The push to create affordable housing regulations in Oxford is back on track.
Earlier this month the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission authorized its chairman, Pat Cocchiarella, to sign a contract with BFJ Planning. The company will begin drafting “incentive housing zones” for the commission.
Incentive housing zones promote the construction of affordable housing. While local Democrats and Republicans both say they aren’t opposed to affordable housing — it has been and remains one of the town’s most contentious issues.
Why Affordable?
First Selectwoman Mary Ann Drayton-Rogers, a Democrat, said that creating affordable housing regulations — actually, in this case, an “incentive housing overlay zone,” is a must for Oxford.
The overlay, which would be written into the town’s zoning laws, would show parts of town where affordable housing should be encouraged. In the past, parts of the Route 67 corridor has been named as a place to encourage affordable housing.
Not having affordable housing regulations on the books leaves Oxford vulnerable to lawsuits from developers, Drayton-Rogers said in an interview earlier this year.
Companies wanting to build a housing development have the ability to circumvent local zoning law by making a percentage of the development “affordable,” as defined by state law.
State law says towns must encourage affordable housing. If a town doesn’t have anything on the books saying where it can go, a developer can try to use the state law to put the development almost anywhere they want.
A state judge is already on the record saying Oxford has not done enough to promote affordable housing.
“The courts will rule on their (developers’) side every time until we take control of the issue,” Drayton-Rogers said.
A copy of the state’s affordable housing appeals procedure is posted below. Article continues after the document.
Example
Judge John W. Pickard, in a written decision last year, said a 1991 state law requires municipalities to have regulations that, among other things, helps guide where affordable housing can be built.
The courts got involved after Garden Homes, a development company, applied to the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission to build affordable housing along Donovan and Hurley roads.
The commission denied the application in 2007, prompting Garden Homes to take Oxford to court.
The company wanted to build a 113-unit development, with 35 units affordable, as defined by state law.
The commission’s reasons for denying the Garden Homes project did “not clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing in Oxford,” Pickard wrote in his decision.
“The Oxford (zoning) regulations do not contain any provisions which seriously address this (affordable housing) requirement.”
Pickard also pointed out that just 1.1 percent of the housing stock in Oxford qualifies as affordable, “ranking Oxford near the bottom of Connecticut’s 169 municipalities.”
A copy of the judge’s ruling is posted below. Article continues after the document.
Deja Sue
Another developer — Central Park, LLC — filed a lawsuit earlier this year appealing a decision the Planning and Zoning Commission made regarding affordable housing in the area of Larkay Road and Christian Street.
In that case, the developer had approvals for 82 “age-restricted” housing units. However, the company, citing the poor economy, wanted to increase the number to 164 units, lift the age restriction — and make a percentage affordable.
Residents complained the number of units was far too many for the neighborhood.
However, the developer may have a case, since Oxford still hasn’t put strong affordable housing guidelines on the books.
The application was submitted just before the town put a moratorium on affordable housing proposals. The moratorium was supposed to give the town the time needed to create regulations.
That case is pending.
Incentive Housing
Cocchiarella, the Oxford P & Z chairman, said creating an incentive housing overlay zone will take the leverage out of the developer’s hands and give his commission control over what’s built in Oxford and where.
“We’re not opposed to affordable housing. It’s just that like every other zone — our commercial zone, industrial zone or our residential zone — the Planning and Zoning Commission, and therefore the town, needs certain control over it,” Cocchiarella said.
As it stands, Oxford is at the whim of developers, the chairman said.
“With the (state) regulations, we can’t do anything except deny it — and then go to court where a judge tells us we have to do it,” Cocchiarella said. “You spend a half million dollars on court costs and you lose.”
A copy of the state’s incentive housing law is posted below. Article continues after the document.
Mud Fight
The town’s Planning and Zoning Commission was moving toward creating affordable housing regs in 2009. However, that effort fell apart when the issue became politicized, according to Drayton-Rogers.
In the run-up to the November 2009 Selectman race, flyers were distributed around Oxford, accusing Drayton-Rogers’ incumbent Democratic administration of promoting high-density housing. Some flyers had photos of run-down federal housing projects in Bridgeport.
Drayton-Rogers said town Republicans and the group “Keep Oxford Green“ have spread misinformation about affordable housing, in an effort to scare residents and win votes. They’ve also turned on local Republicans who show any willingness to work with Democrats, Drayton-Rogers said.
“Obviously, I’ve been taking a lot of heat in town from a group called ‘Keep Oxford Green,’ but, quite frankly, it’s the previous administration that turned this into a political issue,” Drayton-Rogers. ‘Keep Oxford Green’ made this a political issue and stopped the P&Z from moving forward on it. They put us in a situation where we’re dealing with a second lawsuit.”
Not So Fast
However, Ed Carver, one of the “Keep Oxford Green” founders, said the Drayton-Rogers administration isn’t being upfront with residents.
“They are on the record as supporting high-density housing,” Carver said. Drayton-Rogers said that simply isn’t true.
“Keep Oxford Green” isn’t necessarily against affordable housing — but they are strongly opposed to high-density housing, such as condominium complexes, Carver said. Most residents in town feel the same way, he said.
Carver also said that Oxford officials are in correct when they say the town doesn’t have affordable housing regulations. There are some, but they need to be improved, Carver said. He said Oxford, like any other town, is always at risk of being sued. The town should plant its feet and fight when necessary, Carver indicated.
“Mary Ann Drayton-Rogers has been very manipulative in this whole process,” Carver said. “We are not opposed to affordable housing. Our efforts are to keep the town rural.”
Carver said affordable housing should be allowed in as single-family houses only, not new condos or apartments. He worried the incentive housing overlay zone will encourage high-density housing that doesn’t fit the town’s rural character.
Drayton-Rogers pointed out that outgoing Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has pushed towns to promote affordable housing so that young people stop leaving the state. She said the toughest part of the issue is fighting the rumors spread by those opposed.
“This administration stands firm on the fact that regulations are needed,” Drayton-Rogers said. “It will continue to be an issue because the opposition party wants to make it an issue. All they are doing is advertising to developers that Oxford does not have regulations. Shame on them for doing that.”
This article summarizes the issue perfectly! Haversat and other Republicans said new regulations were not necessary, I guess they are used to lawsuits and losing, because this is exactly what the judge said and exactly what has happened and will continue to happen. Haversat, the other Republicans, and KOG should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for their position of putting Oxford at risk.
They even go after their own people when you cross them. Remember where you read it first, here, the Republicans and KOG have manipulated P & Z into replacing the current P & Z Chairman (Pat Cocchiarella) in early 2011 because as a Republican, he did not “fall in-line” with what they wanted him to do. He was working towards a good solution for Oxford (regulations) and working with Democrats, so that made him no longer worthy of their support.
Happened tonight just as I said it would and guess what, Pat said it happened because of the other Republicans thinking he was not being partisan enough! Republicans will eat their own children if it gave them more power, they have no ethics or morals!