|
cient for such a large development. They also harbor serious
<br />doubts as to the source of funding for the new amenities and
<br />schools that would have to be built. The developers' commit-
<br />ment extends only to paying for their construction, with the
<br />municipality and county responsible for ongoing mainte-
<br />nance. A county planning board spokesman was skeptical of
<br />the developers' claim that property taxes would provide
<br />sufficient revenue for this purpose.
<br /> A University of Maryland study commissioned by the
<br />town has also raised questions about the project. So far, the
<br />developers have not officially petitioned for annexation.
<br />Instead, over a two-year period, they have informally sought
<br />a reaction from landowners, the mayor, and the town council.
<br />The proposal has now been opened to public discussion at
<br />town meetings where residents have expressed some strong
<br />opposition.
<br /> The opponents have time on their side. In cases where the
<br />proposed new land use will be radically different from the
<br />existing one, MaD, land state law requires a five-year waiting
<br />period before a town can rezone annexed land, The develop-
<br />ment itself is expected to take more than 10 years to complete.
<br /> F.D.
<br />
<br />Tables Turned
<br />in Trumbull
<br />
<br />A proposal to build multifamily housing in Tmmbull, Connecti-
<br />cut, met with opposition from the town government, but newly
<br />passed state legislation may mean the developer will be allowed
<br />to build.
<br /> Last year, developer Trammel Crow Residential asked Tram-
<br />bull to approve a zoning change that would allow it to build 600
<br />multifamily units on 38 acres of land. The local government
<br />turned down the request, saying the density was too high.
<br /> That might have ended the matter, except for a state law
<br />that took effect in October 1991. Public Act 9t-392, aimed
<br />at increasing the supply of affordable housing, requires that
<br />zoning ordinances encourage the development of multifamily
<br />housing and that plans and regulations consider the needs of
<br />citizens within a state-designated planning region, not just in
<br />a given locality. Previously, a 1989 law had shifted to
<br />municipalities the burden of showing that planning and
<br />zoning officials made a reasonable decision in rejecting a
<br />proposal that includes affordable housing.
<br />
<br /> Because of this, Charles Berman, Trammell Crow
<br />Residential's division partner for the Northeast, had hoped
<br />that the Connecticut court considering the appeal would
<br />decide in his company's favor. Of the 600 units his firm
<br />wants to build, 120 will be within the price range of house-
<br />holds earning 80 percent or less of the local median income,
<br />the state standard for affordability. But, in a recent decision,
<br />the court remanded the issue back to the local government.
<br />The town planning and zoning commission was scheduled to
<br />meet in late March to further consider the issue.
<br /> The problem with Trammell Crow's proposal appears to
<br />be density. It calls for 16 units per acre, but Trumbull allows
<br />only six condominium-style units per acre, and development
<br />at that density is on hold. James Wang, executive director of
<br />the Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency, says 16
<br />housing units per acre is too high, but that 12 units would be
<br />an appropriate density. The RPC supports the concept of the
<br />development, and Wang says he would like to see the town
<br />implement regulations that foster affordable housing devel-
<br />opment.
<br /> Burton Yaffie, Trumbull's lawyer, says that the high
<br />density is more appropriate for cities like nearby Bridgeport,
<br />but that eight to 10 units is the maximum density per acre in
<br />nearby communities similar to Trumbull. The town already
<br />includes 200 affordable units, he says, and it wants to
<br />disperse new affordable housing development throughout
<br />Trumbull, rather than concentrate it in one 38-acre area.
<br /> Berman counters that the town has never encouraged
<br />affordable housing development. Trumbull chose not to join
<br />a regional compact with Bridgeport and four other communi-
<br />ties to build less expensive housing and has never offered
<br />incentives for housing development, he says. Berman
<br />defends the proposed density by saying that the units'
<br />footprint would be 4,500 square feet, little more than the
<br />4,200 squm'.e feet of those units developed at six per acre. In
<br />addition, the total impact upon traffic and the infrastructure
<br />is less than that of the office park approved for the site.
<br /> As of late March, the issue was still up in the air. The
<br />town will have to meet its affordable housing responsibilities
<br />somehow, but it is unclear whether it will do so by allowing
<br />Trammell Crow Residential to develop its proposal. C.K.
<br />
<br />Zoning Newx is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning
<br />Association. Subscriptions are available for $32 (U.S.) and $38 (foreign).
<br />Israel Stollman, Executive Director; Frank S. So. Deputy Executive Director.
<br />
<br />Zoning News is produced in the Research Department at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor;
<br />David Bergman, Fay Dolnick, Sarah Dunn, Michelle Gregory, Chris Harris, Carolyn
<br />Kennedy, Linda Lamb, Marya Morris, Amy Van Doren, Reporters; Publications
<br />staff: Paul Thomas, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Production,
<br />Copyright ©1992 by American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL
<br />60637. The American Planning Association has headt/uarters offices at 1776
<br />Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
<br />
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any
<br />form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
<br />or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing
<br />from the American Planning Association.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber ~
<br />and 10 ~ postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />Sensitive Areas Ordinance;
<br />Sensitive Areas Map Folio
<br />King County Planning and Community Development Divi-
<br />sion, 707'Smith Tower, 506 2nd Ave., Seattle, WA 98104.
<br />September'JO, ]990. Ordinance: JOJ pp. $3.25, including
<br />postage. Folio: ]3 maps for each of six sensitive areas. $25,
<br />including postage.
<br /> King County's ordinance was the product of an .extensive
<br />planning process involving some highly controversial local
<br />environmental issues but has become a model for many other
<br />Washington counties and cities trying to comply with the
<br />state's growth management act. The ordinance and map folio
<br />can be purchased separately.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|