Connecticut and Westchester; Affordable Housing Law Brews a Storm
|
|
A RISING storm has begun to swirl around Connecticut legislation that was designed to shift some of the responsibility for affordable housing from overburdened cities to the suburbs. The law is aimed at towns in which fewer than 10 percent of the dwellings are classified as affordable. At least a dozen resulting lawsuits, with dozens more expected, are winding through the courts on the heels of the first one to reach a judicial decision early last month. In that case, Superior Court Judge Marshall K. Berger Jr. rejected all 19 of Trumbull’s objections to a zoning change that would permit construction of a 600-unit rental project. He remanded the case back to the town, allowing 90 days for the zoning commission to provide an alternative and reserving the right to order the complex to be built. On March 23, the town filed a petition for dismissal in Appellate Court, contending that the proposal is not a bona fide affordable project and therefore not covered by the law. The complex will duplicate one that the developer built in Middletown in 1988, with free swimming pool, clubhouse, tennis, and racquetball courts for the tenants. The court may or may not choose to hear the case. Trammell Crow, the developer, entered a motion March 27 to terminate the remand order and go directly to trial as Trumbull requested. “The biggest misconception is that this is affordable housing,” said Chuck Berman, head of Trammell Crow’s Connecticut operations. “It’s a market-rate development with 20 percent affordable units as defined by the state.” Apart from the disputations over zoning changes, fears of increased traffic and overwhelmed town services, there is a hard core of determination in smaller municipalities to guard their independence in regulating land use. Under what they view as the most onerous aspect of the statute, the burden of proof in denying any application with a minimum of 20 percent affordable units now lies with the planning and zoning commissions. They must prove that the project is harmful according to state specifications. Formerly, the developer had to prove to the commission that the project was within local planning and zoning regulations, or would do no harm if granted a zoning change or other concessions. More : query.nytimes.com |