Ad hoc committee backs seven-year tax deferral for proposed 79-unit senior-affordable project

The Danbury ad hoc committee on assessment deferrals voted unanimously to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve a seven-year tax-assessment deferral for a proposed 79-unit downtown residential project, provided the city and petitioner incorporate conditions from the applicant’s Feb. 3 letter including that at least 80% of the units qualify as affordable housing under state rules.

Chair Joe Bray opened the meeting and explained the committee was reconvened to resolve questions raised at an earlier session. Corporation counsel summarized the legal framework, saying the application was filed under the city’s ordinance authorizing assessment deferrals (Danbury Code §44-63) and that the planning commission’s prior approval (2011) requires at least 24 of the 79 units to be affordable under Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-30g. The petitioner’s Feb. 3 letter clarified financing constraints tied to the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program and estimated that at least 80% of units would qualify as affordable (approximately 63 units).

John Beecher, counsel for the petitioner, described the project as a downtown, senior-oriented housing development with 61 one-bedroom and 18 two-bedroom units. He told the committee that the tax deferral is a critical leg of a three-part financing package (LIHTC, private mortgage, state grants) and that committing to 100% affordable units could make the project unfinanceable under state and federal program rules. "We believe that we would be able to meet the condition of 80% of the units," Beecher said, and added that the developer’s intention is to aim higher if financing allows.

Committee members pressed for specifics. On parking, the petitioner said the garage serving the project has more than 110 spaces and that the planning commission required roughly 74 spaces for the residential portion; the petitioner estimated practical resident need at about 53 spaces and pledged to make parking available to any senior resident who needs it, while noting any monthly charge would be part of the ultimate financing plan. On residency, counsel and the petitioner said federal rules for LIHTC projects prevent an outright local age restriction but allow marketing preference and waiting-list priorities that can help give Danbury seniors earlier access to units.

Members also discussed fiscal impacts. The petitioner said the city would gain an estimated $250,000 a year in tax revenue in current dollars once the building is on the rolls; the committee converted that figure to an approximate $1.75 million foregone revenue over a seven-year deferral for budgeting discussion but noted annual assessments and inflation could change that picture.

Several members asked whether deed restrictions or contract language could prevent an owner from transferring the abatement or abandoning the affordability commitment. Corporation counsel advised the committee that while the council can require property- and project-level restrictions and can require council approval of transfers, restricting ownership itself could conflict with how LIHTC projects are structured (often LLC ownership). Counsel recommended addressing transfer and enforcement mechanisms in the assessment-deferral agreement and related deed restrictions.

At the meeting’s close, Chair Bray moved that the committee recommend City Council approval of the assessment deferral pursuant to §44-63, conditioned on the applicant’s Feb. 3 letter and a requirement that 80% of the units be low-income affordable; the motion was seconded and carried by a unanimous voice vote. The item is scheduled to go before the full City Council in June.

Note on transcript inconsistency: the transcript alternately refers to the project address as "11 Mountain Street" and "11 Ballon Street." The committee materials and the petitioner’s letter should be checked for the authoritative street address before publication.

What’s next: The committee will forward the recommendation to the full City Council; members asked staff to provide precedent information about previous abatements and transfers and to supply parking and income-guideline details before the June hearing.