High Street Affordable Housing Plan Approved By Zoning Officials

FAIRFIELD, CT — A conflicted zoning commission approved an application Tuesday for a long-opposed affordable housing complex on High Street. But commissioners made it clear to a large crowd in attendance that they did not support the plan, which has an uncertain future due to pending court proceedings.

"The developer does not have to comply with any of our regulations," Chair Matthew Wagner said. "... It's a very awkward position for us to be in."

The controversial application was made under the state law Section 8-30g, which dictates the only way the commission could have denied the proposal for 980 High St. would have been to prove the project posed a threat to public health, welfare and safety that outweighed Fairfield's need for affordable housing. Section 8-30g applies to towns where less than 10 percent of housing stock meets state criteria to be recognized as affordable.

The Fairfield Housing Corp. plans to construct five buildings — each three stories tall — with a total of 40 apartments, 70 percent of which would be affordable. The 2.5-acre lot includes an open meadow, a wooded area, more than 4,000 square feet of wetlands and an 1895 Queen Anne-style house, which the corporation intends to restore as office space and a community room.

Fairfield's Inland Wetlands Agency narrowly denied the project application in the fall. The housing corporation is appealing the denial in court, and the development can't move forward until the appeal is resolved.

Residents who oppose the project raised tens of thousands of dollars, hired a lawyer, and filed a petition to intervene in the proceedings and establish legal standing.

Zoning hearings on the plan stretched through fall and into winter, with the commission then tabling a vote on the application twice. Two requests from the corporation related to a proposed amended regulation that would make the project compliant with town zoning were denied Feb. 11, but were also not necessary for the development to move forward under 8-30g.

Concerns about the project include its affect on drainage, the environment and traffic. Town staff were satisfied with the design of the drainage system, but recommended street parking be prohibited near the property.

Commissioners also complained about the density, height and setback of the development.

"I'm not real happy with the design of this complex," Vice Chair Mark Corcoran said, later adding he believed that, "we are obliged to find that the need for affordable housing outweighs any other concerns."

Wagner cited the town's limitations under 8-30g and urged residents in attendance to contact their state representatives and go to hearings about amending the law.

Commissioner Kathryn Braun suggested denying the application and letting the courts decide the future of the project.

"I think the commission has the discretion and should use the discretion," she said. "... There's nothing in the statutes that prevents us from adopting the position of the wetlands (agency)."

Braun also discussed amending the vote on the application to stipulate the corporation reduce the project by 50 percent, a sentiment in which Secretary Meg Francis expressed interest.

"It's just too large," Francis said.

In the end, the commission approved the application with staff recommendations. Braun cast the lone dissenting vote.