Common Council Flips And Flops Part CXXVIII

The Hour reports on the latest non action by the Common Council. 

Citing the city’s master plan, Norwalk Redevelopment Agency officials asked the Common Council last Tuesday night to clear the way for residential housing on city-owned land near Ryan Park in South Norwalk. 

Council members answered, ‘Not so fast.’

“I personally want some more information. We want affordable housing in South Norwalk and I’ve always been asking for affordable housing,” said Councilman Carvin J. Hilliard, in whose district the two city-owned parcels are located. “But I just would like more time to look at this, that’s all, so we will all be comfortable with it.”

At issue are the parcels at 13 Day St. and 20 Day St. The city currently leases the parcels to L&L Evergreen. Housing is not be allowed on the parcels, since the state helped the city acquire them. With that help came a restriction — in effect until 2011 — that the land be utilized for light industrial use only, according to Timothy T. Sheehan, Redevelopment Agency executive director. 

Let do some math, it is June 2009. In January of 2011, the State of Connecticut’s requirement that only 13 and 20 Day St parcels be developed for manufacturing or other light industry expire. Call it 18 months, plus or minus accuracy. In 18 months, the restriction expires without consulting the Common Council. Because state money was used to acquire the properties, the state has a say in what happens to the properties. Yet our Common Council thinks keeping the state in decision making is a good idea.

For some council members, the agency’s request indicated that a housing plan may be in the works.

“It’s been explained to me that this is possibly part of a larger overall project in conjunction with Washington Village,” said Councilman Douglas E. Hempstead. “Has it been discussed by the Housing Authority as being a possibility?”
Sheehan said there is no plan to build housing on the site. Rather, removing the state restriction would make housing possible in the future. Removing the restriction requires demonstrating to the state Department of Environmental Protection that the council supports the idea.

Councilwoman Anna Duleep said the location of land within a flood plain could pose problems for developing. She asked why remove a land-use restriction that will disappear in 2011. 

“Do you have a plan for housing right now?” Duleep asked. “I don’t see why this is on the agenda right now.” 

Councilman Nicholas D. Kydes said he has issues with converting land now zoned for light industrial use to residential housing without “taking consideration of the issue of the infrastructure, schools and all the other tax repercussions.” 

The best part of all this that this Common Council voted to adopt the Master Plan of Conservation and Development which stated something along the lines of  allow housing in restricted industrial zones and that it specifically mentioned the Day street properties. They voted unanimously on the Master Plan, so that would mean that either they didn’t know what they were voting on when the voted to adopt the Master Plan, or they don’t know what they were voting on last Tuesday. Actually, I’ll say both. 

 
source: The Hour, Council: Not so fast on SoNo housing, by Robert Koch, 06/13/2009

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

  • anonymous

    Someone please tell me how more low income housing will increase my property values and decrease my taxes and decrease crime and gangs.

  • http://www.MGeake.org MGeake

    Exactly when did doing due diligence become flip-floppinhg? Mr, Sheehan raised some issues Tuesday that we wanted a couple of weeks to research, and he, himself, said that those two weeks would do no harm to his plans.

    Last I looked, I wasn’t elected to rubber stamp every request a department head or commission chair sends my way.

    • turfgrrl

      MGeake: Puh-lease. You all voted on the Master Plan of Conservation & Development, which states quite clearly that the Day Street properties should be rezoned to allow for housing and all Sheehan asked was that the Common Council vote to ask for the State restriction to be taken off early. More time? For what? Either you want to request the State restriction to be removed early or not. In the end, it doesn’t matter, because whatever you guys vote, it will expire in 2011. Lastly, not a single Council Member was able to craft an rationale for why more time was needed to “discuss” or “investigate” the issue. An unsubstantiated “more time” request is then simply identified by yours truly for what it is.

  • anonymous

    No more low income housing in Norwalk. We have enough gangs and enough of a tax burden here already.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s get something straight # 1 and # 5. If the city had enough money to make it without incentives for having housing and low-income families they wouldn’t have it. Your tax burden would be higher, not lower. You wouldn’t be getting as much federal and state funding for your schools so more would be coming out of your pocket…and for the record, while public housing is affordable housing, all affordable housing is not public housing. More affordable housing is just what the city needs if they plan to attract businesses who will be hiring young professionals. Young professionals can’t afford Fairfield County prices, student loans, and general neccesities for living without affordable housing. Neither can young people who lived here all of their lives once they are ready to move out of their parent’s homes. In addition, seeing as how you need a household income of about $80,000 to live comfortably in Norwalk and the median household income is only about $65,000, 3/4 of norwalk would benefit from affordable housing or 1/2 easily…

  • Old Timer

    Now the story comes out that the housing authority wants to tear down Washington village and rebuild a new improved version. There is federal money available, but first they have to show very soon there is someplace for the current residents to stay during the rebuilding. The City already owns the Day St property, close to Washington village, and Housing authority wants to build on it. That explains why there was no serious consideration to using it for that sports complex proposed for Ryan Park. Too bad, the sports complex sounded like a marvelous idea. It will be interesting to see what they propose building to house eveerybody from washington village. I wonder if they need to house everybody or just the residents of one building at a time. They don’t call it low income housing anymore, they call it workforce housing. There are a lot of working people whe need help finding housing, including City employees.