Bethel developer to fight denial of affordable housing plans
BETHEL — The developer behind two contentious affordable housing projects plans to revise one proposal and appeal the other after a town panel rejected the proposals this week.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted Tuesday evening to deny the proposal for 11, two-bedroom apartments at 9 Good Hill Road and nine two-bedroom apartments at 47 Shelley Road.
“I knew they would,” developer Tim Draper said.
The projects include a percentage of affordable housing units and were applied for under a state statute that allows developers to bypass local zoning laws, with certain exceptions for health and safety.
Residents largely opposed the projects during several public hearings, citing concerns over their wells, traffic safety and property values, among other reasons. These proposals renewed dialogue and frustration over the state statute.
Draper said he will revise the Shelley Road project to address the commission’s problems and appeal the denial of the Good Hill Road proposal.
Shelley Woods
One of the commission’s problems with the Shelley Woods project is the driveway, which the fire marshal deemed as unsafe for emergency vehicles.
“He found the driveway to be difficult and dangerous to access in the event of an emergency or fire,” the commission wrote in its denial.
The soil is not suitable for septic systems, while a 30,000gallon water tank is needed, the commission said.
But Draper said his new plan would give him additional areas for soil testing and on-site sewage disposal.
He will likely reduce the number of apartments to eight to avoid needing to meet a state health department regulation related to water, Draper said. The new plan would also reduce the section of wetlands affected to about 11⁄ acres.
2
The Inland Wetland Commission approved the project in May after facing a lawsuit for previously rejecting it.
Good Hill Road
Draper said he plans to appeal for the Good Hill Road project, known as Oak Woods, which the commission rejected, citing the affect on the neighbors and lack of sidewalks and amenities, such as green space.
“Proper outdoor amenities promote a healthy environment for the residents occupying those units and are an important element of a neighborhood within a community,” the commission wrote in its rejection, which members supported unanimously. “The fact that this proposal is an 8-30g application is not an excuse to deprive occupants of amenities available and expected by those residing within a semi rural area.”
Draper, who pointed to the lack of green space at a proposed downtown development, said the state statute does not allow commissions to reject projects for this reason.
“There is no health or safety issues,” Draper said. “Just because they think there should be more green space or they don’t like the building, (it) doesn’t match what’s in the neighborhood, that’s not a reason for denial.”
But the commission said the project would create an “unhealthy environment” for the residents at 11 Good Hill Road because they would look into the second floor of the development from their first-floor living area.
Members opposed the project citing a lack of sidewalks for the driveway, with the nearest sidewalks a quarter of a mile away “after traversing a narrow road with a blind curve,” the commission wrote.
“There’s no sidewalks on Good Hill now,” Draper said. “Does that mean Good Hill is unsafe today?”
The project was rejected 6 to 1, with commission member Ken Parsons voting against the denial.
“I think it’s a little heavy handed, but I’m not saying it’s incorrect,” he said.
Need for affordable housing
Draper said these developments will help address the need for affordable housing in Bethel. He has built apartments through the state statute on Taylor Avenue and Wooster
Street, which has helped young people who grew up in Bethel stay in town, he said.
“They are thankful that someone actually does this,” Draper said.
The commission called Good Hill an example of the type of project the town has tried to avoid because its layout and architecture does not “promote inclusion” within the neighborhood.
“It should be noted that the town takes pride in having worked diligently towards increasing the number of affordable housing opportunities with considerations to past success and failures,” the commission wrote. “In the commission’s review of §8-30g developments, the intent has been to positively engage with developers who themselves are willing to act collaboratively and propose affordable housing projects in such a way that they become part of a neighborhood.”
But Draper said the town only encourages affordable housing in the downtown.
“What that's saying is someone who’s not well off means can’t live in a rural area,” Draper said.
All residential zones allow opportunities for affordable housing, the commission said.
“While we agree that more can be done, the town has made substantial progress in addressing the need for affordable housing, including approving proposals from this applicant,” the commission wrote.