POSTED June 16, 2021 | 10:11 AM EDT

CPC 1585 Page 1 of 6 AGENDA FOR MEETING 1585

A SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING OF THE NEW HAVEN CITY PLAN COMMISSION

Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 6:00 PM

To view meeting materials, visit: city-plan-commission- newhavenct.hub.arcgis.com/pages/june-9-2021-meeting

Attendance Regular Members Present: Leslie Radcliffe (Chair), Edward Mattison (Vice Chair), Adam Marchand (Alder) Alternates Present: Ernest Pagan (Commissioner) Staff Present: Aïcha Woods (Executive Director, City Plan), William Long (Deputy Director, City Plan), Jaime Stein (Planner, City Plan), Roderick Williams Attorney, Corporation Counsel), Michael Pinto (Assistant Corporation Counsel, Corporation Counsel)

I. CALL TO ORDER L. Radcliffe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:07 PM when quorum was achieved.

II. PRESENTATION A. Woods gave a presentation on Zoning for Inclusion: Phase 1: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and minimum lot size.

• Background o Zoning determines where can be built, the type of housing that is allowed, and the form it takes. Regulations can indirectly or indirectly affect the cost of developing housing, making it harder or easier to accommodate . An ADU is a residential living unit that is on the same parcel as a single- family dwelling or a multifamily structure, providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including space for living, sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation. o This project grew from a larger set of initiatives related to the Affordable Housing Task Force recommendations and inclusionary zoning, as well as CT Fair Housing Center, Desegregate CT, Regional Plan Association’s Be My Neighbor, and the Yale Law Clinic, the Frank Legal Services Organization, and AARP. A similar bill is on the Governor’s desk to be signed into law, and efforts are being assessed at the federal level. • Purpose: To increase affordable housing choices for residents of all income levels in all neighborhoods, meeting accessibility and changing family needs while ensuring efficiency, sustainability, compliance, and respect for the historic fabric and neighborhood development patterns. Will also look at relations, connections to affordable housing task force work, and displacement prevention. • Details o Approach is measured into phases: Phase 1 would allow ADU within existing structure, so there would be no modification to the built environment. Owner occupancy required. No additional parking. o Phase 3: Allow new detached structures in accordance with new design guidelines

CPC 1585 Page 2 of 6 attentive to historical fabric and developed in collaboration with neighborhoods. o Would also reduce Minimum Lot Size to 4,000 sf which fits into the typical neighborhood lot size and fights against exclusionary zoning. o Next Steps: Submit Phase 1 proposal to Board of Alders, CPC, City Plan, LCI, and Affordable Housing. Solicit public input. Establish timeline for Phases 2 and 3. Develop design guidelines and pilot program for Phase 3. Design incentives and develop partnerships for technical and financing assistance as well as small contractor and work force development programs. Monitor and evaluate.

Discussion • A. Marchand: Details on consequences of updated zoning? o A. Woods: Working to make uniform the Minimum Lot Size and allow a +1 density, keeping all other bulk regulations in place and without impact on other requirements (including parking). Noted that last CPC meeting saw 5 ADU applications for special exception for parking relief with additional dwelling, and would not except any denials there – this would simply grant that as a right instead of needing an additional 2 month review process. • E. Mattison: Need a clear, detailed process for how we can actually make this happen so that is not a source of difficulty (especially defining the decisionmakers, expectations, and timeline).

III. PUBLIC TESTIMONY • J. Stein read into the record a letter from Reverend Heidi Thorsen (950 Chapel St) in support of the City’s ADU proposal. • J. Stein read into the record a letter from Anika Singh Lemar (552 Chapel St, Yale Law School), Erin Boggs (Open Communities Alliance), and Greg Kirschner (CT Fair Housing Center) in opposition to the owner-occupancy requirement. • Ben Trachten (80 Woodside Terrace and 679 State St, Attorney, Trachten Law Firm) spoke in opposition to the City’s ADU proposal: existing mechanism units is sufficient; building officials should be involved in such conversations; the City’s proposal may not create additional affordable units but rather luxury units for single families; and other pathways should be utilized first for addressing affordable housing within the City. • Claudette Kidd (187 Howard Ave) spoke in support of the City’s ADU proposal: majority of evictions in the City are for people of color, shelters in New Haven have extensive waiting lists, has seen firsthand these transformations brought by ADUs for affordability and addressing the /housing crisis. • Donnell Hilton (116 Parkside Dr) spoke in support of the City’s ADU proposal as someone who built an additional home on his lot for a low-income family. Sees this as a way to give back to the community; emphasized the importance of community outreach. Portfolio available here: sway.office.com/1bVq35no4ZbWNzjR?ref=Link • Chris Ozyck (603 Quinnipiac Ave) spoke in support of the decrease to the Minimum Lot Size but in opposition to changing the rest of the ADU system. Would like to see enforcement and compliance strengthened through fines – is concerned that absent (depending on where owner lives) could degrade neighborhood quality. • Teysha Poindexter (570 Howard Ave, Hill resident) noted the benefits of ADUs given the shortage of single-bedroom units, but raised concerns about parking availability, gentrification, and whether this proposal would truly bring affordable housing to the area (could large companies purchase properties and spike rents?). • Pamela Delerme (48 Rosa St) spoke in opposition to the City’s blanket approach to the ADU question primarily due to concerns over parking availability – adding units without a parking requirement can lower the quality of life and incite conflict between neighbors (also consider needing to move cars for street sweeping, snow plows, etc.). • Kevin McCarthy (171 Bradley St) spoke in favor of increasing affordable housing given

CPC 1585 Page 3 of 6 that ¼ owner-occupied housing have 1 occupant. Raised a question about rehabilitation. • Anstress Farwell (New Haven Urban Design League) spoke in favor of the City’s ADU proposal but suggested further public outreach was needed and raised questions about inspections, livability, walkability, long-term parking needs, smart planning (such as developing townhouse units on top of parking garages, like the Humphrey St project). • Caller in spoke in opposition to the City’s blanket ADU proposal, noting that neighborhoods differ across the city and only some will be able to accommodate the consequences of this proposal. The Hill likely cannot accommodate ADUs without a parking requirement. Also raised concerns about fire hazards with increased housing density and new need for inspections, and must improve outreach with CMTs. • Donna Hall (295 Central Ave) spoke in opposition to the City’s ADU proposal – New Haven does not have an issue with affordable housing and noting that New Haven’s broad range of housing choices is one of its greatest strengths. Concerned that this would eliminate single-family zoning and troubled that the proposal makes an owner-occupant requirement that will eventually be eliminated and invite developers. • James Paley (Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven) submitted written testimony with some concerns that ADUs will be abused by investor owners and that this is not a “one size fits all” situation.

Public Testimony concluded at 8:00 PM.

IV. DISCUSSION • A. Woods: Key priority is creating more affordable housing, increasing property equity, and trying to build intergenerational wealth through both zoning and programmatic initiatives. Agreed that a financing plan must be considered to support low-income homeowners. Can explore the implementation of subsidy programs, tax abatement, and incentives to help keep rent affordable through public funding and private partnerships. On the issue of a blanket approach, City Plan recognizes the necessity of developing design standards through an interactive community outreach process adaptable to each community’s unique needs. Built environment/fire code requirements remain unaffected. This initiative does not aim to solve the City’s varying parking problems, but we can assess parallel pathways for addressing that issue. • M. Pinto: The City believes the owner-occupied requirement is legal and not in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The ADU legislation aims to add rental properties which benefit marginalized and protected classes of people, and such a requirement helps with monitoring of the program. The Special Act of 1937 grants the City authority to create owner-occupied laws for ADUs. Noted that inclusion of this requirement may still be heavily litigated. • E. Mattison: Concerned that litigation on the owner-occupied requirement will overcompliciate this legislation and undermine its potential effectiveness – is it worth it? • L. Radcliffe: Raised concerns about one-size fits all approach being effective in all neighborhoods, and the quality of life/caretaking of properties given that owners may live elsewhere and rent to distant relatives (depending on flexibility of definition of “owner occupant). Can see all sides of this discussion and how it still holds possible benefits for some communities. Would like to hear from people in areas that would be most affected. Made a distinction between available and affordable housing – and affordable for whom? • E. Pagan: Raised concerns about accountability with owner-occupancy requirement – would there be incentive to keep up the if the resident isn’t the owner? Exceptions for in-laws or special needs children would make sense. Need to be clear about how this initiative will affect affordability. • A. Marchand: This proposal does not change the architectural fabrics of neighborhoods, but it will change their human landscapes (issue of parking and density must be worked through). Noted earlier discussion of how different neighborhoods can accommodate this legislation – inherently brings in discussion of race and class, and implies that the intrinsic value of a low-density neighborhood is its low density. Reminded folks that we don’t know how many ADUs would be developed, and that we do have an affordable housing crisis in New Haven. The City needs to make a strong case for how this helps with affordability.

CPC 1585 Page 4 of 6 V. MOVE TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION At 9:32 PM, A. Marchand made a motion to continue discussion at the June 16 City Plan Commission meeting without referral of the APU proposal to the Board of Alders. The public hearing will remain open for testimony until next week’s regularly scheduled meeting. Vote: 4-0.

VI. ADJOURNMENT ACTION: A. Marchand made a motion to adjourn at 9:33 PM. Vote: 4-0.

COMMUNICATIONS Next Regular Meeting of the City Plan Commission: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 6:00 PM (Submission deadline: May 20, 2021 by 12:00 PM)

Applications will be accepted via email as attachments or linked to a shared drive (.pdf format) to o [email protected]

The City Plan Commission agenda is available on the City website one week before the meeting date. Updates will occur to the web agenda as necessary. Official agenda is filed with the City Clerk and posted on the City website at least 24 hours before the meeting time.

The City of New Haven does not discriminate on the basis of disability or language in admission to, access to, or operations of programs, services, or activities. Individuals who need an accommodation, publications in alternate formats/languages or who need auxiliary aids for effective communication in programs and services of the City of New Haven can make such requests by calling (203) 946-7833, or TTY (203)946-8582. Individuals who require language interpretation services, please contact Stacey Davis at [email protected].

CPC 1585 Page 5 of 6

VISIT THE COMMISSION’S WEBPAGE: https://cityplancommission.newhavenct.gov Please visit the City Plan Commission’s webpage for all information provided in compliance with Executive Orders 7B and 7I.

WEB-BASED PUBLIC HEARINGS & NEW DEPARTMENT PROTOCOL

SUMMARY OF UPDATES

What applicants need to know: • Development permit applications will continue to be accepted by the City Plan Department (please refer to 2020 CPC Meeting and Application Deadline schedule) • Applications will be accepted via email as attachments or linked to a shared drive (.pdf format) • Internal Site Plan Review Team meetings will take via Zoom and email • Final application materials and meeting presentations will need to be sent to staff and posted on this website 24 hours in advance of each public meeting

What the public needs to know: • Regular meetings of the City Plan Commission will take place via Zoom • Written testimony should be submitted to City Plan staff 24 hours in advance of each public meeting • Draft agendas will continue to be shared with the CPC distribution list via email and posted on this webpage and the City Plan Department website one week before each public meeting • Final agendas will be posted on the commission webpage and on the City Plan Department website 24 hours in advance of each public meeting