Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

Page 8 --November 1995 Z.g, Housing-- Commission: Affordable Housing Won't Protect Health, Safety, and Welfare National Associated Properties u Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of North Branford, 658 A.2d 224 (Connecticut) 1995 National Associated Properties owned 12.4 acres in the town of North Branford, Conn. Part of the property was zoned as a central business district and part was zoned for residential garden apartments. The property had 54 rental units and public water and sewer service. National filed an application with the town's planning and zoning commis- sion to create a new "affordable housing district." National also sought to change the town's zoning map so that its property had the new zoning designation. The changes would let National add 40 new units. Twenty percent of the total would be rented at or below affordable levels for 20 years following initial occupation. The application provided that "the owner of the land" could change which units would be maintained as affordable, as long as there was a minimum of 20 percent. The commission held a public hearing on National's application and de- n/ed it. The commission noted several deviations from the town's affordable housing regulations, including the proposal's smaller percentage of land dedi- cated to open space (10 percent instead of 30), smaller percentage of afford- able units (20 percent instead of 25), and a shorter set-aside period (20 years instead of forever). For those and other reasons, the commission said it was concerned that National's application did not did not adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare. National appealed to court under state law procedures for appealing afford- able housing land use decisions. The court reversed the commission's decision. The city appealed, claiming National's application did not qualify as an affordable housing application-- the application did not state National intended to include deed restrictions about the sale of units, as required by the afford- able housing land use statute. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of National. The trial court properly reversed the commission's decision. National's application was an "affordable housing application." State law defined an "affordable housing development" as one for which the deeds had covenants or restrictions that required at least 20 percent of units to be sold or rented at or below affordable prices for at least 20 years. NationaI's application clearly stated this would be the case. Despite the commission's argument that National could sell units as condominiums to avoid the restriction, the proposal required the affordable housing district to be sold as a block to one owner who had to maintain 20 percent of the units as affordable rental units for 20 years. There- fore, the proposed deed had the necessary restrictions. Kaufinan v. Zoning Commission, 653 A.2d 798 (1995). DeMaria v. Planning dr Zoni~g Commission, 271 A.2d 105 (1970). I I I I ! I I I I: I' I I I I I I I I I