning staff). Steve reported the Planning and Zoning Commission recently passed an amendment to encourage two‑bedroom units by counting each 2‑bedroom as “1 and a half workforce units” for workforce housing calculations. He also summarized a proposed provision that would allow occupants who rise above the 80% of State Median Income (SMI) threshold, but remain below 90% of SMI, to retain their workforce unit without the unit counting toward the 10% cap — provided the city maintains a higher overall share of deed‑restricted units (a 12% test was proposed as a cushion). Steve also described a proposed bonus density incentive: developers could receive an extra 5% density allowance in exchange for deed‑restricting additional units between 80–90% SMI.

Committee members repeatedly returned to capacity and funding constraints. Ivan and Bobowski said smaller, one‑ or two‑unit affordable projects are resource‑intensive because predevelopment and compliance costs do not scale down meaningfully; they said low‑income housing tax credits (LIHTC) and other subsidies generally make mid‑ to large‑scale developments more financially feasible.

The meeting closed with staff and committee members agreeing to continue refining the action matrix, to circulate the live tracking spreadsheet and to invite additional speakers (including tax‑credit experts and community navigators) for longer follow‑up meetings. The committee set a longer next meeting to accommodate a tax‑credit presentation and more discussion of an affordable‑housing account.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to accept minutes from February 20 meeting — Approved; one abstention (Nicole Ayers). - Planning & Zoning Commission amendment (reported): Approved by Planning & Zoning (counts 2‑bedroom units as 1.5 workforce units; retention rule for 80–90% SMI and proposed 5% bonus density). (Vote recorded by Planning & Zoning; details reported to committee.)

Ending: Committee members asked staff to return with the Brownfields GIS, the updated tracking spreadsheet, and cost estimates for pilot programs. The committee also agreed to invite expert speakers and extend the next meeting to 90 minutes to continue work on the affordable housing account and tax‑credit strategies.