MONROE, Conn. — State lawmakers approved legislation to solve, what they believe to be, a housing crisis. It encourages developers to build more apartments throughout Connecticut by eliminating the need for special exception permits, public hearings and limiting parking requirements. As it is now written, Public Act 25-1 could lead to an explosion of mixed-use developments along Main Street and Monroe Turnpike by allowing apartments on the second floors of commercial buildings.
The Monroe Planning and Zoning Commission is trying to follow the state guidelines, while taking steps to limit the impact on Monroe’s commercial thoroughfares.
“This is a state initiative,” Planning and Zoning Administrator Kathleen Gallagher said during a recent interview at Monroe Town Hall. “We’re trying to comply, but are also being understanding of our town’s housing priorities. Not everything aligns with how the town is set up. They gave us tools to create that balance. We try to be as balanced as we can be.”
Municipalities are required to allow mixed-use developments with apartments above commercial uses or transit community “middle housing,” which are small-to-medium multifamily residential buildings of typically two-to-nine units. However, this and other details in the legislation could still be changed in Hartford.
“Monroe chose mixed-use developments,” Gallagher said. “There was a bill that would have changed ‘or’ to ‘and’ that passed the House, but was it not voted on in the Senate, so there’s a chance it will change.”
If that had passed, Monroe and other municipalities would be required to allow both mixed-use and transit community developments.
“I anticipate owners of existing buildings with vacant commercial spaces applying to convert their second story from commercial to residential,” Gallagher said of mixed-use developments in Monroe. “They will still have to meet the fire code and septic system regulations, but I do anticipate that coming in. I hope this will allow some property owners to fully use their existing buildings.”
But developers could also come in with applications to build new mixed-use buildings.
“I think the way it naturally will go is not four bedrooms with families,” Gallagher said of the apartment units. “It will most likely be one bedroom.”
The Planning and Zoning Commission is limiting mixed-use developments to a maximum of nine apartments for the state requirements, so developments like the proposal for a mixed-use development with 20 one bedroom apartments at 715 Main St. will still need a special exception permit, which requires a public hearing.
However, mixed use developments with nine apartments or less no longer require a special permit or a public hearing.
“Hearings inform us and do educate the commission to things we weren’t aware of,” said Michael O’Reilly, chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Gallagher said developers will still have to present site plan applications to the commission and show they are following zoning regulations, health and fire safety codes. Commissioners can ask questions before eventually deliberating and voting on applications during public meetings.
Though there will no longer be a public hearing for residents to speak, Gallagher encourages residents to call her with any concerns over an application. “I’m willing to work walk through the application with them and to bring something that may be pertinent to the commission,” she said.
Gallagher’s phone number at Town Hall is 203-452-2386.
O’Reilly said the commission can modify an application, but if it meets all of the regulations and there are no safety issues, “we have no recourse but to pass it.” He said a denial in that scenario would lead to lawsuits, wasting time and money for the town, only for the commission’s decision to most likely be overturned in court.
Parking Management Districts
The commission recently established parking management districts along Main Street (Route 25) and Monroe Turnpike (Route 111), which gives the town the ability to regulate parking there. Otherwise, a developer would be able to apply for a mixed-use development with apartments, but have no requirements to provide parking for tenants.
Gallagher said a municipality cannot require parking for developments with 16 apartments or less, unless the site is in what the state defines as a traffic mitigation district.
“We’re calling it a Parking Management District,” she said. “We adopted two Parking Management Districts, one on Route 111 and one on Main Street, because we believe that part of the public act was not intended for towns like ours.”
O’Reilly said Public Act 25-1, which most know as Connecticut House Bill 8002, is really meant to encourage housing in transportation hubs in cities with train and bus stations, rather than smaller towns like Monroe.
“They just want to make a cookie cutter law and jam it down everybody’s throats, whether it fits into your community or not,” O’Reilly said. “That’s how Hartford works.”
The commission has been following Gallagher’s lead, according to O’Reilly. Gallagher said she and the commission have been working closely with Town Attorney Frank Lieto and the Connecticut Metropolitan Council of Governments (MetroCOG) to comply with the state’s guidelines, while limiting the impact on traffic in Monroe.
“MetroCOG was extremely helpful in drafting these text amendments,” Gallagher said. “They hired IMEG as a consultant to make sure we were in compliance with the state requirements.”
Planning and Zoning Commission members also worked on it in their subcommittee.
“She does a good job,” O’Reilly said of Gallagher. “She’s very knowledgeable with these regulations and what’s coming down and we have the support of MetroCOG.”
“We’ve completed what we were required to do by July 1 and will look out for changes in the next legislative session,” Gallagher said. “I had to unfortunately put some town initiatives on hold for this. Eventually, Monroe will be required to come up with its own plan or join the Regional Housing Growth Plan.”
Gallagher said town officials have yet to decide which avenue to pursue.
Losing local control
O’Reilly expressed his belief that the state housing law should be tailored to different size communities rather than a one-size-fits-all. He expressed a preference for workforce housing.
“People in Monroe are not against workforce housing, the new name for affordable,” he said.
O’Reilly said “affordable housing” is still expensive, especially in Fairfield County, and is more geared toward enabling police officers, teachers, municipal employees and other young, entry-level professionals to live and work in the communities they serve. He said it could also allow children who grow up in Monroe and graduate from college to stay in town.
According to Connecticut’s affordable housing law, CGS 8-30g, there are two types of affordable units in “the set-aside developments in Town, 60% units and 80% units. These units are deed restricted to households earning 80% or 60% of State Median Income or Area Median Income whichever is lower.”
O’Reilly said the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission still has some local control, writing up regulations and having a subcommittee dedicated to changing regulations when it is warranted — but the state’s influence is looming larger.
“It’s sort of pernicious. It’s growing,” O’Reilly said. “They get in there every year. There’s more and more of this, and who knows what’s coming down the pike. We’re losing more local control every year.”
Though new state requirements are forcing the Monroe Planning and Zoning Commission’s hand, town residents’ frustration is often directed toward the commission.
O’Reilly said, “we’re the face of the regulations, whether we like it or not.”
All respectful comments with the commenter’s first and last name are welcome.
