Madison PZC Exploring More Housing Options for Seniors, While Attracting More Families

The Madison Planning and Zoning Commission met earlier this month regarding population projections and current housing characteristics. 

According to meeting minutes, Madison is experiencing an aging population, and the town will need to be able to accommodate the elderly in some type of housing, of which three options would be available—housing that allows the elderly to age in place; housing choices that would enable the elderly to downsize their living environments; or providing options for accessory apartments.

Along with the aging population, there is a declining school enrollment with less young families moving into town, and it is desirable to ensure there is a nice balance of an intergenerational population, according to Town Planner David Anderson.

With the aging-in-place concept, the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to examine what has to be done to allow people to age in place in their own homes, according to Mr. Anderson. Town zoning regulations currently address accessory apartments and affordable housing units, he said. But Mr. Anderson asked the commission to provide guidance and direction on what it believes is important to pursue.

Commissioner Joel Miller stated that the market is going to start to dictate who could buy into the town, and while there are options for the Planning and Zoning Commission, there are also areas beyond the scope of what the Planning and Zoning Commission can do.

Jobs have been moving out of Connecticut for many years, and while, in the past, someone in Madison might only have to commute 15 miles to get to work, that is no longer the case, with job opportunities moving farther and farther away, and Commissioner Miller stated more representation in Hartford, at the state government level, must be encouraged to bring more jobs back to Connecticut.

Alternate Commissioner Richard Chorney stated that in looking at the regulatory options available to the elderly for housing, the easiest and least expensive is the modification process involved in allowing people to age in place.

Mr. Anderson stated that it promotes modifications to existing single family homes to allow the elderly to age in place; the problem, however, is if a bedroom is needed on the first floor to accommodate the elderly, property owners not only have to pay to add the bedroom to the structure, but they also have to pay for the additional taxes that are assessed for another bedroom.

Commissioner Chorney stated that in-law apartments are the cheapest option, allowing the elderly to be able to move to be with their children.

In further discussion, following a series of questions from Mr. Anderson, commissioners indicated it would be helpful to have a joint meeting with the senior commission, the Economic Development Commission, and developers, if possible, to receive information that might assist the Planning and Zoning Commission in its efforts to address the housing needs and population shift.

One problem with adding a bedroom to a house to accommodate the elderly is that another bedroom might mean the septic system has to be replaced, with is very costly, according to Commissioner Thomas Burland.

If there was a way the town could allow another bedroom to be decommissioned, so the new bedroom could be used, that would enable the property owners to accommodate without having to replace the septic system, Commissioner Burland stated.

While accessory apartments could be built to allow the elderly to move in with children, that solves a need for only a certain period of time, but once the accessory apartment becomes empty, that leaves a two-family house, according to Commissioner Burland. All options should be examined closely to prevent unintended consequences downstream, Commissioner Burland stated.

Chairman Clark wondered how summer residents and property owners who live in town only a few months a year fit into the population projections and housing characteristics report.

Mr. Anderson stated that one of the slides in the PowerPoint copies, within the report, shows that of the 7,771 housing units in town, 1,095 are considered to be vacant and seasonal use, with the vast majority of those being seasonal. Commissioner Miller asked where are those property dwellers in the population statistics.

Commissioner James Matteson wondered if the data on the population age groups cohorts could be correlated to supply and demand of housing: Will commissioners know what the demand is for housing and will they know what the supply is?

He asked if the ability to build in Madison has been saturated, and if the town is at a crisis stage for senior type housing. Mr. Anderson stated that there would be difficulty in quantifying the demand.

There is the possibility that the commission may find there is no need to do anything, because what is taking place might just be a natural ebb and flow that the town is experiencing, according to Commissioner Joseph Bunovsky, Jr.

Commissioner Burland summarized the discussion into two major issues: how to assist elderly residents who want to stay on their properties and age in place, and how to shift the demographics a bit to get younger families to move into town, noting that younger families require lower cost housing.

One possibility would be to free up the 1950s and 1960s raised ranch style houses; another option could be finding ways to promote senior pricing of housing, according to Commissioner Burland.

Commissioner Amanda Kaplan stated that in thinking about attracting younger families to town, it would be great if builders could build smaller houses, which are less costly to purchase.
Raised ranch style houses from the 1950s and 1960s, once sold, are bought with problems and often need new kitchen or bath renovations, which are costly, according to Commissioner Kaplan.

She asked why aren’t neighborhoods built with houses with three bedrooms that a younger family could afford to live in?

Commissioner Matteson explained that part of the reason builders are putting large, expensive houses on property in Madison is because the lots are so costly to begin with; when a developer has to pay $200,000 for a lot, that developer has to build a house that will pay for the $200,000 initial lot cost.

Smaller lot sizes would be less costly, thus allowing for less costly construction of homes; Commissioner Matteson explained that in some parts of the United States lot sizes can be much smaller than they are in Madison.

In discussing housing affordable for young families, at about $280,000, Commissioner Miller found a statistic he shared with the commissioners: There are currently 31 houses for sale in Madison that are less than $300,000.

Mr. Anderson stated that he liked the way Commissioner Burland divided the focus into two aspects—elderly aging in place and attracting younger families. He stated it sounds like the commission needs more data to address some areas.

Mr. Anderson stated he will talk to the Economic Development Commission to see about coordinating a meeting; at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the commission could take a look at the accessory apartment regulations.