Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews request to increase affordable units at Riverview Park; action deferred pending legal review
Summary
Canal Properties sought to change previously approved affordable-housing commitments at Riverview Park (125 Canal St) from roughly 10% to a CHFA-backed 20% set-aside; commissioners discussed term lengths (20 vs. 40 years), counting under state programs, and asked staff to consult corporation counsel before taking action.
At its June 11 meeting the Shelton Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a request from Canal Properties LLC to amend prior approvals for the Riverview Park development at 125 Canal Street to increase the share of units designated as affordable from the previously referenced 10% (nine units) to 20% (roughly 18 units) under a CHFA (Connecticut Housing Finance Authority) workforce-housing financing program.
Attorney Steven Bellas, representing Canal Properties, said the applicant is applying for a CHFA workforce-housing loan that, under the program criteria, would require a 20% set-aside of units with affordable restrictions for the length of the loan. Bellas and commission members discussed program terms: the CHFA program was described in meeting materials as providing a permanent loan term of 20 years (with amortization noted separately), and a deed restriction/minimum affordability period in the CHFA paperwork of at least six years in some circumstances.
Commissioners raised concerns about the duration of affordability restrictions. Commissioners reported that the previous approval (June 2022) required nine affordable units but that the length of the restriction was not explicitly recorded in the resolution. Several commissioners said the commission intended a 40-year deed restriction in the past, but the written resolution does not state that, and the commission asked staff to seek a formal opinion from corporation counsel to clarify the legal options and the implications of accepting 20% at 20 years vs. a 40-year restriction. No formal amendment or vote on the applicant's request occurred; staff will consult corporation counsel and return the matter to a future meeting.
