Members of the town’s newly created Housing Task Force held their first meeting yesterday morning (Monday, February 22). This is the first time in many years that Greenwich has a broad based community group looking at affordable housing.
The Board of Selectmen appointed the members of this task force in response to a recommendation in the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). The POCD, which was approved by the RTM last June, also recommended that the First Selectman create task forces for the downtown, for parking and transportation, for town properties and for the implementation of the plan. All 5 task forces are now in place.
First Selectman Peter Tesei attended yesterday’s meeting to give task force members their marching orders. He expects the task force, chaired by the town’s retired Director of Community Development Nancy Brown, to provide him with an initial report by the end of May, and quarterly thereafter. Tesei, who chairs the Implementation Task Force, plans to give his first report on the implementation of the POCD at the RTM’s June meeting. His report will incorporate the information that he receives in reports from all the task forces. Tesei said he expects the duration of the task forces to be no longer than 2 years.
In welcoming the members of the task force and thanking them for agreeing to serve, Tesei said that, although diverse points of view are represented, he hopes everyone will come to the task with an open mind. Brown said she wants to be sure everyone understands the task force is starting with a clean slate and without preconceived agendas. She asked task force members to suspend their ideas about what they think the answer is pending research into “the multitude of information that is available.” Her expectation is that the task force will develop a profile of the town and its housing needs, and put forward various tools for addressing these needs.
Both Brown and Tesei asked members of the task force to familiarize themselves with the housing recommendations in the POCD, as this document provides the basis for what the task force is to report on.
Tesei said that one of the actions identified in the POCD is an action that can be taken right away. He wanted assurance there would be follow-up on a suggestion made in regard to this action item at the United Way Legislative Breakfast where our state legislators were asked to seek modification of Section 8-30g of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS). Such modification would define affordable housing in terms of the Stamford-Norwalk Metropolitan Statistical Area median income rather than in terms of the state median income which is too low to be workable in Greenwich. Section 8-30g is the statute that allows a developer to use a fast track appeals procedure if a municipality turns down an application that includes affordable housing as defined in the statute. It exempts municipalities from this appeals procedure if 10% of the municipality’s housing is affordable according to the statutory definition.
The definition of affordable housing is one of the challenges the task force faces. This is not just a matter of the considerable difference between definitions in terms of the state median income as opposed to definitions that use a Metropolitan Statistical Area median. There are also differences in definition depending on funding sources for affordable housing. And definitions specifically geared to Greenwich’s affordable housing needs point to higher incomes than are generally considered eligible for affordable housing. The very terms ‘affordable housing’ and ‘moderate income housing’ call for better definition.
Peter Sweetser, a representative from Greenwich Hospital, said that the income of hospital employees “wouldn’t under anyone’s standard be considered low income.”
Depending on different definitions, the town currently has different amounts of affordable housing. The most recent United Way study has the number of affordable units in Greenwich at 1,100. Princess Erfe, who heads the Community Development office, said that in her reports to HUD the number of affordable units in Greenwich, by the definitions she uses, is 1,800. Erfe said that the matter of definition was complex, with different definitions. Brown suggested the task force also take a look at the various funding sources to see what definitions they use.
Erfe asked that at the next meeting the task force have basic information regarding definitions and the housing that currently exists in town. She said that members of the task force must first have a basic understanding of what the town has now and who is served.
Mark Schroeder, an RTM representative to the task force from District 2, suggested that the group limit itself to a definition that qualifies as affordable housing under state statutes. Bill Finger, the BET representative to the task force, disagreed, saying that the task force “should not be held to the state definition.”
Schroeder saw what he called “two buckets.” On the one hand there are housing needs unique to Greenwich, he said, and then there are the state requirements. He expressed concern that the task force could create its own definition of affordable housing to meet Greenwich needs, but that any such housing would not be counted by the state.
Brown, however, pointed out that there is no state housing requirement for municipalities. There is nothing that the state requires, and there are no state penalties for municipalities that do not have affordable housing.
While Section 8-30g of the CGS exempts from the fast track appeal municipalities that have 10% of their housing affordable by the statutory definition, the statute does not require non-exempt towns to have 10% of their housing affordable by this definition.There is no such state mandate.
This exemption from the fast track appeals procedure came about because legislators at the time felt municipalities such as Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport already had more than their fair share of low income housing. Although some have since interpreted it this way, the 10% threshold was not originally intended as a standard that all municipalities should attain.
Margarita Alban, a task force member who serves on the Planning and Zoning Commission, suggested that the task force look at affordable housing definitions in terms of local needs.
Schroeder asked that the task force not just look at the town’s housing needs, but at the same time take into consideration the effect of additional housing on neighborhoods, the effect on the town in terms of density and the cost to the town, both direct and indirect. He also suggested ‘swapping out’ affordable housing by locating it in surrounding communities.
Bea Walko, from the Byram community, suggested the task force look rather at surrounding communities in order to see what other communities have done, particularly with regard to housing for teachers. It would be helpful to the task force to know what has been successful elsewhere, she said. Stuart Adelberg of the United Way echoed this suggestion, saying that members of the task force could learn by looking at examples from other communities, and seeing what works and what doesn’t work.
Brown said that, although a very different community from Greenwich, Stamford has a considerable variety of affordable housing that might be worth looking at.
Brown said she would like to establish a sub-committee to look at 6 -110 (g) of the local zoning regulations and perhaps tweak this provision for affordable housing to provide more of an incentive for developers to use it. According to Brown, this regulation has worked well in Greenwich, resulting in 7 affordable units in the housing development at the former Clam Box site and 4 units on Prospect Street. This zoning provision is intended to encourage moderate income units as part of market rate housing developments.
Seeing this as one type of subsidy, Bernadette Settlemeyer, a representative from the Housing Authority, suggested the task force identify all possible types of subsidy, as well as ways in which zoning regulations can encourage affordable housing development.
Town planner Diane Fox emphasized that all such development needs to take place where there is adequate infrastructure, which is why the POCD looks to the Post Road for additional density.
Sam Romeo, however, seemed disinclined to limit the scope of task force research to multifamily development, noting that many town employees and teachers want a house with a backyard.
The task force adjourned its first meeting after an hour an a half of discussion with the understanding that the group will meet every other week on Mondays, alternating between an 8 a.m. morning meeting and a 7 p.m. evening meeting.
