Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 8 30j Goals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional planners push CHFA/USDA promotion, ADU tracking and nonprofit partnerships to meet 8‑30j goals
Summary
RiverCOG staff reported a spreadsheet of 8‑30j goals across towns and identified top shared goals: promote CHFA/USDA programs, pursue nonprofit partnerships, educate the public on ADUs, and consider development of municipally owned land; several towns urged tracking and incentives.
RiverCOG staff presented a consolidated review of towns’ 8‑30j plan goals and identified common priorities for regional coordination.
Eliza Lopusti explained the team had compiled goals from municipal plans into a spreadsheet to inform upcoming plan updates due in 2027. She said the top five shared goals among responding towns were promoting USDA and CHFA programs, pursuing nonprofit partnerships (including senior community development groups), public education on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and considering development of municipally owned land.
On the first goal, staff noted CHFA and USDA participation data appear on published appeals lists and in CHFA reporting. ‘‘Laura Watson in DOH receives a master list from CHFA each certification cycle,’’ a staff member said, and RiverCOG offered to help towns access or validate those lists on request. Municipal participants said many towns had not started promotion and that one town (Hamden) had recorded recent units developed through those programs.
Speakers urged practical tactics: distribute fact sheets and web links, issue social media blasts, and track changes to determine what works. One municipal representative proposed incentives (for example, tax incentives) to encourage ADU creation; several towns reported ADUs are under‑documented and urged consistent permit tracking. Staff recommended measuring outcomes (for example, permit counts before and after regulatory or outreach changes) to evaluate impact.
On partnerships, participants discussed using municipally owned parcels or buildings as the ‘‘lowest hanging fruit’’ and issuing RFPs/RFQs to attract nonprofit developers such as Hope Partnership, Habitat or Mercy. RiverCOG and DOH staff described models where a municipality hires a development consultant for parcel‑specific analyses and where certain state‑owned parcels are prioritized for housing by recent legislation.
Committee members also discussed public education approaches to reduce contention: moderated community conversations, newsletters, and non‑threatening presentations that explain housing market dynamics and zoning impacts. Several towns reported mixed results from community conversations but noted they can make residents feel heard.
There were no formal actions taken because the meeting lacked a quorum.
