Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Downtown housing debate: unit sizes, parking, and whether inclusionary fees or in‑kind units should be favored
Summary
Commissioners and staff debated retail‑zone unit size caps (current 750 sq ft), options to raise a 1‑bedroom maximum (suggested 900 sq ft), use of percentage mixes (e.g., 25% minimum 1‑bedrooms), parking for 2+ bedroom units (proposed 1 space), and revising fee‑in‑lieu and density bonuses to better reflect per‑unit development costs.
The subcommittee carried an extended discussion about how to manage new residential development in the downtown retail zone. Staff noted the draft includes conditions that would bar residential units on the ground floor, cap unit square footage (the existing rule limits units to no more than 750 square feet), and require inclusionary housing for buildings with five or more units. Several commissioners questioned whether a strict maximum or a percentage mix better serves the town’s goals.
Options discussed included increasing the 1‑bedroom maximum from 750 to 900 square feet, allowing a capped share of larger 2‑bedroom units (for example, up to 50% of units) while preserving a smaller‑unit supply, and rounding rules for percentage requirements so small developments still comply. Commissioners also debated a parking rule for Retail A: keep the existing exemption for most uses but require one parking space for any dwelling with two or more bedrooms. Staff warned Connecticut law limits municipal authority to mandate minimum apartment sizes but allows maximum‑size rules and format controls; the subcommittee asked staff to verify statutory constraints before final text.
On inclusionary policy, staff proposed simplifying the density bonus formula and asked the subcommittee to re‑examine the fee‑in‑lieu amount. Commissioners noted that local per‑door construction costs (developers and the housing authority in the discussion referenced per‑door costs exceeding current fee values) suggest the fee‑in‑lieu may need to rise to make fee payments equivalent to producing affordable units.
Next steps: staff will prepare draft language reflecting a retail‑zone maximum unit size and a parking exception for 2+ bedroom units, provide legal checks on allowable municipal controls, and produce updated fee‑in‑lieu numbers for review.
