Quantcast
, ,

P&Z Commission carves out parking exemption outside Norwalk’s city center, frustrating housing advocates

NORWALK, Conn. — The Planning and Zoning Commission’s implementation of major housing reforms may undermine the development state legislators were aiming to encourage, according to local housing advocates.

House Bill 8002, which Gov. Ned Lamont, D-Conn., signed in November, largely eliminates parking requirements for residential buildings with 16 units or fewer. The bill’s supporters believe that will have a twofold impact: reducing the cost of construction and expanding the housing stock.

New housing has been difficult to come by, and Norwalk, like much of Connecticut, is facing a housing crisis. The city’s median rent rose 37% over ten years to $1,840 in 2022, according to census data.

However, to get the legislation across the finish line, Democrats in Hartford allowed municipalities to exempt up to 8% of their land from the new regulations.

In that area, “there are three options: They can use the state parking ratio … They can use our existing standard of 1.3 dwelling units, or they can provide their own parking needs assessment and use whatever is less,” Principal Planner Bryan Baker said.

On Wednesday night, the Planning and Zoning Commission used that power to exempt community districts surrounding the city’s urban core — many of which allow developments with more than one unit — from the new parking reforms.

That’s the area that could be most helped by the state legislation, said Matt Silber, a member of the advocacy group Sustainable Streets Norwalk.

Silber said the exempted area is ripe for transit-oriented development where residents don’t have to own a car. Highlighted areas are minutes from bus stops and busy train stations, he said, and could manage smaller multi-family developments without additional parking.

“It seems like we’re trying to make it so that the only thing we can build are single-family homes or these giant, towering apartment complexes that everybody hates,” Silber told NancyOnNorwalk. “A lot of us are confused about that.”

At the same time, many of the community districts outside the exempted area are explicitly zoned for single-family homes. 

Jack Pavia, a Democrat who previously ran for the Connecticut House of Representatives’ 142nd district, said during the meeting that “neighborhoods that don’t allow ‘missing middle’ in the first place” had been spared by the map.

“Our state delegation in Norwalk voted for this bill, but with the neighborhoods being exempted, the Planning and Zoning Commission majority, essentially, worked against this progress,” Pavia, who also works with Sustainable Streets, told NancyOnNorwalk.

Planning and Zoning Director Steve Kleppin said that his department came up with the map by examining which areas of the city are dealing with issues created by already-existing on-street parking.

“These are areas that, even if you have less than 16 units, we feel that some parking is important,” Kleppin said. “Those streets themselves are already at the point where there’s stress on them, so we think, for safety purposes alone, that we recommend going with this approach.”

Mayor Barbara Smyth and Norwalk’s Department of Transportation, Mobility, and Parking also reviewed the map before Kleppin’s presentation, Kleppin added.

Tanner Thompson, a local organizer who also voiced his opposition last Wednesday, acknowledged issues with on-street parking. However, he said relieving that pressure should come from a residential parking program, not keeping parking requirements. 

Kleppin agreed with much of the sentiment from the meeting’s speakers, but said Wednesday that it doesn’t neatly apply to the exempted area. The impacted community districts are much less dense than downtown Norwalk, making parking space less of an inhibiting factor, he said. 

“There may be a case where you have an existing single-family house in the CD-2 zone that wants to go to a two-family house, where locating the additional parking spaces required is going to be difficult,” Kleppin hypothesized.

“That very well may be the case,” he said. “However, I have not seen that on new construction. I don’t think that’s applicable. I think that’s workable.”

Acknowledging some of the pushback, Kleppin told the commission that their decision on Wednesday could be revised. However, they did have a July 1 deadline to meet, he said during the meeting.

When the measure — along with a series of other changes necessitated by the new state law — came to a vote, multiple commissioners openly stated that they were conflicted on how to vote. 

Commissioner Doug Hempstead, whose first meeting was Wednesday, joked that he should have had his swearing in the following week. Hempstead changed his mind shortly before the vote, he said, approving it because “it’s better to do something than nothing.”

Commissioners Louis Schulman, Tammy Langalis, and Galen Wells all expressed appreciation to the community members opposing the map, but said the car-independent Norwalk they envisioned hadn’t yet come to fruition.

The motion passed with five votes in favor, three against and Commissioner Jaquell Wilson abstaining.

“We’re looking at a number of areas which are closest to one of the busiest commuter rail lines in the country, and mandating that land directly next to those stations be used for cars is — ultimately, I think — not in the best interest of the city,” Commissioner Harvey Jones said before casting his vote.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk — who sponsored and helped write the legislation — told NancyOnNorwalk in a statement Saturday that he was only made aware of the proposal last week by Sustainable Streets.

Duff said he wished that the commission had “reached out” to him or housing advocates about the decision.

“We all need to work together if we are going to seriously reduce the high cost of housing by advancing housing growth locally in a way that makes sense and pushes us beyond the old ways of doing things that has created this housing crisis in the first place,” Duff wrote.

Moving forward, Silber said he wants to build “more of a relationship” with members of the Planning and Zoning Commission while educating the community on the topic.

People hear that the organization is against parking requirements and assume that means no parking being built at all, he said.

Sustainable Streets wrote in a statement to NancyOnNorwalk that, despite their disappointment, the split vote reflects that there is a “wide variety of perspectives on the issue of parking reform.”

“Sustainable Streets Norwalk will continue to organize to ensure that every resident has access to walkable, affordable, transit rich, and housing diverse neighborhoods that aren’t inhibited by arbitrary mandates that further exacerbate costs and livability in the pursuit of prioritizing cars over people,” the organization wrote.

Comments

16 responses to “P&Z Commission carves out parking exemption outside Norwalk’s city center, frustrating housing advocates”

  1. David Muccigrosso

    This is backwards thinking by P&Z, and Kleppin’s rationale is disqualifying.

    If an area is facing parking stress, you don’t JUST force MORE parking on them, you create better walkability. That doesn’t necessarily mean more density, but it can mean loosening restrictions on businesses like corner stores and daycares to reduce the need for car trips.

  2. You know if they want a decent walk score or some sanity and applying parking policies you need to build your apartments storefronts child care some of your services and things people generally need within walking distance where do we have that in Norwalk home Depot is a 10 minute drive so are the grocery stores for the most part sono is a desert plenty of restaurants and not much else. We have 500 illegal mechanics that don’t know what they’re doing and not one competent legitimate shop. So driving a car in Sono is problematic since you can’t get it fixed are we trying to go back to the standards of the Greeks because the Romans built roads I don’t mind walking but half a mile for a coffee is a bit much the only thing convenient would be the boat living community at least they get a chandelier

    1. Paul Fox

      I agree that more realistic metrics should be used, so how about this? Just about half the area exempted from the state law (and therefore retaining parking minimums) is within a 5 minute walk of a bus stop with busses every 15-30 minutes, 7 days a week. Some of it is within a 5 minute walk of a train station.

      I agree that SoNo also needs more services easily accessible in the neighborhood, but you might be surprised, there is a grocery store and several bodegas. East Norwalk also has a small grocery store (Harbor Harvest), and so does Wall Street.

      Some neighborhoods in Norwalk are already fairly walkable and have good access to public transit. We should be taking advantage of that where we can.

  3. Mike Murray

    I’m a little confused. Shouldn’t the goal be to increase property value and rent prices to attract wealthier residents resulting in a wealthier community? Why can’t we look to communities like Darien, Westport, and New Caanan to see how they accomplished their community and school districts, which are among the highest ranking?

    1. David Muccigrosso

      I’m invoking Poe’s Law here, can’t tell if you’re joking. But surely you must know that pricing out poor people doesn’t make them any less poor, no?

      Also, FWIW, Darien’s nearing completion of a highly walkable mixed-use district in their downtown. Mimicking them would basically look like my “Build More Of Washington Street” proposal.

      1. Mike Murray

        I know Darien residents are thrilled with all those apartments. But at least they will have high rents and high income tenants. Seems like many in Norwalk want to be like New Haven or Hartford more than they want a nice suburban community like their immediate neighbors.

        1. David Muccigrosso

          >> But at least they will have high rents and high income tenants.

          I see that you’re trying to be funny. The reality is, market rate offerings prevent those at the top from pricing out those at the bottom. Every rich renter in a brand-new building is a renter who didn’t outbid someone less fortunate from older housing stock. Whatever other problems new construction has, THAT is NOT one of them.

    2. Becca Stoll

      Comparing Norwalk to the places you mention is asking to play a very problematic game of apples to oranges.

      Norwalk, Stamford, Danbury, and Bridgeport are the anchor cities of this county, for one thing. They do not and should not function the way that our neighboring suburban communities do. We are large enough to have a mayor as opposed to a board of selectpersons, we have a city council, a large number of public schools, municipal services such as trash pickup, etc. The infrastructure differences alone are enough to invalidate the exercise, but here are some numbers to enforce my point.

      Norwalk is a city of just under 100k, with three rail stations, and a population that is about 30% hispanic as of the 2020 census. (source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwalk,_Connecticut)

      Darien’s population, by comparison, is just 21k (https://www.darienct.gov/217/Demographics), has one train station, no dedicated bus system, and is 87% white (https://datausa.io/profile/geo/darien-ct/).

      Given what we know about the ways that racism and poverty correlate statistically (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8450438/), it’s hard to read those examples without some concern for what you might be implying, especially when you list the cities you list as examples in the other direction are also places with large non-white and non-rich populations compared to smaller towns in our state, which, to complete the circle, is a direct and intentional result of historic segregation, disadvantaging, and exclusion.

  4. Bette Bono

    This is an important and complex issue. It isn’t just a matter of people vs. cars since (of course) those cars are being used by people. Having neighborhoods where people can get where they need to go by walking, biking, or public transit is terrific. But many areas are not there yet, and many residents need to use their cars every single day. What are those cars used for? Grocery trips, medical and dental appointments for self and family members, getting to and from work (unless you’re fortunate enough to have a job–and schedule–that make public transportation a possibility), attendance at community events and religious services, and visits to the beach, parks, schools, libraries, museums, and City Hall. Housing without adequate parking will be housing that is impractical for many seniors, those with disabilities, multi-generational households, and families with small children. When my kids were young, and one of them was hurt or sick, I needed my car for that trip to the pediatrician. When I attend an event at the library or some other public venue, I know my friends who use canes, walkers, and wheelchairs can attend as well because they have cars and parking near their homes. Housing without adequate nearby parking will not be suitable for everyone. And thus, some–because of age, disability, or presence of kids–will be excluded.

    1. Paul Fox

      Of course there are still parts of town where cars are still required, but fewer than many people seem to think. Some people will always need a car, and that’s OK.

      However, people who do not have and do not need a car should not be required to pay for parking they have no use for.

  5. John O’Neill

    This is a Great Example of how State mandates (even with exemptions) are ridiculous. …I think about how our Norwalk Reps voted for earlier Bill which would have left us with even more parking problems. Again, they all take their cue from Robert Duff…Regarding affordability – Has everyone gotten their property tax bills? How about an Electric Bill this month? When politicians like Robert Duff claim to be selling affordability, his minions might want to actually do the research on their own…
    Back to HB 8002 — Hartford Dems forced this down Lamont’s throat. NOT one of Norwalk’s State Delegation had an issue with tighter parking restrictions for places like East Norwalk…..Where is the representation? Same people are draining our wallets while subsidizing other school districts in upper Connecticut…

    1. Paul Fox

      Are State mandates worse than city mandates? I think parking mandates are worse than the state’s attempt to encourage cities to remove them.

  6. Thomas Blyth

    Wanting to do something rather than nothing is understandable, but approving the map brought to the commission was voting for inaction on addressing the housing crisis.

    Steve said it himself in previous meetings. They picked multifamily zones with lots small enough that middle density homes (like townhouses) make sense over behemoth luxury apartments, exactly the areas the law was designed to benefit. They bet that no one would build single family houses without parking or bother putting small projects downtown, blocking the inner neighborhoods which would otherwise benefit. This directly undercuts the purpose of the housing bill.

    Before the vote, Steve and several commissioners made it clear that they think its too idealistic to believe people would live here without a car, but in ENo’s inner census tract 19% of households do. In Golden Hill and Flax Hill it’s 16.6%. Further, half or better of the map area is a 5 minute walk or less from frequent 7 day/wk bus service, and census data says our population is densest in Golden Hill and Hospital Hill even if downtown looks more built up. These Norwalkers get to work/school, the grocery store, and anywhere they need to go on foot, bus, bike, etc. This isn’t aspirational, it’s the facts on the ground today.

    More foot traffic helps businesses. Shorter, safer trips help pedestrians and bicyclists. Less unnecessary pavement helps runoff. Less pollution from gas, asphalt, brakes, and tires help the environment and public health. Fewer other cars in the way helps drivers. Removing parking mandates helps neighborhoods be adaptable to current and future needs. That helps everyone.

    We often get told “we’re not there yet” to be able to change things for the better. The truth is that you get there by DOING better things, not by hoping and wishing that someday you’ll be able to.

  7. Elsa Peterson Obuchowski

    I’d just like to point out one categorical assertion that isn’t true. It’s the mention of “giant, towering apartment complexes that everybody hates” — who is “everybody”? I for one don’t “hate” them.

    1. David Muccigrosso

      I’m not a fan of a number of things that have gone wrong with them — empty commercial spaces with rents kept too high, big wasteful lobbies, bad street-level infrastructure.

      I’d much rather just copy-paste hundreds of the same 2-4 story, mixed-use buildings that line Washington Street all over SoNo. We can make them in the same historical styles — with allowances for reasonable artistic variation — and locally finance them so that some faceless Wall Street bank isn’t dictating what the commercial rents are going to be (too high for healthy experimentation, of course).

      But I’m also not mad that those towers are creating a major demand sink that’s helping keep the rest of the neighborhood on the barest edge of reasonable affordability. Things would absolutely be WORSE without them. And some day, those towers will change hands, they’ll be subjected to the market forces they’re currently being protected from by those Wall Street banks, and they’ll fill up in more natural and organic ways that serve our community. It’ll just take time.

    2. Matthew Silber

      Hi Elsa, your point is well taken. I was speaking hyperbolically, obviously it’s impossible for “everyone” to hate or like something, people have differing opinions.

      That said, I’ve found that whenever I say that we need more housing, lots of people get really worked up about tall apartment buildings. Things like, “It doesn’t match the local character,” “No one can even afford those luxury apartments,” “This neighborhood is turning into Queens,” etc. The “monstrosity” of East Norwalk comes to mind.

      That said, I live in a tall apartment building, and it’s great. It works for me and a lot of people in various stages of their lives, and we should have more of them.

Leave a Reply

Secret Link