Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Office Conversion Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues proposed GBO text amendment on office-to-residential conversions after extensive debate over affordability and fees-in-lieu
Summary
A proposed zoning text amendment to allow payment-in-lieu options for converting office buildings in the GBO zone was continued after commissioners raised concerns about the proposed 10% affordable set-aside, the adequacy of the fee formula, and whether funds would be directed to a municipal housing trust or another entity.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on April 22 continued review of a proposed zoning text amendment (Greenwich Park LLC) that would create a payment-in-lieu option for inclusionary requirements on office-to-residential conversions in the Greenwich Business Office (GBO) zone. The commission did not vote on the text; members requested additional study and alternative scenarios.
Commissioner Jenkins read a statement on behalf of the Affordable Housing Trust Board, reporting the trust’s view that the proposed payment-in-lieu language needs clarification and that Connecticut law requires payments in lieu to be made to municipally controlled housing trust funds. Jenkins said the Trust found a 10% affordable allocation in the proposal “does not meet the standards for affordable housing under section 6.1.10 or under assisted housing incentivized construction” and that the proposed fee—three times the town median wage or about $281,811 per affordable unit as drafted—“would not be adequate to fund the actual cost of constructing units to substitute for units not included in the converted building.”
Applicant representative (Mr.) Tessie said the amendment is intended to incentivize adaptive reuse of larger GBO buildings — in particular Building 8 in the Greenwich Office Park — by allowing certain underused garage or non-FAR areas to be converted to residential floor area if developers provide offsets (affordable units or payments). Tessie said he used town employee median income in the draft formula to create an annually adjustable payment and said the applicant is open to adjusting both the per-unit amount and the affordable-unit percentage.
Commission members urged the applicant to present multiple options and clearer illustrations of outcomes. Commissioner Yeske asked the applicant to show what would happen under three alternatives: (1) the applicant’s current proposal; (2) a straight use of section 6.1.10 incentives; and (3) a pure market conversion with no affordability but with the floor-area implications spelled out. Commissioners Wells and Jeske stressed that the balance of incentives, FAR relief and affordable-unit numbers needs to be reworked – several members said the current draft appears to offer substantial incentives for only a small affordable-unit yield.
Planning staff and commissioners also noted pending state legislation that could create as-of-right conversions or tax credits for office-to-housing conversions; the commission asked the applicant and staff to monitor pending bills and return once the applicant provides comparative scenarios, actual floor-area calculations and draft deed restrictions or implementation language. The commission continued the item and requested additional details, including clear FAR calculations, unit counts, and where fees would be routed if the payment-in-lieu option remains part of the draft.
