Stratford Zoning Commission Meeting Transcript

Public hearing and Administrative Meeting

Wednesday, January 29th
Workforce Amendment
150 Oronoque Lane

(Speaker 1)

Harold Watson:  Good evening, everybody. I thank you. You definitely are the majorities tonight so I really need you to help me keep it quiet so that we can hear our Presenters and also so that when we get ready to hear from you so that other people can hear what you have to say.

Good evening this is Harold Watson, chair of the Stratford Zoning Commission that now sits for a zoning commission public hearing and administrative meeting on Wednesday, January 29th 2025. Quorum for this meeting is for the following elected commissioners: zone 1 Commissioner Linda Manos, zone 2 Commissioner Ewald Joseph, Zone 3 Commissioner Harold Watson, zone 4 Commissioner Deborah Lamberti, zone 5 Commissioner Len Petrucelli.

Alternates in attendance include Rich Fredette. We also welcome Jay Habansky, our Planning and Zoning commissioner, Gail deCilio our recording secretary, Patricia Sullivan our legal counsel for zoning. Notice for this meeting was in the Connecticut Post on January 15th and January 22nd.

The Public may speak only at the invitation of the chair during both administrative and public hearings. We ask that you sign up to speak this evening. If you didn’t sign up, just wait until we complete with the signed up people. If we have time you can just go right on to the end of that list.

I request that town employees speak first so that they may present their department’s information and also save us on overtime. In all cases, please remember to state your name and address so that our secretary can record it. I also want to add if you have signed a petition that was delivered to the Planning and Zoning office, you don’t necessarily need to speak tonight. We already have you on record with your views. I’m not saying don’t, but I’m saying that will actually maybe free up time for some of the people that we have here. While I will impose a three-minute time limit, that really is going to be pushing it.

I will also ask that you stay on subject, not be repetitive, and keep on topic. I will notify you when you should wrap up. Please be respectful of our process and all speakers.   I do reserve the right to limit time if needed, as we will end this meeting at 10 o’clock. With that said, I call to order this regular public hearing of the Stratford Zoning Commission at 6 p.m. And open the public hearing.

Read the first one into the record. Yes, please Text amendment petition of Gold Coast Properties LLC seeking to modify 5.5 regarding workforce housing. Please step forward.

[Speaker 2]

Benjamin Proto:  Good evening. Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, Commissioner Habansky, for the record. My name is Benjamin Proto, Area Median Income (AMI).  I’m an attorney in Stratford at 2885 Main Street. I represent Gold Coast. The applicant with me this evening is Stephen Shapiro from Gold Coast along with James Amon.  We’re here this evening on a text amendment and we’re proposing a text amendment to include a more, we believe, comprehensive regulation in regards to the issue of workforce housing in Stratford. You’ll notice that the amendment references section 5.5 of the regulations This is because we submitted the regulation in December prior to the adoption of your new regulations, which I now believe brings this particular provision into section 5.1 of your new regulations, so we can kind of move back and forth, but that’s why it references 5.5 and not 5.1. What we’ve done here is we’ve brought in a regulation that we think is more Comprehensive than the regulation that this Commission put in place in early January, and we’ve broken it out into a couple of different provisions. We’ve broken it out for renovation of existing structures and new construction, and we did that for a reason and provided this particular regulation only impacts properties within a half a mile of Lordship Boulevard from Bridgeport, the Bridgeport line, to Access road and then Access road to the army engine plant, a half a mile on either side, which puts us primarily in the industrial park in our industrial region of Stratford, which is where predominantly most of our jobs are which is where workforce housing is best placed near employment opportunities.  So the reason we broke it out was there are a number of buildings in this particular area of town that are empty, that are not being utilized and that could be converted to workforce housing without changing the footprint of the building.  There is also property which would require demolition of a building, creating vacant land which would require then the building of a new structure. So that is why you see renovation and new construction, and I know Mr. Habansky referenced that in his comments, and that’s why it’s there.  It’s really that simple, to be able to utilize certain structures that are there, that are good, that have solid bones so that you don’t need to tear that down.  You can use as is and just renovate the inside to create the appropriate apartments that go with it.  We built in there and it only applies in three specific zones in rs4 and rm1 and a CA zone, that it could be utilized. So some of the industrial property in the south end between that half-mile radius is not eligible for use for workforce housing. Under this particular provision, we created a density requirement, which we think meets the need for this particular type of housing. We’ve created the types of units, different types of apartments, from studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, with parking. This particular regulation contains what we believe are better elements for this Commission to utilize in workforce housing.  Your current workforce housing regulation requires It to be located in a couple of places in a TOD zone, within a half mile of a major employer,  places like that the biggest major employer in the Town of Stratford, Sikorsky Aircraft, half a mile within Sikorsky Aircraft, subject to approval of the Commission under your current regulation.  You could build this type of workforce housing under this regulation.  It is specifically limited to a specific area of town which we think gives the Commission much better control of where this type of housing can be built.  It includes all the provisions that we saw in your previous regulations regarding landscaping, lighting, driveway easements, utilities, things along those lines that you’re used to seeing, that you’ve dealt with in the past.  One thing we did not include, that we would ask if you do choose to Adopt this,  to add to the regulation, is that all units must be at least 80% to no more than 100% of AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI).  If you do that, you will ensure that for each unit built the town will receive one full credit towards its affordable goal. Under your current regulation between 60 and up 120. Why would any developer develop at 60% or 80% when I could develop it at 120%? You’re not going to get any credit, but it’s still going to count under your regulation. You want this to work towards your credits.

So by adopting and including the 80% AMI in the regulation, you will be building in a guarantee of one credit. Under your current regulations by utilizing the current workforce regulations from the state. It’s a six-year deed restriction.  We’re talking about a 40-year deed restriction, so you will keep that credit for 40 years as opposed to having to go back to the state to seek to renew the credit once the deed restriction expires, so all in all while the regulation that was built into your new regulation, I think was a really good start for workforce housing and what we’re seeing from the state of Connecticut.  This is a program the state of Connecticut is pushing very hard. They think it’s a very good program. They’re putting a lot of money behind this program. They’re looking to do this across the state to build this type of housing. One of the key features of our regulation is that for the first 30 days that housing is only available to teachers and town employees of the town of Stratford. They get the first choice of this housing before it’s open to the general public.  Again trying to ensure that people who work in the Town of Stratford have housing in the Town of Stratford, are living here and have a commitment to this community beyond simple employment.  That’s really it in a nutshell.  But what I want to do now is I want to bring up Steve Shapiro and Jim Amann to talk about the state programs.  Why this program works in other places, where it’s being done in other places, and I can tell you I have a project in Derby that I have recently done.  You’ve probably seen it if you’ve driven up Route 8 across from the Home Depot, what is now a green building. The state of Connecticut was so impressed with that they wanted to put workforce there. They came in and asked my client if they would dedicate 20% of the units to workforce housing in exchange for additional loan monies to make sure it worked. The state is fully committed to this program. They want to see this housing built across the state. It solves a problem we have with affordable housing in this state.

It adds additional units at a cut, at a sensible AMI. It makes it affordable for people to live in the town of Stratford to work in the town of Stratford, to be near their employment or transit situations that gets them to where they have to work. So all in all we take a look at what you’ve done, it’s good. But we think adding ours in will make the workforce housing regulation that you’ve put in place far better. Far more competitive, and provide better housing within the town of Stratford. But with that I want to bring up Jim Amann right now and Steve Shapiro to talk about the state program and some other projects that we’ve been doing.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: Ben, could you answer me one short question?We just got moments ago the DEP letter.  I haven’t seen the DEP letter, which basically is not disapproving of what you’ve written but are worried about, the fact that this is all in FEMA flood zones. So have you guys taken that into account? 

Ben Proto: Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, we haven’t seen the DEP letter, but clearly if it’s a new building it would have to meet all FEMA requirements,  if it’s an existing structure that exists as I understand it, whatever the existing structure is remains under the FEMA rules and the flood rules. Thank you. I just wanted to hear that.

 [Speaker 3]

Jim Amann: I just got over bronchitis. I’m not contagious so excuse me for my voice.  Honorable zoning members and Mr. Chairman, wonderful to see everybody again. I’m Jim Amann, 515 Pope’s Island Road, Milford. I’m the managing partner of International Government Strategies. Mr. Shapiro and myself, and part of my team have gone all over the state of Connecticut to different zoning to try to give a more palatable way of reaching our affordable housing. Workforce housing is something that a lot of the legislators feel is something worth exploring, something that most towns will embrace quicker than maybe some of the other affordable housing proposals that are out there. We have a bill number now if you want to follow it, House Bill 5002. Now that particular bill is what we call an aircraft carrier.

What I mean by that is the legislature is putting all housing bills in one particular bill that’s affordable housing, workforce housing. Also rents, homelessness, all in one big package, so I commend you for looking at this regulation because you’ll be able to be ahead of what the state is, and be where the City of Trumbull is, that has adopted this regulation already.  Again, what’s great about it? I think for the residents, it’s more palatable, number one. Number two, it does give a service to the workforce of the city of Stratford by giving firemen, police officers, nurses, school teachers the first choice of getting this housing. What’s affordable now?

Mr. Chairman as we all know, what’s affordable in one person may not be affordable to one to another, but certainly if you talk to young people trying to buy a home, this particular regulation will help a lot of our young people out. So I appreciate your patience with me, with my voice, and I thank you. I’ll turn this over to Mr. Shapiro. By the way, we’re hundreds of thousands, close to 300,000 units short in the state of Connecticut on housing, so that’s something that we believe this regulation may help on.

[Speaker 4)

Steve Shapiro:  Thank you very much for your time. I wanted to just describe a little bit the difference between Workforce and 830 G Affordable Housing. I think we all know why the rooms packed tonight.  Workforce in your regulation, it’s 60 to 120 percent, which was based off an actual finance package the state’s having which is built for CT.  The reason why me and former speaker James Amann are up in Hartford is there’s no clear-cut rule for what workforce housing really is. They have vague income guidelines.  The problem is like Attorney Proto had stated, before, any unit over 80% doesn’t count so you could take your reg, I could come and use it build 30 units, all at 100 or 120 percent of AMI,  town gets no credit. You actually need to build more units to catch up to those units that were built. So like Attorney Proto suggested we’d like a condition of approval because it’s good for the town. They get a full point for every unit at 80%. So 30 to 100 percent of the units in our proposal would get the town a full point at the 80% AMI.  Now you’d say why would a developer not just do the 30 at the AMI? So an 80% AMI unit would go for like $1,600, right? A one-bedroom in Shepherd’s probably getting a little more than that, maybe $1,900 right? So why would they give up the $300?

Well the state’s going to. They have grants, they have the loan program. They have incentives to build those units, financial support for the developer.  So the reality is you could get a hundred percent of the whole development at the 80 AMI at the workforce, which is going to get you a point for every single unit on an affordable housing project, only 30% of those units count as points.  So you’re getting over three times the credit for the town with our bill that we’re proposing for workforce than you would on an 830 G, which by the way a developer can put it anywhere. They can make it as dense as they want. There’s clear guidelines in our proposal on where it’s going, how dense it is. The town has control.  What you see a lot in the campaign, and from the Republicans on the state level for zoning local control, right?

This gives you local control, and regardless of party they don’t want a five-story building next to a house where they just paid $700,000 for an acre of land. Nobody, you know is a huge fan of that. Let’s be honest, we’re trying to do something good for the town, that where this zone is by all the jobs, it’s by Amazon, which is maybe the biggest employer in the United States.  It’s by UPS. It’s by FedEx. It’s by 95. It’s by your bus stops. It’s by all your transit. It’s got all the public utilities, we’re not knocking down forests and cutting down trees. It’s really a good thing for the town.

We really believe in it. The other thing with the bill for CT outside of the income 60 to 120 that’s in there, where you wouldn’t get credit under what’s adopted already, is it’s only for six years. So someone’s renting an apartment for $1,600 for six years, then all of a sudden it goes up to $2,400 and the person can’t afford it. So on a moral level, it’s messed up. Number two, then the town loses their credit for it. We’re deed restricting these units for 40 years.

Just like an affordable project counts the whole time, a person could stay there most of their life and they don’t have to worry about that getting out. Going to staff comments, we tried to get this added, you know, the end of the staff comments paragraph was oh, we just adopted regulations. Why should we consider this within 30 days? We proposed adding this to your regulations. You people know that and it was said, ‘Oh, it’s coming in January by staff. You don’t need a vote on it now, wait till January.’

Well, that’s fine That’s fair.  But then don’t say, don’t vote for it because we didn’t add it when you said not to add it because you’re waiting till January. It’s very contradictory. So I truly believe this is a good thing for the town. It’s going in an area where there are jobs. Think of the commuting cut down if these people live around a corner from their job. There’s less traffic on 95, it’s better for the environment, there’s less pollution and again, I’m not going to be redundant, you get more credits. It goes where it needs to go, and you don’t have to worry about development you don’t want. So thank you all very much for your time. Appreciate it.

So I’ll just end with a brief closing and I’m obviously happy to answer questions from the Commission. We believe that this regulation gives you, the Commission, far more control, far more power, far more ability, to ensure that the development in the Town of Stratford occurs the way you have been elected to ensure that it occurs, as you know under 830 G. I can bring an 830 G project in tomorrow morning on any one of these sites in Stratford, so long as it’s not an industrial property. I can make it eight stories tall.

I can put 200 units on it, I can put it next to a huge residential development and there’s not diddly-squat you can all do about it. You can deny it, we can appeal it, and we’ll win, right? This gives you the control that you don’t have with 830 G. We’re trying to give you that control. We think it’s a better program. It gives you the credits that you want towards your affordable units, and it provides the people in Stratford with the housing that they need in the areas that it’s needed. We appreciate your time. We appreciate your interest, and Mr. Chairman with that, we’re happy to answer any questions that any of the members may have.

Chairman:  Commissioner’s speak first and then you guys speak. Okay I need you guys to look at the DEP letter, make sure that you put an awareness of that to your document, speaks about building height, basically five stories is what we’re talking about, which is more than we’re—Go ahead—

Steve Shapiro: It’s four stories. It’s only five if there’s parking below which in the flood zone like you stated, you’re going to have the parking below because the building needs to be elevated. So it’s really four stories, and it’s not any taller than the TOD that already exists. You already have a regulation of that height, and the only reason why we went to that was because it’s in the flood zone. Can I have the parking underneath these buildings?

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: Would you be willing to sit down with our existing workforce housing as it’s written and insert your information into that so we can actually come up with an easy enough evaluation, as long as the language in here that benefits the town with this bill, whether I do it on my own or it’s added to yours, it doesn’t make a difference. Mr. Shapiro, I’ve been working on that exact phrase for the last two and a half years in every committee that I could think of, because I realize it’s part of the solution to the problem we have.  But you can see by the audience here, we have a lot of people that care about what their neighborhoods look like. So while we’re trying our best to get that work, while we’re trying to get that, we also need to address your interests and all that. I appreciate some of what you’ve written in here. It’s not totally crazy. We did what we could and quite honestly, it’s a changing world out there. When we started with our workforce housing, none of that existed.

[Speaker 3]

Ben Proto: It was just an idea and Mr. Chairman, as I said, I think you took this nugget of an idea, this kernel of an idea that no one really understood when you started it and created a regulation based on that kernel, that in a very short period of time went from this little kernel to a big bowl of popcorn.  And you now have to figure out how to take that bowl of popcorn and work it into the regulation so that it benefits the Town of Stratford, it provides the credits that this town so desperately needs and is deserving of, and provides affordable housing for people in an area where primarily our jobs are located in this town. There are things that we missed a lot, but at the same time there are things that you guys have missed.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: So I’m worried about we have all these units that we’ve built that theoretically are affordable, but we have no credits received for them. So we need your regulation to say how you’re going to achieve that. We have developers all the time coming in asking us, ‘can I use my own people to register all of the affordable people’? That doesn’t work. The state has a list of qualified people and we’ve been saying that for as long as I’ve been on zoning. We’ve been saying that you need to register with one of these companies because they promise that they will be around for 40 years. Your individual building company might not be here.

[Speaker 2]

Jim Amann: Well, the units are going to be deed restricted for 40 years at 80% AMI. Those count unequivocally, you know, register with the town, those units are going to count, and I’ll be part of the regulation.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: So they will count

[Speaker 2]

Jim Amann: For 40 years.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: But one of the problems we have, when I was working on Stratford Housing Partnership and we were talking about increasing the affordability, is Jay has five people in his office. He already works a very long day with all his projects. He cannot become the person who is responsible for recording all of these, keeping up yearly doing, when you have tenant turnovers and all those kinds of things. That is not something that Stratford has the money for right now, to expand our operation to cover that.

[Speaker 2]

Jim Amann: Well, Mr. Chairman, no matter who rents that unit, it’s deed restricted at that income for the next 40 years, so it’s always going to count no matter who lives there.

 [Speaker 3]

Steve Shapiro: Yeah, it’s recorded. I can offer a solution. I don’t know if the developers or tenants would particularly like it. You could require the recording of the lease on the land records against the deed restriction on the unit, so we can find it on the land records that that unit has been rented to a tenant who falls within the AMI Requirement to do that, but that AMI changes every year. Well, the percentage doesn’t.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: That’s a bureaucratic job that someone has to do. I’m not saying it’s a fault of yours or of ours, it’s just something that’s new. But if we want to get every credit that we can, I believe I agree with your statement that Stratford has tons of affordable housing. We just don’t get recognized for it. I agree with that. That’s not an untrue statement at all. So I want to see that change. That’s enough for me.

Let me go down to my other commissioners and let them speak: Debra; Linda; Lenny: I Have a comment, but it’s not related to this. It’s related to why don’t we keep track of it? So the percentage gets higher and these people don’t have to come out because if we get to 10%, developers can’t come in with affordable housing because if they go to court, they’ll lose, but as long as we stay at 6.1% we’re in deep trouble.

[Speaker 3]

Steve Shapiro: This helps solve part of that problem now. I’m not going to tell you it’s going to solve a hundred percent of your problem, but it gets you a whole lot closer to 100%.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: We have a very good committee in this town called the Stratford Housing Partnership that has worked on this issue for the last several years, and they’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to change these numbers and also how to have real affordable housing for our seniors, our local workers, the young kids that are just starting a family. Those three things have been identified as the you know, it’s 80% of our population. But it’s also one of our biggest problems that we need to address.  

[Speaker 3]

Steve Shapiro: Mr. Chairman I say this with all due respect to my friend the former speaker.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: The legislature has dropped the ball on this. Well, we’ve been waiting, we all have. This is a start, but that’s honest and it’s not as much, it’s everybody’s fault. It’s a new world that we’re walking into if we’re going to actually do what we say, which is take care of the people in our towns. We need to have a shift in what’s happening. I just want to say it once again—no matter how we vote, I want you guys to sit down with our existing workforce housing and give us a red letter update on what we have that will match with what you want, so that we can sit down and come up with and have a true vote representing the work that we’ve done, and the work that you’ve done.

[Speaker 3]

Steve Shapiro: We’re happy to do that. Mr. Chairman. We want this to work not only for my client or future developers, but more importantly for the town, even more importantly for the people who will be living there, and we suffer the audience here if we don’t do what they need, so you can go home at night.

 [Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: Do you want to make any comments?

[Speaker 4]

Jay Habansky: No, I don’t have any comments I think you all received, we received a lot of staff comments at the 11th hour, 4:15 today in the afternoon, so we’re happy to give you those and we can address those. They aren’t up on the website, like I said, I’ve been good to email tomorrow, just remind me and we’ll send them over no problem.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: I’m now going to open it up because we have a giant crowd. May I see just a show of hands, who wants to speak on this project; One two three, okay.

Well then we’re okay. I’m going to ask you to come up. The workforce housing project that’s being presented tonight, with Okay- No, not Okay.  So whoever wants to speak Can you please step up to the mic and give your name and address.

Mrs. DiCilio:  Harold start with in favor and then who’s against. Lynn, we only have three people. Did any of the people that raised their hand want to speak on this? You don’t have to.

[Speaker 5]

Marie Calouri resident of Oronoque since December 2023. Thank you gentlemen for giving us some background information. I’ve been a 30 year commercial corporate and investment banker. I have a little bit of exposure to affordable housing, Workforce housing. I’m generally a fan. We have a housing deficit in the entire nation, but I live here and I have a couple of questions that relate to the project. I would like to know if this is a 4% HTC project. Okay, but you’re you’re going to put up a building on Oronoque Lane, correct?

 [Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: Okay I’m going to ask again, is there anybody who wants to speak on the workforce housing text amendment?

[Speaker Unknown]

Because it’s better to have a plan than not have a plan, and to show up with a great idea that can be integrated into something that’s already existing. I do have a concern however, and that concern is can the classification that you’re trying to get for the workforce housing, if it’s initiated in that zone can it then be generalized to the greater Stratford, and the question is, I mean what prevents it from being generalized to a larger footprint in Stratford? One that’s maybe not so industrialized, that is maybe more commercial with like stores like Barnum Avenue.  And so my question really is how do we keep it bottled up in one area where there’s a tremendous amount of space to build out a lot of housing, and then when that gets exhausted and we still haven’t hit the 10% number how do we prevent it from moving out and spreading and then intensifying Stratford and the, you know, the school rolls and so on, that’s my concern.

[Speaker 3]

Ben Proto: The gentleman’s concern I think is a good concern. The way that we do that in this regulation is we limit the geography that workforce housing can be located in the Town of Stratford. So the only way we could go beyond that is this Commission would have to amend the regulation to create a larger geography for workforce housing to be located in, as opposed to what you have now in the current workforce housing, where I believe it’s within a TOD within a half a mile of a major employer and I believe there’s one other provision. Most of our major employers are located in the south end. However, our largest employer is located on Main Street at Sikorsky Aircraft and again, the Commission would have the authority to say no we don’t want it to go there under your current regulation. But to answer your question directly, the regulation that we’ve written has a half a mile radius from Lordship Boulevard and Access Road, from the Bridgeport / Stratford line to what would be the army engine plant and a half a mile on either side. And if you look at one side of that, it’s predominantly the airport. The other side is mostly our industrial park. Then the Commission, you’d have to have the Commission amend the regulation. I hope that answers the question.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against? Hearing none motion to close the public hearing.

Harold Watson: Thank you very much. What we are voting on – so we can open it again for the next one – all in favor Aye-five. Okay. Now we’re going to open the next issue on the agenda, Longbrook. Will someone please read in the record the next 540 Longbrook Avenue petition, Axiom a corporation seeks to install seven fuel cells and incidental equipment on a portion of the site.

For anybody that doesn’t know that’s near Barnum Avenue extension, Longbrook Avenue. That is the old Contract Plating that has been cleaned up or almost cleaned up. But this is actually the first green brownfield reuse of a project like that and hopefully will be a reuse. Is the applicant in the audience?

I’m not seeing the applicant. Is there anybody here representing Axion? I can  recommend that we continue this item and until the applicant arrives.

Otherwise, we’ll continue to the following meeting. Okay so we’ll move to the next site. I would recommend you make a motion to continue unless they arrive and then we will  go back to them at the end of the list.

[Speaker 1]

Was there anybody here wanting to speak on that tonight?  Okay, if we don’t get to them it might end up being next week if they come late. Then it might be at the end or closer to the end of our meeting, so hang around and hopefully you’ll find out.  I’ll take a formal vote on a motion, please.  All right five-zero. Will someone please read the next two.

Mrs. DeCillo: Mr. Chairman, text amendment petition of Affordability LLC seeking to create a new section 30 titled or an affordable housing district Oh aHD And 150 Oronoque Lane petition of Affordability LLC, seeking a change of zone from an rs1 to Oh aHD.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: Whoever is going to speak on this tonight, please step to the mic and give us your name and address.

[Speaker 2]

Stephen Bellis:  Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m attorney Stephen Bellis, I’m with the Pellegrino law firm and I represent the applicant, Affordability LLC. I’d like to make a presentation. I live in Shelton. I work in New Haven and I represent the applicant Affordability LLC, I have some documents I’m going to hand out.

I’ll go through it rather briefly, I know there’s a lot of people behind me that would like to know what’s going on and I’m cognizant of that. So I’ll try to make it go a little quicker by doing my handout and then taking you through it. Is that all right with everyone?

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: Sure. Thank you. While he’s doing that, can I see a show of hands who is here tonight on this topic? Okay now who wants to speak during the public hearing on this topic. So one two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, maybe ten people. Okay, that’s fine. Thank you. Okay, when you’re ready, Mr.Bellis.

[Speaker 2]

Stephen Bellis: So let me start by just showing you what I presented to you, and then I’ll take you through it a little bit. The first one’s called Connecticut data, and that’s the affordability housing that’s put out by the state of Connecticut and it says in the first column, as of 2023, Stratford had six point oh four percent of its housing stock as affordable Under 830 G. You need 10%, so I’m allowed to bring an application in the Town of Stratford. The second document I handed you was a statement for a zone change, and I’ll get to that in a little bit. The third document I handed you was a text amendment. The original one that I filed Jay had looked at, and commented correctly that you amended your regulations and I should renumber my text amendment in accordance with the new Regulations. So it’s no longer number 30, but this is now in the affordable section as three point three point six. There were other minor corrections, discrepancies or typos on parking, so that was corrected and thank you, Jay, for pointing those things out. The third document I handed you is called an affordability plan that is required to be filed on any 830 G application and so it’s in connection with this Project. It’s called an affordability plan.

I’ll take you through that in a little bit. I also gave you conceptual Site plans. Those are those big drawings and I want to make it clear that these are conceptual. So let me start by saying that in an 830 G application an Applicant is allowed by state law and by the Supreme Court, the statute itself says that an applicant can file a zone change and a text amendment with Conceptual plans, and that’s in Kaufman versus Danbury Supreme Court case:  don’t need detailed plans at the time you apply for a zone change. The Commission can then later condition any approvals that you go through, all the proper agencies, when you come back with your full site plan. That’s an older case and it’s been recited a couple of times recently in 2019 with the Car versus Bridgeport, the town said well, we don’t have any kind of zone change in our regulations that allow for conceptual site plan and the court said Yes, that’s true, but we don’t care because we’re allowed to do it under state statute, under 830 G, so you can use concept plans. Next court cases landmark, and then so you may be looking at me. Why you’re filing conceptual site plans? Why don’t you just give us the whole shebang?

The answer is, and I’ll quote the court and landmark: common sense land use tools allow a determination of whether a project is feasible without the expenditures of great sums by the developer on site plans. So that’s the reason why, so what I’m asking for this Commission to do tonight is to enact a zone change allowing unaffordable housing application to be filed at a future date called a site plan, a full site plan, and then I’m also asking for a text amendment to allow the affordable units and the increased density In the text amendment that you will not hear me present tonight, and what I don’t have is the full site plan. If, and I understand that’s a big if, this is approved, meaning the zone change and the text amendment, I would have to come back and give you everything that you normally see in a site plan: storm drainage calculations, traffic reports, whatever it may be under galleys, you know the things that you’re very used to seeing, so you’re not going to see or hear any of that tonight.  All I’m asking this Commission to do is to consider the zone change and the text amendment. So we do have conceptual drawings, just so you’ll understand what is being proposed.  Alright, I hope that’s clear, so I will take you through the standards. I think you know them by now pretty well, but I’ll just say it for the record. So on an 830 G application, the applicant can make his presentation and the if the Application is denied, the Zoning Commission would have to show that the denial was based upon what was necessary to protect a public interest and that the risk of harm clearly outweighs the need for affordable housing, and the public interest cannot be protected by reasonable changes to the housing, to the affordable housing development. That is the standard that we all go by, all the cases the state statute I’m not going to, I don’t have to give you all the sites of the case.

It’s very well established for many years So let’s look at what we have and I’ll take it through the documents First you might be saying to me. Why are you filing this application at all?

Well, I think you all know you’ve read it in the papers. You’ve seen it in the news that there is a problem here in Connecticut, that we do not have enough housing. Both just either regular housing stock whether it’s single houses, apartments or condominiums. There’s just not enough housing in Connecticut.  It’s been a problem for many years and I’m not going to enumerate the reasons why it’s a problem.  We don’t have enough time, but some of the reasons are the costs of the land, the cost of materials, and the fact that our local planning and zoning commissions are very protective of their zones and so the state in reaction to that has enacted a statute called 8-30 G and that simply we refer to that. That’s the section in the statute under regular.  It’s under state statute 8-30G and that statute says “That in order to promote and facilitate affordable housing in this state, we are going to ignore the local zoning regulations that you all have enacted and we are going to ignore whether it’s in an r1 RS 1 r2 doesn’t matter as long as it’s not in an industrial zone The applicant can propose under this statute on affordable housing set aside development with unlimited amount of density, they don’t specify and doesn’t say how large the piece has to be or parcel, and doesn’t say what the setbacks are, you make them up yourself.  So this is not something that I have concocted as an attorney.

This is state statute so let’s look at the situation what we have under the 8-30 G. You are allowed, and this is what we are proposing, to have Housing with a set-aside development. What does set-aside development mean?

All that really means is that 70% of the units are market rate, whatever the market bears, that’s the rate, 30% of those units are restricted for 40 years as being affordable and what that means is 15%, half of the 30% have to be sold to people that make 80% of the average medium income. What does all that mean? If I had to just narrow it down? Stratford probably falls close to a hundred thousand in average median income.

It’s a little higher, so if you take 80% of that you have to sell these units or apartments only to those that make $80,000 or less and then the other 15% is 60% of AMI so you can only sell 15% to people that make $60,000 or lower, so a lot of people confuse 830 G and the set-aside development with a different kind of project.  It may be they may consider it to be where the state pays the person’s rent and there’s other programs. That is not what this is all about.  This is strictly a set-aside development where 70% of the units are at market rate.  Whatever you can get in town and 30% restricted by people’s incomes all right. So that’s what we’re talking about here. The reason that the state allows it in any zone except for industrial is because there’s a lot of pushback I mean, it’s obvious.

Look at these people. They like their neighborhoods. They liked what they purchased, they relied on what they thought was going to be a zone, I don’t know what zone they’re in, and now the state of Connecticut is saying to a developer or owner, you can ignore that, and that has no bearing on an affordable housing application. Sorry, so while all these people may have, or may be upset over the application they may be upset at your decision. I can simply tell them all, and this Commission, that I’m only following state law.

The last piece that you all know very well is that if the application is denied then the court makes the burden of proof on the town. Not on the developer, not on the owner But on the town to prove that there was a public interest that was likely to be harmed that can’t be remedied, so that is why we’re here tonight and that’s the framework and however you decide that’s fine. I just wanted to make sure we’re all on the same page.

So, let me look at a couple of documents and I’m sure there’s a lot of people that would like to speak. So the first document I think I pointed out is the you can’t bring an affordable housing application unless your town is below the 10% affordability as counted by the state. They’re the ones that count what’s affordable and what’s not affordable.  Many of us think certain properties are affordable, but they just don’t count. So according to Connecticut,  Stratford has I guess 21,643 units, some of them are about 400 rentals, 300 single AMI, 33 are deed restricted in Total 1307 are considered affordable. That’s only six points.

So you didn’t meet the 10%, so developers and property owners are allowed to bring an affordable application.  The next document I’ll take it through as a statement for a zone change. So very simply you’re all AMI, familiar with that we’re looking to change the zone at 150 Oronoque Lane.  So 150 Oronoque Lane is currently owned by 150 Oronoque Lane LLC and that owner has entered into a contract with Affordability LLC to purchase the property and that Contract is contingent upon getting the zone changed for affordable units.

So in this particular Statement for the zone change. The applicant is seeking to change the zone and to change the zone to what we call Oronoque Affordable Housing District, and in the affordable housing district, which I’ll take you through in a minute will delineate what the density is and so on and so forth.

So the first document is simply a statement for the zone change. There’s a deed for the property and on the first page the contract to purchase from Affordability LLC.

The second document is the text amendment, the new zoning regulation that would be in your books.  You have a section in your books now under section 3 for affordable housing districts. There’s a couple of them listed already that have been approved or approved by a court and In this particular one, I’m not going to read the whole document, I’m just going to highlight the important parts, this regulation is only for the property at 150 Oronoque Lane,  Stratford, Connecticut,  that’s under 3.3.6.4 and I gave the legal description.  So this regulation would not apply anywhere else in town.  An important piece of this text amendment is that it would allow up to 60 residential units and that it would be the maximum amount of units that would be allowed in this zone and there would be nine one-bedroom units, one two-bedroom unit, and two studios on each floor.  Meaning the apartment building there would be a maximum of five floors above a garage.  There would be parking for 66 motor vehicles, and there would be other things, mailboxes and those kind of small things. Then we have the bulk standard requirements.  They’re not too crazy other than the density that you may be concerned about and the height of the buildings, but basically there’s front road frontage who requires 125 feet, front yard setback 15 feet, side yards 5, those kinds of things. So that is what we call the Text amendment for the zone change.  In this document it clearly states that the applicant has to come back for a site plan approval and it sets forth what they have to show you and it’s your typical site plan.

That is not what we’re here tonight about that, but it does say in this text amendment that the documents that you’ve been provided are only conceptual in nature.  So the next document is the affordability plan, and the affordability plan basically says what I kind of talked about in my remarks, that it is a set-aside development and that 15% of the units would be for people that are for 80% AMI, and the other 15% for 60 AMI.  It also says that these units would be restricted for 40 years.  Just in case the Commission doesn’t know every one of these units you would get a point for the moratorium or towards your count to get that 6% increased. I also think that they changed the 830 G statute I think they give you a quarter point for every other unit in this building that is not affordable.

They don’t give you a full point, they give you a quarter point, so that’s kind of a new change in the law since I started doing these.  It talks about what the requirements are:  you have to have an administrator to make sure these people have given you their income tax returns to show their income; they have to check to make sure that there are affordable units in the apartment being rented and in this particular case Jay was kind enough to give me a list of administrators that the town has recognized and one of them was a Mark Nolan, I think he’s from Danbury some realty company up there, so he was selected as the administrator, there’s a model D that talks about the 40-year restriction on the land records, again, the affordability plan is only for this property.

So let’s talk a little bit about this property Everyone probably knows Oronoque Road.   If you come up the hill and if you were to go past the country club, we’re staying on the right-hand side as you’re going up the hill, then there’s the Lot across the street from the maintenance department, there’s the firehouse,  and then there’s a new project that was just being started, about a property or two over where I think is going to be 11 houses constructed that they just started as the houses aren’t in yet. Then comes this property, which is, 150 and I think the property adjacent to it is 100 Oronoque Lane, which has also filed an affordability housing application.  It has not been heard before this Commission or noticed, but it’s on the radar for I forget what Jay told me, maybe the end of February.

[Speaker 4]

Jay Habansky: I think next month, okay.

[Speaker 2]

Stephen Bellis: So that’s the property that we’re talking about On the the big drawings that you have the conceptual drawings You’ll see that there is an existing house on this particular piece of property. It’s going to be relocated I’ll call it forward towards or an Oronoque Lane and then behind the house is where the Developer is proposing to put the apartment building with garage under the building would be parking. So the thought process is that if you look from the street, you would still see a residential home. Behind the residential home obviously would be this apartment building and that’s what is being proposed. I disagree that the plan was the apartment building was going to be on or in Oronoque Lane.

[Speaker 3]

Ben Porto:The house was going to be moved on the property, yeah, so that’s not what you just said.

[Speaker 2]

Stephen Bellis: Yeah, it’s going to be moved forward I thought I said so Yeah again, this is conceptual.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: So you’re not going to see any site plan guys. We need to hear what is being said, so you are going to have to keep your conversations to yourself for right now.

[Speaker 2]

Stephen Bellis: I can point out on the plans these are conceptual plans. So let’s look at page Conceptual site development plan sheet number one. Okay. There’s a box it says existing home to be relocated. That’s where it’s relocated.

If you look back behind it, you’ll see the same outline. That’s where the house is now, so it did get moved forward. Not following me It’s it’s on it’s on the plan Anyway, I Yeah, I call it page one second page look at the second page Yeah, there is a square it says existing home to be relocated in an arrow that’s where the house would go and Behind it was where the house is now and the reason I know that is if you look on the first page That’s a survey map and it shows you exactly

The Public may speak only at the invitation of the chair during both administrative and public hearings We ask that you sign up to speak this evening.  If you didn’t sign up just wait until we complete with the signed up people.  If we have time you can just go right on to the end of that list.

I Request that town employees speak first so that they may present their departments information and also save us on overtime.  In all cases, please remember to state your name and address so that our secretary can record it I also want to add if you have signed a petition that was delivered to the Planning and Zoning office you don’t necessarily need to speak tonight. We already have you on record with your views.  I’m not saying don’t but I’m saying that will actually maybe free up some of the people that we have here. While I will impose a three-minute time limit that really It’s going to be pushing it.

I will also ask that you stay on subject not be repetitive and keep on topic. I will notify you when you should wrap up. Please be respectful of our process and all speakers.   I do reside reserve the right to limit time if needed as we will end this meeting at 10 o’clock. With that said I call to order that this regular public hearing of the Stratford Zoning Commission at 6 p.m. And open the public hearing

Read the first one into the record. Yes, please Text amendment petition of Gold Coast Properties LLC seeking to modify 5.5 regarding workforce housing Please step forward.

[Speaker 2]

Benjamin Proto:

Good evening. Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, Commissioner Habansky, for the record. My name is Benjamin Proto Area Median Income (AMI). I’m an attorney I’m an attorney in Stratford 2885 Main Street. I represent Gold Coast.  The applicant with me this evening is Stephen Shapiro from Gold Coast along with James Amon.  We’re here this evening on a text amendment and we’re proposing a text amendment to include a more, we believe comprehensive regulation, in regards to the issue of workforce housing in Stratford. You’ll notice that the amendment references section 5.5 of the regulations This is because we submitted the regulation in December prior to the adoption of your new regulations which I now believe brings this particular provision into section 5.1 of your new regulations, so we can kind of move back and forth, but that’s why it references 5.5 and not 5.1. What we’ve done here is we’ve brought in a regulation that we think is more Comprehensive than the regulation that this Commission put in place in January in the beginning and early January, and we’ve broken it out into a couple of different provisions. We’ve broken it out for renovation of existing structures and new construction, and we did that for a reason and provided this particular regulation only impacts properties within a half a mile of Lordship Boulevard from Bridgeport, the Bridgeport line, to Access road and then Access road to the army engine plant, a half a mile on either side, which puts us primarily in the industrial park in our industrial region of Stratford, which is where predominantly most of our jobs are which is where workforce housing is best placed near employment opportunities.  So the reason we broke it out was there are a number of buildings in this particular area of town that are empty, that are not being utilized that could be converted to workforce housing without changing the footprint of the building.  There is also property which would require demolition of a building creating vacant land which would require then the building of a new structure. So that is why you see renovation and new construction and I know Mr. Habansky referenced that in his comments, and that’s why it’s there.  It’s really that simple, to be able to utilize certain structures that are there,  that are good,  that have solid bones that you don’t need to tear down that.  You can use as is and just renovate the inside to create the appropriate apartments that go with it.  We built in there and it only applies in three specific zones in rs4 and rm1 and a CA zone, that it could be utilized, so some of the industrial property in the south end Between that half-mile radius is not eligible for use for workforce housing under this particular provision, we created a density requirement, which we think meets the need for this particular type of housing. We’ve created the types of units. Different types of apartments from studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, with parking.  This particular regulation contains what we believe are better elements for this Commission to utilize in workforce housing.  Your current workforce housing regulation requires It to be located in a couple of places in a TOD zone, within a half mile of a major employer,  places like that the biggest major employer in the Town of Stratford, Sikorsky Aircraft, half a mile within Sikorsky Aircraft subject to approval of the Commission under your current regulation.  You could build this type of workforce housing under this regulation.  It is specifically limited to a specific area of town which we think gives the Commission much better control of where this type of housing can be built.  It includes all the provisions that we saw in your previous regulations regarding landscaping, lighting, driveway easements, utilities, things along those lines that you’re used to seeing, that you’ve dealt with in the past.  One thing we did not include, that we would ask if you do choose to Adopt this,  to add to the regulation, is that all units must be at least 80% to no more than 100% of AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI).  If you do that you will ensure that for each unit built the town will receive one full credit towards its affordable goal.  Under your current regulation between 60 and up 120.  Why would any developer develop at 60% or 80% when I could develop it at 120%?  You’re not going to get any credit, but it’s still going to count under your regulation. You want this to work towards your credits.

So by adopting and including the 80% AMI in the regulation you will be building in a guarantee of one credit.  Under your current regulations by utilizing the current workforce regulations from the state. It’s a six-year deed restriction.  We’re talking about a 40-year deed restriction, so you will keep that credit for 40 years as opposed to having to go back to the state to seek to renew the credit once the deed restriction expires, so all in all while the regulation that was built into your new regulation, I think was a really good start for workforce housing and what we’re seeing from the state of Connecticut.  This is a program the state of Connecticut is pushing very hard. They think it’s a very good program. They’re putting a lot of money behind this program. They’re looking to do this across the state to build this type of housing. One of the key features of our regulation is that for the first 30 days that housing is only available to teachers and town employees of the town of Stratford.  They get the first choice of this housing before it’s open to the general public.  Again trying to ensure that people who work in a Town of Stratford have housing in the Town of Stratford are living here and have a commitment to this community beyond simple employment.  That’s really it in a nutshell.  But what I want to do now is I want to bring up Steve Shapiro and Jim Eamon to talk about the state programs.  Why this program works in other places, where it’s being done in other places, and I can tell you I have a project in Derby that I have recently done.  You’ve probably seen it if you’ve driven up Route 8 across from the Home Depot what is now a green building.   The state of Connecticut was so impressed with that they wanted to put workforce there.  They came in and asked my client if they would dedicate 20% of the units to workforce housing in exchange for additional loan monies to make sure it worked. The state is fully committed to this program. They want to see this housing built across the state. It solves a problem we have with affordable housing in this state.

It adds additional units at a cut at a sensible AMI It makes it affordable for people to live in the town of Stratford to work in the town of Stratford to be near their Employment or transit situations that gets them to where they have to work. So all in all we take a look at what you’ve done It’s good But we think adding ours in will make the workforce housing regulation that you’ve put in place far better Far more competitive and provide better housing within the town of Stratford.  But with that I want to bring up Jim Amann right now and Steve Shapiro to talk about the state program and some other projects that we’ve been doing Ben. Could you answer me one short question?

We just got moments ago the DEP letter.  I haven’t seen the DEP letter, which basically is not disapproving of what you’ve written but are worried about, the fact that this is all in FEMA flood zones.

So have you guys taken that into account?  Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, we haven’t seen the DEP letter, but clearly if it’s a new building it would have to meet all FEMA requirements,  if it’s an existing structure that exists as I understand it, whatever the existing structure is remains under the FEMA rules and the flood rules. Thank you. I just wanted to hear that.

 [Speaker 2]

Jim Amann: I just got over bronchitis. I’m not contagious so excuse me for my voice.  Honorable zoning members and Mr. Chairman, wonderful to see everybody again I’m Jim Amann 515 Pope’s Island Road Milford.  I’m the managing partner International government strategies. Mr. Shapiro and myself, and part of my team have gone all over the state of Connecticut to different zoning to try to give a more palatable way of reaching our affordable housing.  Workforce housing is something that a lot of the legislators feel is something worth exploring, something that most towns will embrace quicker than maybe some of the other affordable housing proposals that are out there. We have a bill number now if you want to follow it, House Bill 5002.   Now that particular bill is what we call an aircraft carrier.

What I mean by that is the legislature is putting all housing bills in one particular bill that’s affordable housing, workforce housing.  Also rents, homelessness, all in one big package So I commend you for looking at this regulation because you’ll be able to be ahead of what the state is and be where the City of Trumbull is that have adopted this regulation already.  Again, what’s great about it? I think for the residents, It’s more palatable Number one number two, it does give a service to The workforce of city of Stratford by giving firemen police officers nurses school teachers The first choice of getting this housing What’s affordable now?

Mr. Chairman as we all know what’s affordable in one person may not be affordable To one to another but certainly if you talk to young people trying to buy a home this particular regulation will help a lot of our young people out. So I appreciate your patience with me with my voice and I thank you. I’ll turn this over to Mr. Shapiro.  By the way we’re hundreds of thousands close to 300,000 units short in the state of Connecticut on housing So that’s something That we believe this regulation may help on.

[Speaker 3)

Steve Shapiro:  Thank you very much for your time I wanted to just describe a little bit the difference between Workforce and 830 G Affordable Housing. I think we all know why the rooms packed tonight.  Workforce in your regulation, it’s 60 to 120 percent which was based off an actual finance package the state’s having which is built for CT.  The reason why me and former speaker James Amann are up in Hartford is there’s no clear-cut rule for what workforce housing really is they have vague income guidelines.  The problem is like Attorney Proto had stated,  before any unit over 80% doesn’t count so you could take your reg,  I could come and use it build 30 units all at 100 or 120 percent of AMI,  town gets no credit.  You actually need to build more units to catch up to those units that were built.  So like Attorney Proto suggested we’d like a condition of approval because it’s good for the town They get a full point for every unit at 80%.  So 30 to 100 percent of the units in our proposal would get the town a full point at the 80% AMI.  Now you’d say why would a developer not just do the 30 at the AMI? So an 80% AMI unit would go for like $1,600, right a one-bedroom in Shepherd’s probably getting a little more than that maybe 1,900 right? So why would they give up the $300?

Well the state’s going to They have grants they have the loan program. They have incentives to build those units, financial support for the developer.  So the reality is you could get a hundred percent of the whole development at the 80 AMI at the workforce, which is going to get you a point for every single unit on an affordable housing project only 30% of those units count as points.  So you’re getting over three times the credit for the town with our bill that we’re proposing for workforce.

Then you would on an 830 G, which by the way a developer can put it anywhere. They can make it as dense as they want. There’s clear guidelines in our proposal on where it’s going, how dense it is. The town has control.  What you see a lot in the campaign, and from the Republicans on the state level for zoning local control, right?

This gives you local control and regardless of party they don’t want a five-story building next to a house They just paid $700,000 for an acre of land. Nobody, you know is a huge fan of that. Let’s be honest we’re trying to do something good for the town that where this zone is by all the jobs It’s by Amazon, which is maybe the biggest employer in the United States.  It’s by UPS. It’s by FedEx It’s by 95. It’s by your bus stops.  It’s by all your transit. It’s got all the public utilities, we’re not knocking down forests and cutting down trees.  It’s really a good thing for the town.

We really believe in it the other thing with the bill for the CT outside of the income 60 to 120 that’s in there where you wouldn’t get credit under what’s adopted already is It’s only for six years. So someone’s renting an apartment for $1,600 for six years,  then all of a sudden it goes up to $2,400 and the person can’t afford it. So on a moral level, it’s messed up.  Number two, then the town loses their credit for it. We’re deed restricting these units for 40 years.

Just like an affordable project counts the whole time person could stay there most of their life and they don’t have to worry about that getting out.  Going to staff comments, we tried to get this added, you know, the end of the staff comments paragraph was oh, we just adopted regulations Why should we consider this within 30 days? We proposed adding this to your regulations. You people know that and it was said Oh, it’s coming in January by staff.

You don’t need a vote on it now, wait till January. Well, that’s fine That’s fair.  But then don’t say, don’t vote for it because we didn’t add it when you said not to add it because you’re waiting till January.  It’s very contradictory. So I truly believe this is a good thing for the town.  It’s going in an area where there are jobs, think of the commuting cut down if these people live around a corner from their job. There’s less traffic on 95,  it’s better for the environment, there’s less pollution and again, I’m not going to be redundant, you get more credits, it goes where it needs to go, and you don’t have to worry about development you don’t want.  So thank you all very much for your time. Appreciate it.

So I’ll just end with a brief closing and I’m obviously happy to answer questions from the Commission. We believe that this regulation gives you, the Commission, far more control, far more power, far more ability, to ensure that the development in the Town of Stratford occurs the way you have been elected to ensure that it occurs as you know under 830 G.  I can bring an 830 G project in tomorrow morning on any one of these sites in Stratford so long as it’s not an industrial property. I can make it eight stories tall.

I can put 200 units on it, I can put it next to a huge residential development and there’s not diddly-squat you can all do about it.  You can deny it, we can appeal it, and we’ll win right? This gives you the control that you don’t have with 830 G. We’re trying to give you that control We think it’s a better program it gives you the credits that you want towards your affordable units and It provides the people in Stratford with the housing that they need in the areas that it’s needed We appreciate your time.  We appreciate your interest and Mr. Chairman with that we’re happy to answer any questions that any of the members may have.

Chairman:  Commissioner’s speak first and then you guys speak.   Okay I need you guys to look at the DEEP letter, make sure that you put an awareness of that to your document, speaks about building height, basically five five stories is what we’re talking about, which is more than we’re Go ahead It’s four stories It’s only five if there’s parking below which in the flood zone like you stated You’re going to have the parking below because the building needs to be elevated So it’s really four stories and it’s not any taller than the TOD that already exists You already have a regulation of that height and the only reason why we went to that was because it’s in the flood zone.  Can I have the parking underneath these buildings?

[Speaker 1]

Would you be willing to sit down with our existing workforce housing as it’s written and Insert your information into that so we can actually come up with an easy enough evaluation as long as the language in here that benefits the town with this bill whether I do it on my own or it’s added to yours. It doesn’t make a difference. Mr. Shapiro, I’ve been working on that exact phrase for the last two and a half years in every committee that I could think of because I realize it’s part of the solution to the problem we have.  But you can see by the audience here We have a lot of people that care about what their neighborhoods look like So while we’re trying our best to get that work while we’re trying to get that we also need to address your interests and all that. I appreciate some of what you’ve written in here. It’s not totally crazy.   We did what we could and quite honestly, it’s a changing world out there When we started with our workforce housing, none of that existed.

 [Speaker 3]

It was just an idea and Mr. Chairman, as I said, I think you took this nugget of an idea this kernel of an idea that no one really understood when you started it and Created a regulation based on that kernel that in a very short period of time went from this little kernel to a big bowl of popcorn And you now have to figure out how to take that bowl of popcorn and work it into the regulation That it benefits the Town of Stratford, it provides the credits that this town so desperately needs and is deserving of and provides affordable housing for people in an area where primarily our jobs are located in this town. There are things that we missed a lot, but at the same time there are things that you guys have missed

[Speaker 1]

So I’m worried about we have all these units that we’ve built that theoretically are affordable, but we have no credits received for them. So we need your regulation to say how you’re going to achieve that.  We have developers all the time coming in asking us,  I can use my own people to register all of the affordable people that doesn’t work.  The state has a list of qualified people that we’ve been saying for as long as I’ve been on zoning.  That we’ve been saying you need to register with one of these companies because they promise that they will be around for 40 years Your individual building company might not be here

[Speaker 2]

Well, the units are going to be deed restricted for 40 years at 80% AMI those count unequivocally you know register with the town those units are going to count and I’ll be part of the regulation.

[Speaker 1]

So they will count

[Speaker 2]

For 40 years.

[Speaker 1]

But one of the problems we have, when I was working on Stratford Housing Partnership and we were talking about increasing the affordability is Jay has five people in his office.  He already works a very long day with all his projects, he cannot become the person who is responsible for recording all of these,  keeping up yearly doing when you have tenant turnovers all those kinds of things That is not something that Stratford has the money right now to expand our operation to cover that.

[Speaker 2]

Well, Mr. Chairman, no matter who rents that unit, it’s deed restricted at that income for the next 40 years So it’s always going to count no matter who lives there.

 [Speaker 3]

Yeah, it’s recorded, I can offer a solution. I don’t know if the developers or tenants would particularly like it, you could require the recording of the lease on the land records against the deed restriction on the unit so we can find it on the land records that that unit has been rented to a tenant who falls within the AMI Requirement to do that, but that AMI changes every year well, the percentage doesn’t.

[Speaker 1]

That’s a bureaucratic job that someone has to do. I’m not saying it’s a fault on yours or on ours, it’s just something that’s new.  But if we want to get every credit that we can I believe I agree with your statement that Stratford has Tons of affordable housing. We just don’t get recognized for it. I Agree with that.  That’s not an untrue statement at all. So I want to see that change That’s enough for me.

Let me go down to my other commissioners and let them speak: Debra It will; Linda Lenny: I Have a comment, but it’s not related to this It’s related to why don’t we keep track of it? So the percentage gets higher and these people don’t have to come out because if we get to 10% developers can’t come in with affordable housing because if they go to court, they’ll lose but as long as we stay at 6.1%

[Speaker 3]

We’re in deep trouble This helps solve part of that problem now, I’m not going to tell you it’s going to solve a hundred percent of your problem But it gets you a whole lot closer to 100%.

[Speaker 1]

We have a very good committee in this town called the Stratford

Housing Partnership that has worked on this issue for the last several years, and they’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to change these numbers and also how to have real affordable housing for our seniors, our local workers, the young kids that are just starting a family.  Those three things have been identified as the you know, it’s 80% of our population.  But it’s also one of our biggest problems that we need to address.   

[Speaker 3]

Mr. Chairman I say this with all due respect to my friend the former speaker.

[Speaker 1]

The legislature has dropped the ball on this well, we’ve been waiting, we all have. This is a start, but that’s honest and it’s not as much it’s everybody’s fault It’s a new world that we’re walking into if we’re going to actually do what we say, which is take care of the people in our towns. We need to have a shift in what’s happening I just want to once say it once again, no matter how we vote I want you guys to sit down with our existing workforce housing and give us a red letter update on what we have that will match with what you want, so that we can sit down and come up with and have a true vote representing the work that we’ve done and the work that you’ve done.

[Speaker 3]

We’re happy to do that. Mr. Chairman.   We want this to work not only for my client or future developers but more importantly for the town even more importantly for the people who will be living there and We suffer the audience here if we don’t do what they need So you can go home at night.

 [Speaker 3]

Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your time. Obviously Jay.

[Speaker 1]

Do you want to make any comments?

[Speaker 4]

Jay Habansky: No, I don’t have any comments I think you all received, we received a lot of staff comments at the 11th hour, 4:15 today in the afternoon, so we’re happy to give you those and we can address those. They aren’t up on the website, like I said, I’ve been good to email tomorrow, just remind me and we’ll send them over no problem.

[Speaker 1]

I’m now going to open it up because we have a giant crowd.  May I see just a show of hands, who wants to speak on this project; One two three, okay.

Well then we are we’re okay. I’m going to ask you to come up. The workforce housing project that’s being presented tonight, with Okay- No, not Okay.  So whoever wants to speak Can you please step up to the mic and give your name and address.

Mrs. DiCilio:  Harold start with in favor and then who’s against.   Lynn we don’t we only have three people Did any of the people that raised their hand want to speak on this you don’t have to.

[Speaker 5]

Marie Calouri resident of Oronoque since December 2023.  Thank you gentlemen for giving us some background information.  I’ve been a 30 year commercial corporate and investment banker, I have a little bit of exposure to affordable housing Workforce housing.  I’m generally a fan. We have a housing deficit in the entire nation, but I live here and I have a couple of questions that relate to the project.  I would like to know if this is a 4% HTC project Okay, but you’re you’re going to put up a building on Oronoque Lane, correct?

[Speaker 1]

No, I apologize. That’s coming.

[Speaker 5]

I’ll be back.

[Speaker 1]

Okay I’m going to ask again, Is there anybody who wants to speak on the workforce housing text amendment?

[Speaker Unknown]

Because it’s better to have a plan than not have a plan, and to show up with a great idea that can be integrated into something that’s already existing, I do have a concern however, and that concern is can the classification that you’re trying to get for the workforce housing if it’s initiated in that zone can it then be generalized to the greater Stratford and the question is, I mean what prevents it from being generalized to a larger footprint in Stratford?  One that’s maybe not so industrialized, that is maybe more commercial with like stores like Barnum Avenue.  And so my question really is how do we keep it bottled up in one area where there’s a tremendous amount of space to build out a lot of housing, and then when that gets exhausted and we still haven’t hit the 10% number how do we prevent it from moving out and spreading and then intensifying Stratford and the, you know, the school rolls and so on, that’s my concern.

[Speaker 3]

Ben Proto: The gentleman’s concern I think is a good concern the way that we do that in this regulation is we limit the geography that workforce housing can be located in the Town of Stratford.  So the only way we could go beyond that is this Commission would have to amend the regulation to create a larger geography for workforce housing to be located in, as opposed to what you have now in the current workforce housing, where I believe it’s within a TOD within a half a mile of a major employer and I believe there’s one other provision.  Most of our major employers are located in the south end. However, our largest employer is located on Main Street at Sikorsky Aircraft and again, the Commission would have the authority to say no we don’t want it to go there under your current regulation But to answer your question directly the regulation that we’ve written has a half a mile radius from Lordship Boulevard and access road from the Bridgeport Stratford line to what would be the army engine plant and a half a mile on either side.   And if you look at one side of that, it’s predominantly the airport.  The other side is mostly our industrial park. Then the Commission, you’d have to have the Commission amend the regulation. I Hope that answers the question.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against? Hearing none motion to close the public hearing.

[Speaker 1]

Thank you very much What we are voting on – so we can open it again for the next one – all in favor Aye-five. Okay. Now we’re going to open the next issue on the agenda, Longbrook.  Will someone please read in the record the next 540 Longbrook Avenue petition, Axiom a corporation seeks to install seven fuel cells and incidental equipment on a portion of the site.

For anybody that doesn’t know that’s near Barnum Avenue extension Longbrook Avenue. That is the old Contract Plating that has been cleaned up or almost cleaned up. But this is actually the first Green brownfield reuse of a project like that are hopefully will be a reuse.  Is the applicant in the audience?

I’m not seeing the applicant Is there anybody here representing Axion? I can  recommend that we continue this item and until the applicant arrives.

Otherwise, we’ll continue to the following meeting. Okay so we’ll move to the next site. I would recommend you make a motion to move a motion to continue unless they arrive and then it they will  go back to them at the end of the list.

[Speaker 1]

Was there anybody here wanting to speak on that tonight? I Okay, if you if we don’t get to them It might end up being next week if they come late Then it might be at the end of closer to the end of our meeting So hang around and hopefully you’ll find out.

I’ll take a formal vote on a motion, please.  All right five-zero will someone please read the next two.

Mrs. DeCillo: Mr. Chairman text amendment petition of Affordability LLC seeking to create a new section 30 titled or an affordable housing district Oh aHD And 150 Oronoque Lane petition of Affordability LLC seeking a change of zone from an rs1 to Oh aHD.

[Speaker 1]

Who is going to speak on this tonight, please step to the mic and give us your name and address.

[Speaker 2]

Stephen Bellis:  Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m attorney Stephen Bellis, i’m with the Pellegrino law firm and I represent the applicant Affordability LLC, I’d like to make a presentation I live in Shelton. I work in New Haven and I represent the applicant Affordability LLC, I have some documents I’m going to hand out.

I’ll go through it rather briefly, I know there’s a lot of people that would like to know what’s going on behind me and I’m cognizant of that. So I’ll try to make it go a little quicker by doing my handout and then taking you through it Is that all right with everyone?

[Speaker 1]

Sure. Thank you.  While he’s doing that, can I see a show of hands who is here tonight on this topic? Okay now who wants to speak during the public hearing on this topic. So one two, three, four five six seven eight nine maybe ten people. Okay, that’s fine Thank you Okay, when you’re ready, Mr.Bellis.

[Speaker 2]

Stephen Bellis: So let me start by just showing you what I presented to you and then I’ll take you through it a little bit.   The first one’s called Connecticut data and that’s the affordability housing that’s put out by the state of Connecticut and it says in the first column as of 2023 Stratford had six point oh four percent of its housing stock as affordable Under 830 G you need 10% so I’m allowed to bring an application in the Town of Stratford, the Second document I handed you was a statement for a zone change, and I’ll get to that in a little bit, the third document I handed you was a text amendment.  The original one that I filed Jay had looked at it and commented correctly That you amended your regulations and I should renumber my text amendment in accordance with the new Regulations, so it’s no longer number 30, but this is now in the affordable section as three point three point six. There were other minor corrections discrepancy or typo on parking so that was corrected and thank you Jay for pointing those things out. The third document I handed you is called an affordability plan that is required to be filed on any 830 G application and so it’s in connection with this Project. It’s called an affordability plan.

I’ll take you through that in a little bit. I also gave you conceptual Site plans. Those are those big drawings and I want to make it clear that these are conceptual. So let me start by saying that in an 830 G application an Applicant is allowed by state law and by the Supreme Court the statute itself says that an applicant can file a zone change and a text amendment with Conceptual plans and that’s in Kaufman versus Danbury Supreme Court case:  don’t need detailed plans at the time you apply for a zone change the Commission can then later Condition any approvals that you go through all the proper agencies when you come back with your full site plan. That’s an older case and it’s been recited a couple of times recently in 2019 with the Car versus Bridgeport, the town said well We don’t have any kind of zone change in our regulations that allow for conceptual site plan and the court said Yes, that’s true, but we don’t care because we’re allowed to do it under state statute under 830 G so you can use concept plans. Next court cases landmark, and then so you may be looking at me. Why you’re filing conceptual site plans? Why don’t you just give us the whole the whole shebang?

The answer is and I’ll quote the court and landmark: common sense land use tools allow a Determination of whether a project is feasible without the expenditures of great sums by the developer on site plans. So that’s the reason why so what I’m asking for this Commission to do tonight is to enact a zone change allowing unaffordable housing application to be filed at a future date called a site plan a Full site plan and then I’m also asking for a text amendment to allow the affordable units and the increased density In the text amendment what you will not hear me present tonight, and what I don’t have is the full site plan if and I understand that’s a big if this is approved, meaning the zone change and the text amendment I would have to come back and give you everything that you normally see in a site plan: storm drainage calculations, traffic reports, whatever it may be Under Galleys, you know the things that you’re very used to seeing so you’re not going to see or hear any of that tonight.  All I’m asking this Commission to do is to consider the zone change and the text amendment.  So we do have conceptual drawings just so you’ll understand what is being proposed.  Alright, I hope that’s clear so I will take you through the standards. I think you know them by now pretty well, but I’ll just say it for the record so on an 830 G application the applicant can make his presentation and the if the Application is denied the Zoning Commission would have to show that the denial was based upon what was necessary to protect a public interest and that the risk of harm clearly outweighs the need for affordable housing, and the public interest cannot be protected by reasonable changes to the housing, to the affordable housing development. That is the standard that we all go by all the cases the state statute I’m not going to, I don’t have to give you all the sites of the case.

It’s very well established for many years So let’s look at what we have and I’ll take it through the documents First you might be saying to me. Why are you filing this application at all?

Well, I think you all know you’ve read it in the papers. You’ve seen it in the news That there is a problem here in Connecticut that we do not have enough housing Both just either regular housing stock whether it’s single houses, apartments or condominiums. There’s just not enough housing in Connecticut.

It’s been a problem for many years and I’m not going to enumerate the reasons why it’s a problem or why.  We don’t have enough time, but some of the reasons are the costs of the land, the cost of materials, and the fact that our local planning and zoning commissions are very protective of their zones and so the state in reaction to that has enacted a statute called 8-30 G and that simply we refer to that. That’s the section in the statute under regular.

It’s under state statute 8-30G and that statute says “That in order to promote and facilitate affordable housing in this state, we are going to ignore the local zoning regulations that you all have enacted and we are going to ignore whether it’s in an r1 RS 1 r2 doesn’t matter as long as it’s not in an industrial zone The applicant can propose under this statute on affordable housing set aside development With unlimited amount of density, they don’t specify and doesn’t say how large the piece has to be or parcel and doesn’t say what the setbacks are, you make them up yourself.  So this is not something that I have concocted as an attorney.

This is state statute so let’s look at the situation what we have under the 8-30 G. You are allowed, and this is what we are proposing, to have Housing with a set-aside development. What does set-aside development mean?

All that really means is that 70% of the units are market rate, whatever the market bears, that’s the rate, 30% of those units are restricted for 40 years as being affordable and what that means is 15%, half of the 30% have to be sold to people that make 80% of the average medium income. What does all that mean? If I had to just narrow it down? Stratford probably falls close to a hundred thousand in average median income.

It’s a little higher, so if you take 80% of that you have to sell these units or apartments only to those that make $80,000 or less and then the other 15% is 60% of AMI so you can only sell 15% to people that make $60,000 or lower, So a lot of people confuse 830 G and the set-aside development with a different kind of project.  It may be they may consider it to be where the state pays the person’s rent and there’s other programs. That is not what this is all about.  This is strictly a set-aside development where 70% of the units are at market rate.  Whatever you can get in town and 30% restricted by people’s incomes all right. So that’s what we’re talking about here. The reason that the state allows it in any zone except for industrial is because there’s a lot of pushback I mean, it’s obvious.

Look at these people. They like their neighborhoods. They liked what they purchased, they relied on what they thought was going to be a zone, I don’t know what zone they’re in, and now the state of Connecticut is saying to a developer or owner, you can ignore that, and that has no bearing on an affordable housing application. Sorry, so while all these people may have, or may be upset over the application they may be upset at your decision.  I can simply tell them all, and this Commission, that I’m only following state law.

The last piece that you all know very well is that if the application is denied then the court makes the burden of proof on the town.  Not on the developer, not on the owner But on the town to prove that there was a public interest that was likely to be harmed that can’t be remedied so that is why we’re here tonight and that’s the framework and however you decide that’s fine. I just wanted to make sure we’re all on the same page.

So, let me look at a couple of documents and I’m sure there’s a lot of people that would like to speak. So the first document I think I pointed out is the you can’t bring an affordable housing application unless your town is below the 10% affordability as counted by the state. They’re the ones that count what’s affordable and what’s not affordable.  Many of us think certain properties are affordable, but they just don’t count. So according to Connecticut,  Stratford has I guess 21,643 units, some of them are about 400 rentals, 300 single AMI, 33 are deed restricted in Total 1307 are considered affordable. That’s only six points.

So you didn’t meet the 10%, so developers and property owners are allowed to bring an affordable application.  The next document I’ll take it through as a statement for a zone change. So very simply you’re all AMI, familiar with that we’re looking to change the zone at 150 Oronoque Lane.  So 150 Oronoque Lane is currently owned by 150 Oronoque Lane LLC and that owner has entered into a contract with Affordability LLC to purchase the property and that Contract is contingent upon getting the zone changed for affordable units.

So in this particular Statement for the zone change. The applicant is seeking to change the zone and to change the zone to what we call Oronoque Affordable Housing District, and in the affordable housing district, which I’ll take you through in a minute will delineate what the density is and so on and so forth.

So the first document is simply a statement for the zone change. There’s a deed for the property and on the first page the contract to purchase from Affordability LLC.

The second document is the text amendment, the new zoning regulation that would be in your books.  You have a section in your books now under section 3 for affordable housing districts. There’s a couple of them listed already that have been approved or approved by a court and In this particular one, I’m not going to read the whole document, I’m just going to highlight the important parts, this regulation is only for the property at 150 Oronoque Lane,  Stratford, Connecticut,  that’s under 3.3.6.4 and I gave the legal description.  So this regulation would not apply anywhere else in town.  An important piece of this text amendment is that it would allow up to 60 residential units and that it would be the maximum amount of units that would be allowed in this zone and there would be nine one-bedroom units, one two-bedroom unit, and two studios on each floor.  Meaning the apartment building there would be a maximum of five floors above a garage.  There would be parking for 66 motor vehicles, and there would be other things, mailboxes and those kind of small things. Then we have the bulk standard requirements.  They’re not too crazy other than the density that you may be concerned about and the height of the buildings, but basically there’s front road frontage who requires 125 feet, front yard setback 15 feet, side yards 5, those kinds of things. So that is what we call the Text amendment for the zone change.  In this document it clearly states that the applicant has to come back for a site plan approval and it sets forth what they have to show you and it’s your typical site plan.

That is not what we’re here tonight about that, but it does say in this text amendment that the documents that you’ve been provided are only conceptual in nature.  So the next document is the affordability plan, and the affordability plan basically says what I kind of talked about in my remarks, that it is a set-aside development and that 15% of the units would be for people that are for 80% AMI, and the other 15% for 60 AMI.  It also says that these units would be restricted for 40 years.  Just in case the Commission doesn’t know every one of these units you would get a point for the moratorium or towards your count to get that 6% increased. I also think that they changed the 830 G statute I think they give you a quarter point for every other unit in this building that is not affordable.

They don’t give you a full point, they give you a quarter point, so that’s kind of a new change in the law since I started doing these.  It talks about what the requirements are:  you have to have an administrator to make sure these people have given you their income tax returns to show their income; they have to check to make sure that there are affordable units in the apartment being rented and in this particular case Jay was kind enough to give me a list of administrators that the town has recognized and one of them was a Mark Nolan, I think he’s from Danbury some realty company up there, so he was selected as the administrator, there’s a model D that talks about the 40-year restriction on the land records, again, the affordability plan is only for this property.

So let’s talk a little bit about this property Everyone probably knows Oronoque Road.   If you come up the hill and if you were to go past the country club, we’re staying on the right-hand side as you’re going up the hill, then there’s the Lot across the street from the maintenance department, there’s the firehouse,  and then there’s a new project that was just being started, about a property or two over where I think is going to be 11 houses constructed that they just started as the houses aren’t in yet.  Then comes this property, which is, 150 and I think the property adjacent to it is 100 Oronoque Lane, which has also filed an affordability housing application.  It has not been heard before this Commission or noticed, but it’s on the radar for I forget what Jay told me, maybe the end of February.

[Speaker 4]

Jay Habansky: I think next month, okay.

[Speaker 2]

So that’s the property that we’re talking about On the the big drawings that you have the conceptual drawings You’ll see that there is an existing house on this particular piece of property. It’s going to be relocated I’ll call it forward towards or an Oronoque Lane and Then behind the house is where the Developer is proposing to put the apartment building with under garage with under under the building would be Parking under the structure of the building would be parking. So the thought process is that If you look from the street, you would still see a residential home behind the residential home obviously would be this apartment building and That’s that’s what is being proposed I disagree that The plan was the apartment building was going to be on or in Oronoque Lane.

[Speaker 3]

Ben Porto:The house was going to be moved on the property Yeah, so that’s not what you just said.

[Speaker 2]

Yeah, it’s going to be moved forward I thought I said so Yeah again, this is conceptual.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson: So you’re not going to see any site plan guys. We need to hear what is being said, so you are going to have to keep your conversations to yourself for right now.

[Speaker 2]

I can point out on the on the plans if there’s a again These are conceptual plans. So let’s look at page Conceptual site development plan sheet number one. Okay There’s a box it says existing home to be relocated That’s where it’s relocated.

If you look back behind it, you’ll see the outline where the house is now, so it did get moved forward.  Look at the second page there where the house is now.  So the survey is accurate as to what is there right now, the second page is what is proposed.   I just want to make a few more remarks and then I’ll a speaker. So As part of this application I file it with Jay Habansky, Jay makes his comments, he probably gives you a copy of his report. I just want to comment that without going through item by item that a lot of Jay’s points were that this plan is inconsistent with the plan of development, and while it may or may not be consistent or inconsistent doesn’t really matter.  The case law says that it’s not the plan of development that a town adopts, but really the criteria has to do with the lack of affordable housing.  So the case is when now SKI versus Berlin they raised the same issue as Jay did about it not conforming to the plan of development and that our appellate court has said that that’s it doesn’t matter. It’s not relevant in an affordable housing application which throws everyone for a loop because you’re so used to hearing “well does this project conform to the plan of conservation and development” and generally speaking it has to right, otherwise, it would be a problem.  But apparently the legislature and the case, and the judges who have decided affordable housing applications, have said it doesn’t matter what your plan of development says the only criteria is what I said in the beginning the need for affordable housing. Whether that the risk of a clearly articulated harm is outweighed by that need for affordable housing. So the plan of development unfortunately doesn’t come into play I Think I’ve spoken enough. So I’m going to introduce a gentleman.

You’re all probably familiar with Nick Owen.  He’s been a developer in town for many years and I’d like him to make a few remarks.

[Speaker 4]

Nicholas Owen: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, madam secretary, I have my business offices which are located at 972 East Broadway here in Stratford along with my brothers. We have been in the development, building, and real estate business for over 55 years.  At this point our resume is quite extensive.

We’ve built over a thousand single-AMI homes in this town over the years, numerous duplexes, and a number of apartment buildings and condominium projects; briefly Deerfield Woods on Broadbridge Avenue back in the 80s, Breakwater Key, that beautiful waterfront complex with 100 boat slips is a Premier community on the Housatonic River at the mouth of Long Island Sound and our family is very proud of those projects.  My function in the company is to search out properties to see if they are suitable for developments such as this This particular piece of property is suitable if the board approves it for this type of complex The land is stable land. There’s no marsh area on it, there is virtually no wetlands on it, there is very little ledge on the property.

So if the board amends the zoning regulation and the project ultimately gets approved the property itself is suitable for this kind of development that speaks nothing to the fact of the number of units that go on that could ultimately be approved by this commission or by the court. I’m just here to testify that the suitability of the land.  The visibility from Oronoque Lane, all of the utilities including gas, water, electricity are available. There is a sewer main being proposed that is an extension on the street, which I went before the town council for approval and the engineering department, they approved those Extensions several months ago to extend the sewer along the frontage of these two properties.  We currently are developing, through another developer, the project on 170 Oronoque Lane, which is directly to the left of the firehouse and those are 11 single AMI units, but those are single units single homes on condominium land, different than this particular development.

We’ve looked at on a preliminary basis fire safety health.  There is sanitary sewer available.  The fire department does in fact have the necessary equipment God forbid that there is a blaze.  They have the ladder trucks and all of that and depending on the location of the building It would be suitable for them to fight whatever necessary fires that possibly could develop, and hopefully none will.  The police department has not commented on it yet, but I doubt that there’d be very many incidents where the police go up there where there’s an incident.

[Speaker 1]

We just heard back from the fire department, I just saw it as I walked in here tonight. That’s not helpful to me, but I understand it, but they had very strong comments.

[Speaker 12]

Bellis:  I’m sure they do and I understand the property in question. I’m looking at it strictly from a construction point of view that it is developable as a type of apartment building that is being proposed with this change of zone, and if you have any questions, I’m more than happy to answer them short and sweet

[Speaker 1]

Commissioner Watson, Debra…

[Speaker]

Debra: The house is being moved forward on the property, it’s a house that’s not set back very far.  Honestly, I’m not sure what you mean in other words that house, the gray house, right, is not that far from the street So that is not the purpose of my testimony. Okay?

[Speaker unknown]

That’s a legitimate question and there was no need for them to laugh Do we have a six story house or building in this area?

[Speaker]

Bellis:  I’m not here to answer those questions. If you would listen to what I say ladies and gentlemen, please, my purpose was to and is to prove that the land is suitable. It doesn’t mean that the Commission is going to change the zone or not change the zone, very simple.  Are there any other questions? I thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Owen.

[Speaker 2]

All right now we are going to You’re going to do okay Yeah, I’ll be I’ll be quick but I wanted to say a few more things Is this on yeah, yeah, okay. Okay, so Again the what we’re here today for is whether there should be a zone change and text amendment if and when And and the Commission has the right every right to say in that text amendment. We want to limit the height of The building to be no more than four stories Absolutely can do it if the Commission were to say we don’t like the setback Whatever as this Commissioner Suggested of a house being whatever it may be when I give you the site plan You can do that in the text amendment.

So those changes are allowed by this Commission. It’s not like take this swallow it, and too bad.  That’s not what this is all about.  If there is something that is objectionable to this Commission and they want to change it they can.  They can request that it be changed and in fact the 830 G even gives us, even if you were to say no, or whatever, to come back in with a modified plan.

It’s just the way it’s written, so I could come back and say Okay, you took it down I don’t know whatever you did, to four stories and you know, and then I say, you know, we do this so there’s a give-and-take. I’m trying if I can to make myself clear.  That’s why these are conceptual plans and you’re allowed to make those changes in the text amendment.  Perhaps you say, I don’t want the house at all there, maybe, I don’t know, you have the right to do that.  So I wanted to make that clear the last point I’d like to make is the benefits, what are the benefits?  The town gets tax dollars.

I personally built a hundred unit apartment building in Shelton and on a couple acres.  The city of Shelton loves it because they get good tax dollars.  Just roughly in my head, you have a 40 mil rate, which is a little higher than Shelton or a lot higher but  we’re talking about four hundred thousand to perhaps five hundred thousand dollars a year in taxes.  As far as impact on the town as far as students, these apartments generally, I’m not saying that they’re prohibited, but they generally do not have a lot of children that are school-age, they usually are younger adults or older adults where the kids have already grown up. So not saying that they can’t have children, that’s not what I’m saying,  I’m saying generally speaking these kinds of buildings do not generate a lot of school children so the reason towns like these buildings are the tax dollars, not a big strain on the on the financial impact for the town, and generally speaking that it also satisfies the need where younger people are just unable to find a place to live. They’re living with their parents in the basement, or they’re staying whatever, doubling up with other friends, it’s just difficult and I don’t have all the answers, I don’t pretend to, I am simply representing this applicant who believes hence his name, Affordability LLC that we need some affordable units as a set-aside development These are people that make $60,000, so they’re teachers,secretaries. People that perhaps work in City Hall.  We’re talking about people that work there, people that are contribute to the town. These are not welfare recipients. So, I hope that you understand where we’re coming from. There’s flexibility and I don’t mind the give-and-take. You know that already from seeing me before There’s something you don’t like you just tell me Thank You, Mr. Chairman, I think I’m going to conclude and let these poor people talk.

[Speaker 1]

Harold Watson:  Okay. Thank you very much.  Now we’re going to move to the Speaking for or against but before I go to the list we have several people here from the town bringing their particular perspective and they’re getting overtime right now so I want to put them at the head of the list and I hope you will forgive me Can I see a show of hands of town people, Is there anybody from the town? Staff or consultants who would like to speak.  I see a hand in the back, I’m not asking whether you’re for or against I’m asking about your particular expertise in this area.

[Speaker 10]

Jermaine Atkinson.  My name is Jermaine Atkinson, I’m the fire chief for the Town of Stratford I’m also joined with the fire marshal Robert Daniel.  We appreciate you calling us to be here this evening and we’re just here tonight to give you a few food for thought in regards to this application.  We understand it’s a conceptual drawing, and as stated we do have equipment that can reach this property.  One of the concerns when we look at buildings that are new and under construction we just ask that you touch base with us as department heads and we communicate with zoning for some concerns that we’d like to just bring to your attention.

One of the things that we looked at in the conceptual drawings, we would have to wait for the proposed site plan, where we could offer some really constructive feedback with the conceptual plans we would look at access for the fire department. One of the things I looked at when I looked at the conceptual drawing is access from the rear is one of my concerns when we look at a building this height.  We look at the apparatus that we have that’s able to reach these areas. We normally start with ground ladders. Our highest ground ladder is 35 feet, the proposed structure is 70 feet. Obviously, we know we can’t reach that, we also need access from the rear of the building is what we’d like in an optimal scenario.  So, if we’re unable to use ground ladders what we would use is our aerial device, or your aerial device, is capable of reaching 95 feet.  However, we do have to provide a close area for the apparatus, which is at least 19.5 feet to stabilize the truck and then reach with the access.  So it’s a method of angles for one thing, for access along the rear of the structure One of the things that we considered would be access from the cul-de-sac and the proposed development behind it That may be a consideration. Is there an access point for that?

(Speaker 11)

Fire Marshall Robert Daniel:  Once again, we’d have to wait for the proposed drawings to be able to make an offer and a recommendation on that. The other thing that we would look for is the turning radius of the truck.  Our aerial apparatus is 46 feet long.  When we look at the conceptual drawings we find that there might be some problems with access to it.   That may be something we’re able to overcome.  Like I said, height is one thing but access is another.  We have engines which carry hundreds of feet of hose.  We can stretch hose and pump water all day long. We have a firehouse next door.  we’ve also done training in the building next door. So we have worked with the developer and they have provided some benefits for the fire department as well as far as training goes. One thing that like I said, we talked about is the aerial apparatus,  which is something that we would comment on and offer our suggestions and offer our support to the Commission anyway that we could be of assistance if anyone has questions for me.  I’m more than happy to take them We also have the fire marshal here to offer some assistance if needed.   Go ahead, sir without looking at the actual height I would go down the street and I would say there’s some commercial buildings that are taller. I think it’s 990-999 or so, so it’s similar. It’s comparable.

It’s farther down the hill and it’s not around houses down there.  Across the street from the nursing home, the nursing home is, I would say, it’s four stories.

[Speaker 4]

Owens:  It is on a larger foot ladies and gentlemen, we need to have the questions into the microphone.  So I think the we might be better off, better served, responding maybe to some of the questions that the public might have, we need your questions on the record and if you’re not in the microphone, we just can’t hear,  so I’m sorry, but I would say that if there are other questions you may want to address them to the chief in between.  You know now in the next meeting, my guess is that this meeting may not conclude tonight, I don’t really know but have those questions answered and maybe we can relay them here to our Commission this evening.  Fire Marshall do you have anything else?

[Speaker 12]

My name is Kevin Kelly with the assistant town attorney of Kevin Kelly and Associates here on Main Street. you just heard from the fire chief and the Fire marshal you also have written responses from the police department conservation and health departments And basically what you’ve also heard from the applicant is that they provided a conceptual plan. The issue with a conceptual plan is that it’s not detailed And I think that became clear both from the applicant as well as from the staff comments of the Town of Stratford.  Due process Requires that whenever there’s hearing that adequate notice is provided to give parties an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner in a meaningful way and when you don’t have the actual Information in front of you, and while the applicant has requested his own change a text amendment together with a conceptual site plan It has failed to provide necessary information in order for the Commission to adequately assess whether the proposed development will adversely impact environmental resources and to protect the town’s stewardship of health safety,  including but not limited to adequate fire access for aerial vehicle apparatus, appropriate hydrant fire suppressant capability, access to rear of the building for victim rescue by ground ladder and secondary access for aerial vehicle apparatus, adequate turning radius within the subject property, information regarding the habitat of the eastern box turtle. They don’t have any storm water management, which is required in accordance with the Connecticut DEEP 2023 storm water quality manual and the town’s ms4 permit and also failed to provide information and the impact of impervious area and Stormwater runoff on the area the environmental resources within the area so what you have is basically a one-page memo to that effect together with a report from Rima Ecological Services George Logan,  Which talked about that impervious surface and the runoff and the adverse impact that it’s going to cause with the intense development so as a result a couple of things first there’s never going to be an opportunity if the conceptual site plan is approved to have an actual public hearing on these important public interests, and there’s not going to be an opportunity for the public to weigh in on these issues of health safety and environmental stewardship. So that’s an important concept to keep in mind you want this always to come back to the people.  The second is that because the site plan the the property itself is within the 250 upland review area of a environmental resource it needs to go to the Inland Wetland and Watercourse Commission In order for the that public interest to be protected. Therefore, lastly what I would request that the town is requesting that the Commission continue this public hearing To enable the town to appropriately protect these substantial interests of health safety and the environment with that I’ll take any question

 [Speaker 19]

I’m Robert Carea,78 Shoreline Drive.  Given that this area is adjacent to a 900 unit condominium project apartments are a fitting addition to the community.  This affordable housing initiative in the north end plays a vital role in fostering economic mobility.  Often referred to as the opportunity for individuals and families to improve financial and social standing they require.  By providing access to more affluent neighborhoods through affordable housing or other supportive measures we create pathways for upward mobility empowering residents to enhance their quality of life These incentives are a cornerstone of thoughtful urban planning and equitable community development.  Economic mobility often referred to as upward mobility allows families to move to more affluent areas through affordable housing and supportive measures. This is tied to policies and programs such as you heard tonight inclusionary zoning requiring developers to include affordable units in new developments, housing choice vouchers, section 8 subsidies for low-income families to rent in high opportunity neighborhoods,  Mobility counseling programs helping families relocate to areas with better schools jobs and resources.  Opportunity mapping targeting affordable housing efforts based on education, employment,and safety metrics These initiatives aim to break generational poverty and improve economic and social conditions By consistently opposing affordable housing initiatives in the north end while favoring them in the south end raises the question of whether the intent is to confine and repress economic mobility within certain areas.  Effectively drawing invisible boundaries that limit opportunity this resistance to affordability in the north end perpetuates inequity, reinforcing divisions rather than bridging them.  Shouldn’t we as a community be working toward creating inclusive neighborhoods where everyone has the chance to thrive regardless of their starting point.  Affordable housing in the north end is not just about development. It’s about fairness, equity and shared progress for all the parts of the town.  The town and the developer reached an agreement based on the fact that the parcel in question is adjacent to Roosevelt Forest and we’re referring to the short version with state funding and this developer. The Town of Stratford was able to make a deal with them and allow them to exchange portions of land on James Farms Road for this property they increased the size of Roosevelt Forest as a result of this and as a result now working with this Commission and the office of the mayor We believe this can be a very successful and viable project for the community

[Speaker 20]

Ivy Trencer, Black Hawk Lane.  My concern is when you bring in affordable housing we have the 900 unit plus development and you’re talking about bringing in affordable housing which borders on section 8 housing and that makes me nervous. When you bring, you know, because we’re not a gated community. So people have access right through the country club and the golf course, so you know, I’m concerned about you know, depending on the type of people who we don’t know.  But yeah, I get nervous about that. If you’re talking about affordable housing as opposed to section 8 housing That’s a little bit different.

But is it affordable. It’s okay, so it’s affordable housing but you know my concern is that you know people were getting into the kind of getting into the amenities and getting hurt and things like that this is these are things that I was talking about with people earlier in the day and I just wanted to bring them up as concerns and I don’t know how this affects the rating of the village as You know what? The rating is whether you know a rating they’re going to rate it differently Based on this or whether they’re going to rate it based on the county So, thank you.

 [Speaker 21]

My name is Barbara Dearoff. I live in Oronoque Village at 374 B Paiute Lane and I have a very serious concern about Freeman Brook,  and also about storm drainage and runoff as the property is right now.  We in Oronoque already have for a long periods of time experienced flooding issues, runoff problems. My particular unit fronts on Freeman Brook. There is another unit on Seminole Lane across the brook from me that is basically unsaleable unit because of the serious flooding conditions So I feel that a serious wetlands and runoff study needs to be done before any kind of building can go on this particular property.

[Speaker 22]

Hello, my name is Richard Sowerby I live at 559 a North Trail in Oronoque Village.  My concerns are very similar the HOA just paid over two hundred fifty thousand dollars to remediate some of the storm damage that we had on Freeman Brook and I think it should be required that a environmental study be done before you can vote on this issue of granting relief for the builder.  Also, the traffic issue would have to be addressed. I would hope that somebody would study what the impacts going to be. I mean personally, I believe that the access to the fire department that road would have to be widened to give proper access.  But again, the study needs to be done and it should be paid for by the builder.

[Speaker 23)

My name is Sabina Curry, and I am the OV TD, which is the Oronoque Village tax district president.  We did just spend a quarter of a million dollars on a very small section of Freeman Brook that suffers from the runoff on Oronoque Lane.  As a side note the town itself had initially budgeted a half a million dollars to work on the runoff water of Oronoque Lane, so there’s definitely a water issue. Basically the people I spoke to don’t have anything against affordable housing, what we have against is is that it’s six floors.  We are all, even the condos, one to two, one and a half, two stories, but they’re all single-family homes in a very well-treated area.  So we definitely have a concern about changing of the zoning not only that it was mentioned that they bought 150, they closed on 100 the other day.  This could continue down the road and just become apartments after apartments, and let us not forget that this is a one acre piece of property, it’s less than an acre it’s 0.86.   So that’s crazy,  a 68 spot parking lot for 60 units?  Most people I know even if it’s just a couple, have two cars.  That’s 120 cars.  Oronoque Lane has been used for walking, for recreation.  The other thing about the water usage we just mentioned, the sewer system is probably not going to be up to snuff.  It’s very unfortunate that they didn’t have an actual site plan that showed the sewer size and everything else that you add.  We have that 12 unit condo unit going in right next door, a six floor 60 unit, and I’m guessing not too much later another 60 unit next door at 100.

[Speaker 24]

My name is Carl Glad I live at 80 Candlewood Road, I am the 8th district council chair councilman, and I’m also the town council chairman I live in the neighborhood where this proposed tax amendment is set to occur and where this proposed development would happen.  I’ve heard from many of my constituents In fact, I’d like to introduce a petition signed by 553 residents most all of them in walking distance of that project who are opposed to this project.  We finished getting all of these signatures tonight,  and this is important to make clear, that I went door-to-door and I spoke to most of these people and none of them told me they were opposed to affordable housing In fact, they support affordable housing throughout Stratford what they’re opposed to is this particular project.  They know that affordable housing will be used as a red herring to make them look like they don’t want people of a certain type to live In their neighborhood that is a lie and it is not true.

They are opposed to a 60-unit Six-story building in a wooded residential area. They are opposed to a 60 unit six-story building on point eight six acres.  They are concerned, they are concerned that this type of density will increase what is already a busy street that cars speed down at a million miles per hour and throw their nips out on their way into Shelton.  They are concerned that the fire department may not be able to take care of a fire at a building this side and size and in addition the neighbors that live around that do not have fire hydrants and we are concerned that if there is a simultaneous fire can the fire hydrant the one they would be using for this building support our houses as well.  They are concerned that we will fully pave almost fully paved point eight six acres, which will create runoff into a wetland.  They are appalled that this kind of predatory development is used to intentionally punish residents in a neighborhood that have already fought against this developer and his associate who tried this before.  Additionally as a member of the WPC of which I am a member of the council, I was asked to vote on just this that was mentioned by the petitioner on an exterior extension for 150 Oronoque, which was granted and I have the minutes here for everyone. It was granted for a single family home.

What is clear?  What appears to be an intentional misrepresentation to get this project to move faster in front of this Zoning Commission with sewer in front of it because of the concern of our neighbors,  555 some-odd neighbors in this district and the misrepresentations. It is imperative that this hearing stay open so that we can address these concerns get the appropriate reports to this Commission so that we know Exactly what this text amendment will do because at this point in time we do not know exactly what they want to do other than put in a massive building and change the area and of course 100 is next 100 or no plane is next on the list so I urge you to oppose this and keep this hearing open so that we may so that the residents can provide the reports and We can figure out exactly what is intended in this development.

[Speaker 25]

Kurt Allberg I live at 85 Coach House Road. That’s just around the corner from this development, I’m also an attorney and I represent a number of the neighbors who are here tonight.  This really is a red herring, and I’ll tell you why we keep hearing about a conceptual plan, and I get it under a 30 G but how in the world are we to address the concerns that will outline this development?

Is going to protect the public interest that outweighs the need for this.  How will this help public interest in health, safety, or other matters without knowing the specifics of this plan? I have some comments, which I would like to submit to the Commission based upon the application as submitted.  First off this is not a one acre zone, the Successors field card has already been mentioned. It shows it to be .86 acres, less than 40,000, the application itself says 40,000 square feet.  It’s wrong, you kind of have an overlap here, between having a change of zone, you’ve got to adhere to under our state law affordable housing.  We hear a lot about the site plan “we’re going to come back with a site plan, we’re going to address all your issues”. that’s not true. Because if the Commission approves this, if you approve this proposal It doesn’t require another public hearing We’re never going to know what the developer wants to develop.

We’re looking at a six-story building that covers 80% of land use let me go through some of the specifics the when you consider a change of zone you’re obligated to adhere to the residential open space plan of development.  But if I may submit these and I can certainly prepare something for the record afterwards.  Some of the considerations in the comprehensive plan in our residential open space area the land use is characterized by larger residential lots, residential developments with ample open space requirements, and approximately one acre one unit dwellings per acre.   The optimum land use goal is to promote balanced physical growth and development that fosters livable inclusive communities, economic vitality, and healthy lifestyles while preserving the small-town character and charm and natural resources within the community, continue to provide diverse and healthy housing options to meet the needs of current and future residents during all stages of life while maintaining a sense of community and the unique attributes of existing neighborhoods this doesn’t do that.

 [Speaker 1]

I’m going to have to ask you to stop because I still have about 10 more people.

[Speaker]

Allberg, Bottom line on this is that this plan does not comply with the comprehensive plan of development I do believe we need more specifics to address the concerns outlined in 830 G.Thank you

[Speaker 26]

Tom Aubin: Good evening a lot of my concerns have been addressed by the people before me you got 50 mile an hour traffic out there. It’s a cut through from Huntington to people that are going to work at Sikorsky or getting access to the bridge to get over to the Milford Parkway, tremendous amount of traffic there it’s why I’m here.  My disappointment is that the town of Stratford doesn’t conjoin with the town of Shelton when you talk about planning.  if you go up the road just a little bit from Sikorsky less than a mile.you’re going to see multiple proposals for development along the river. You’re going to see huge apartment buildings being built up there All that traffic is southbound not northbound as someone pointed out tonight. When you get to the bottom of Oronoque Lane, it’s going to take you three or four traffic lights to get through.  These are the things that are make my life miserable, right? This traffic is dangerous, I’m sure you know when they built all these places in the road itself back in the early 70s they didn’t plan on this but now we are where we are. Okay, so we’ve got to put the brakes I’m done.

 [Speaker 27]

My name is Mary Vaughn’s I’m a resident of Oronoque Village, 596 B. Sue Lane. I’m here to voice my strong objections to the zoning and development of a 60 unit or 40 unit or 20 unit or 10 unit or 5 unit development or anything more than a single-family residence on .86 acres at 150 Oronoque Lane or at the neighboring property 100 Oranoque Lane, I urge you to deny these applications on the following grounds a lack of infrastructure to support more than a single-family residence for which the property is currently and appropriately zoned.   God forbid we have a fire no sufficient power lines. no sufficient cable lines, no sewer lines, no water lines, no storm drains, lack of sufficient parking. The Application claims space for 68 cars.

That’s unrealistic. Where do you think other cars will park? There is nowhere except  along the entry and along Oronoque Lane, which would be hazardous and unsafe a traffic issue.  Where will the mailboxes and trash receptacles go on less than an acre with 68 to 120 cars?

Will there be space for any sidewalks any landscaping? Given the crowding, what will this potential development look like?  Six stories and 68 cars is difficult to imagine front side or rear.  Along with site comes sound, it would only take a few open windows in a few of the 60 units for music to travel to and through where trees once stood and into Oronoque Village The privately owned Blackhawk Country Club will become the walking grounds as well Oronoque Village property.  Where are the dogs going to be walked even if not allowed? Grills, playground space there isn’t the space.  There is no public transportation for shopping or getting to work. There are no entertainment venues nearby.  This is an urban suburban rural and not an urban area.   Where I used to live Transportation to schools was a significant part of the budget I trust you’re considering the impact on the Stratford school budgets with the possibility of the added cost of transportation and possible needed school expansion versus the tax revenue from the affordable units.  I can’t speak for all of Oronoque Village residents, but I know many of them and I believe many of us support affordable housing opportunities, however not in this location. Finally I ask you each to think logically and to consider the impact on all levels This is a bad choice for the use of Oronoque Lane and as you said earlier, Mr.Chairman Stratford has lots of affordable housing. I for one and among many ask you to vote no and to deny this proposed new tax district and proposed development now.  I Also remind you of the number of voters and the number of residential tax dollars the town receives from the area, not just among the approximately 1450 residents of Oronoque Village. I for one am ready to elect officials who appreciate our concerns I for one am ready to fund and to fight for as long as this takes in these chambers or in court.

[Speaker 28]

Ronald Chico, 641 B North Trail, and It seems like tonight that the goal lines have been moved We came here with one thing in mind and things have changed since we’ve been here.  I’m not here to question the need for affordable housing.

I don’t think any of us are.  We’re here to fight against one persistent contractor that’s using 8-30 G as a weapon to change the zoning requirements so they can build a six-story apartment building in the middle of approximately 1,000 single-family units. I also questioned this 0.86 acre we find out today. They’re moving a house to the front of the property so it sounds like what they’re doing is putting a six-story 60 unit building in the backyard of 150 Oronoque Lane.  Besides the issues of transportation, sewage, parking, fire, environment, and the congestion at James Farm Road at the intersection of North Trail and South Trail and at Sikorsky, this is the beginning of the destruction of a beautiful residential area in Stratford.  With all these other issues that were mentioned. The value of the properties will decline as mentioned before, if the property values decline your assessed values will decline, if your assessed values decline your tax revenues will decline.  There are other solutions that are much more suitable for an 8-30 G.

[Speaker 29]

First I want to say I think there’s a very important lesson that I’m learning here around Civic process, and it’s relevant actually to all the people who come from Oronoque who is sitting here right now.  Never give up your right when you vote to the specifics of what you’re being asked to vote on, never.  When you are asked to vote on something conceptual, there’s always the likelihood and even probably the positive possibility that what you think is going to happen is not really going to happen. It’s going to be worse.

It’ll be worse. You’ll lose control. This is a zoning issue, you have the right as Representatives of us to make sure that you don’t lose that control. Specifically in this case. I was here a year and a half ago watching the same builder do the same thing on the first plot of land.  I had a meeting in my house about this and other things that are going on, and we wondered if it was the same person, the same people, the same group, and here it is.  We don’t even know if when you change that zoning law to make this possible, which I hope you don’t do, that that person won’t turn around and say look what you did to us on the other piece of land, you know now we should do it, you’re playing favorites. This is in violation and harmful to our needs affordable housing is critical has to happen.  This is not the place to isolate people.

[Speaker 30]

David Negrero, 170 Oronoque Lane. I’ve sent a letter that expressed our concerns briefly addressed that the recent zoning updates did not include any changes to density to this area, and it seems like that was an intentional leave out.  So this density does not seem like it goes in accordance with the town of Stratford’s plan for this area.  It also is a lack of transit oriented development If we’re going to put this level of density in this area the surrounding area does not support it,  the town doesn’t support it, the traffic lights don’t support it,  and in my opinion that does sort of add an element of Safety that is a highly concerned for us and for the village of Oronoque.  Our concern as well is an insufficient fire mitigation Well, this piece of property is very dense and there’s just almost no setbacks in the rear this does seem to be concern of ours and for safety as well as many people here who has said that they think and believe that Oronoque Village is one of the best portions of Stratford.   Our opinion is the same as we are building 2,000 square 2,600 square foot homes and investing nine million dollars in this area.  It seems that this project is in keeping with the person who had sold the property to us so this to us feels Capricious and just really inappropriate and it seems to be there is an ulterior motive and for us we would just employ this board to delay and see more of what is in store, but we are opposed to this and It is not in keeping with the neighborhood whatsoever Thank you

 [Speaker 31]

Bruce Ross, 500 Brinsmaid Avenue, which is right around the corner One of the things I wanted to mention is this the creation of an affordability zone without a development site plan It basically creates a precedent a cookie-cutter development that can be used across multiple locations Around the around the area. So if we create or if we allow the creation of Oranoke affordability zoning district that means that those cookie cutters can be used all over the area And not only would we have 160 unit development on 0.86 acres We might have 10 we might have 20 and that would be that would be a disaster for the area in terms of well water Sewer lines that have to go across the Merritt Parkway Bridge. That would be jurisdictional kind of a problem Traffic obviously stormwater runoff and management that was discussed earlier But with a with the density here I think that would be just an incredible thing And then if we look at other towns have received a moratorium on affordable housing projects Namely new Canaan.

They enjoyed a four-year moratorium and they applied for a second one Is this a violation of equal protection for Stratford? Why can’t we get a mentor for one second?

[Speaker 32]

Barbara Morris. 47 Oronoque Lane.  I had not intended to speak at all, but be a wallflower so I will try to be as direct and concise as I can be.  We have to present an immediate danger to get anyone to back off that is what I was hearing from the attorneys and the developers.  We are a 55 plus community.  I’ve been there for a year and a half it Besides its excellent structure and how they run their social activities, many people are there for support of their health so they don’t have to end up in either nursing homes or assisted living homes.  I’m asking the residents of Oronoque village to conduct a study of how many is it 500? Good. I’ll tell you what I’ve seen in the year and a half how many people have used ambulances, other first respondents services, social workers, physical therapy, home health aides Etc. Please make a study look against your policies and see if there is not an intimate danger of all of a sudden all these developments happening all over we look within ourselves.

 [Speaker 33]

My name is Barbara Davis and I’m also from our Oronoque Village I Think that there are two major issues I think there are two major issues here tonight One is the need for housing for moderate income people and the other is the need for the town of Stratford to raise its revenues every year to cover increasing costs and you generally raise revenues from property taxes.  Residential property, business property, personal property, and autos.  My question is Oronoque Village has 929 residential units that have increased in value significantly over the years and pay very high taxes to the town of Stratford.  Is Stratford willing to risk a possible devaluation of property in Oronoque Village for 60 units of property for moderate income housing or should we get a board in Stratford to look for appropriate places for development for moderate housing. Thank you.

[Speaker 34]

My name is Myrna Mills Albino 132 B Bison Lane. I just want to go back for a minute to that question about the moratorium.  I know I really have nowhere near the kind of knowledge that you all do about this. I admit it and quick searches on internet give you a lot more trouble than anything But when I look at the towns that did get this moratorium, they didn’t yet have 10% They just got a four-year Extension because of some work that they were doing. Okay, you’re saying no that I’m wrong

[Speaker 35]

Nicholas Strasser I live on the corner of James Farm in Oronoque I agree with everybody here who says what I agree a hundred percent  — I’m not against the housing at all, but what I am against is the safety.  How many times I’m trying to get out of my driveway in that three-way intersection I almost get hit by a car. They go into the stop signs, I have to sit there, my wife and I sit there wait till nobody’s coming. So it’s frustrating.  Now anybody on the board, can you tell me, I have a well, can you tell me where my water comes from?  Now if you put a parking garage in it you’re going to dig very deep.  I was told I had underground streams never had a problem with my water.  Now if they do that all of a sudden my well craps out I’m going to come to you guys and say, what’s going on and you’re going to say? Oh, it’s just a well you know, there’s a lot of houses from where they want to do all this craziness They’re all wells.

[Speaker 36]

Carol Bowscr, North Trail in Oronoque Village,  I’m a retired builder. I’m an architect I agree with the speakers that have been up here prior to me for all of the reasons that they’ve told you. One thing that I can’t figure out is why are we here doing this?  We’re talking about changing a Residential zone, which has a house on it.  They want to move the house or take the house down so that they can change it into a commercial property. That area up there is all-residential and it’s all developed why redevelop it? I think the people that live around us, the people that live on Daniels Farm Road or on Oronoque Lane, they like where they live There’s no need to change it. And I think that the builder that was here earlier that has taken and removed one house to develop 11 houses at least he is doing something residential. You put a six-story Apartment building in and it all of a sudden it’s not really residential anymore. It’s almost commercial and there’s enough of that at the bottom of Oronoque Lane as it is. So, I think that the decision that you have to make is pretty easy, and I don’t think that the change is necessary

[Speaker 37]

Catherine Sprig Leo, 35 Surrey Lane, which is adjacent to the Oronoque Village development.  So I’m in the residential neighborhood.  I will keep it brief. I agree with everything as far as the traffic issues. I’ve lived in my home with my husband, son for over 30 years. We’ve seen the neighborhood change.  That’s fine But I think the traffic has gotten worse and I will reiterate what everyone else is saying, that you can’t even get, a certain hours, out of the street. It’s dangerous to try to get out of your neighborhood, you add all of that enhanced traffic. It’s the same issue, so I just want to say that I agree with the traffic and it’s not just the village it’s a huge contingency that you really need to take in consideration, but it is also the neighborhood, and It is a walking neighborhood I don’t think anybody’s really brought that up as much and all that increased traffic will make a very dangerous for all of the walkers who are walking along Oronoque Lane trying to access the residential neighborhoods.

[Speaker 38]

Anne Marie Calori, I jumped the gun earlier, but I’m back and I’ll be very fast I think I can say something unique or just plant a seed in the minds of my neighbors.  The gentleman who was representing the Builder and the new residents of 170 Oronoque, the condo project,  Posed the question. What’s this ulterior motive? I’m a banker.  I’ve done a little work with low-income housing tax credit lending (LHTC) there are very rich incentives, okay for developers who can get their mitts on acquired land that’s acquired attractively such as in the North End. We’re being lectured about how we don’t want affordable housing. I’m the child of immigrants I worked my way up now. I’m in the fourth quarter of my life. I want to live in a peaceful community.  That’s all been said by my neighbors.  The ulterior motive is low-income housing tax credits that are extremely rich.  They go into the pockets of the developers they sell these tax credits to investors and that partially finances the project and of course our regular Tory environment and legislative environment is supportive of affordable housing.  We should be if we’re going to get rental units that are affordable for teachers and first responders and Amazon Fulfillment Center workers, that’s all great. It’s got to be in the right kind of area This land is being acquired with big lots at attractive prices.  I can’t get in central and southern parts of our of our town, but they can do it here as inappropriate as it is. They’re going to lecture us about how we have to prove harm. They’re going to lecture us about how we don’t want the wrong kind of people living with us It’s about the incentives for the developers and the fact that this is an ideal place to acquire land At a great price and make a ton of money.

Note:

This concludes the part of the Zoning Commission Hearing.  All residents that attended the meeting were allotted time to speak.  The conclusion when the meeting was adjourned was:

Chairman Harold Watson

“The vote was 4-1 to accept the text amendment on workforce housing that was discussed in the beginning of the Zoning Commission Meeting.

Zone 1 Commissioner Linda Manos, yes; Zone 2 Commissioner Ewald Joseph,  yes; Zone 3 Commissioner myself Harold Watson, No; Zone 4 Commissioner Deborah Lamberti, Yes; Zone 5 Commissioner Len Petrucelli Yes.

There was no building plans submitted for 150 Oronoque Lane, this meeting was only about a text amendment.  This meeting had nothing to do with 150 Oronoque Lane, but comments were allowed and given as the Zoning Commission meeting had never had so many residents attend to have their voices heard.

The table was left open and on the table to continue discussion of 150 Oronoque Lane at the next meeting on February 28^th.