Norwalk City’s Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee discussed “missing middle” housing, accessory dwelling units and other zoning and legislative steps during its July meeting as staff outlined recent planning-and-zoning changes and next steps for incentives and outreach.

The meeting covered three main threads: 1) recent Planning and Zoning Commission regulatory changes that adjust how certain units count toward workforce housing requirements and add modest density incentives; 2) a push to expand and simplify accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules and possible preapproved ADU plans; and 3) exploration of targeted tax abatements and state legislative proposals to remove statutory barriers to housing types the city needs.

The committee heard that the planning commission adopted new language allowing a limited density-related incentive tied to unit type, plus a recertification allowance for workforce tenants. As Michelle, planning staff, summarized: “there was a density bonus language that was adopted, and then there was language that would allow recertifying tenants that are already in the program to remain in the program, but, allow them to have a bump in their income, annually up to 90% state median income.” The staff said the 90% state median income (SMI) recertification provision is effective now and that administrators enforcing workforce restrictions were emailed about the change.

On the density incentive, staff described two related changes: a rule that lets certain larger bedrooms count at a higher ratio toward required workforce units (e.g., a two‑bedroom counted as 1.5 workforce units under the revised formula), and a small overall density “bump” (described in the meeting as roughly 5% in one clause). Staff added a safeguard that would remove the bonus if the city’s affordable share crossed a higher threshold (a 12% figure was mentioned as a trigger for rescinding the provision).

Planning staff framed “missing middle” housing as building types between single-family houses and large apartment complexes — typically duplexes through small multiplexes and cottage courts. Steve, planning staff, defined the local target as roughly “2 to 10” units for the city’s missing-middle band and listed forms the city already allows (duplexes, townhouses, fourplexes, and some multiplexes) and types that may need new rules (cottage courts).

The committee spent substantial time on ADUs. Staff said the Planning and Zoning Commission has loosened ADU rules over the past two years and that detached ADUs now require a site-plan application; if a detached ADU conforms to regulations, the commission must approve it. Staff said they have seen an uptick in ADU applications since the detached-ADU rules changed: “I’d say at least 6 or 8 since the detached have come in,” Michelle said. The commission is weighing whether to allow detached ADUs entirely as of right and whether to increase the permitted size (the meeting noted a current 700-square-foot reference point under discussion).

To reduce barriers, staff proposed creating a set of preapproved ADU designs (a design contest and a small catalog of architect‑vetted plans) to save homeowners design costs and speed permitting. Steve said the city is still working through how designers would be compensated for reuse of those plans. The committee discussed targeted outreach to homeowners and local builders, including webinars for contractors and distribution of a simple “one-pager” with step-by-step ADU guidance. Multiple committee members urged proactive outreach to both residents and local builders to increase uptake.

The committee also reviewed outcomes of the zoning rewrite. Staff said the rewrite rezoned several hundred parcels: roughly 436 properties from single‑family to allow two‑family (CD‑2) and about 375 from two‑family to multifamily in walkable corridors (transit corridors, Route 1/Connecticut Avenue, near train stations). Staff reported that about half of properties eligible to add a second unit historically take that option over long timeframes, and members discussed the need for better visuals and street‑level outreach when pursuing future rezoning to reduce neighborhood pushback.

Other issues discussed included the potential conversion of large, largely vacant office buildings to residential use (staff said conversion economics are often constrained by current allowable density), the city’s draft legislative proposals (three items were described: measures to support grocery stores in urban areas, incentives to encourage condo/homeownership development, and giving the housing authority a right of first refusal on tax-sale properties), and safety concerns about illegal, unpermitted accessory units. Committee members noted the public‑safety risk from unpermitted units and debated whether and how to bring existing illegal units into compliance without displacing occupants.

The committee took one formal action: approval of the May 29 meeting minutes. Chair Nora asked for a motion to approve the May 29 minutes; the minutes were approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned with plans to reconvene in September and for staff and committee members to continue work on the tracker, preapproved ADU designs, outreach and the legislative package.

The committee identified follow-up steps: finalize the tracker and share the 90% SMI numbers with managers, assemble a one‑page ADU guidance document for residents and builders, explore preapproved ADU plans and contractor outreach, continue work with the corporation counsel and mayor’s office on the legislative package, and evaluate targeted tax‑abatement options with the ordinance committee.