Planners had a mix of questions and skepticism this week when controversial New York developer Vessel Technologies proposed putting up one of its pre-manufactured affordable housing buildings in Avon .
Everything from the building materials and the size of windows to the number of parking spaces came into question as the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission probed at Vessel’s plan for 64 high-tech but small apartments in a four-story building.
But it’s not clear how much Vessel’s answers can affect the commission’s decision, which is likely later in the spring or early summer.
The company filed its proposal under Connecticut’s 8-30g law, which severely restricts the discretion of local zoning boards over affordable-housing proposals in communities like Avon, where less than 10 percent of housing is state-qualified as affordable.
A small CT town accepted a ‘first-of-its-kind’ affordable housing project. Why it finally fit in.
So long as the developer commits to setting aside 30% of the apartments for people who need below-market-rate rents, 8-30g essentially requires municipal approval unless the town can prove a significant health or safety risk.
Tuesday night, nearly two hours of back-and-forth between commissioners and company Executive Vice President Josh Levy was consistently cordial but tinged with tension and hard-edged questions.
When Levy asserted that Avon has only 3.9% affordable housing, Chair Lisa Levin quickly said she was correcting him: The more recent figure is 4.11%, she said.
Two or three commissioners zeroed in on Vessel’s proposal for 70 parking spaces, noting that the building would have 61 one-bedroom apartments and three two-bedroom units.
“What if (just) 10 percent of the one-bedroom apartments have two people? You’re out of spaces,” one commissioner said.
Another argued that it’s likely there’ll be times when one or more tenants invites guests or even hosts a small party. With just three extra spaces for visitor parking, there wouldn’t be enough, the commissioner warned.
“How is that not going to be a problem?” a commissioner asked.
Levy replied that the parking proposal exceeds the minimum number of spaces that Avon requires, so it already meets the town’s existing rules.
But other commissioners continued pursuing those questions, warning that overflow cars would be parked on the street and perhaps hinder emergency vehicles or regular traffic. The questions continued even after one commissioner noted the site would be on Avonwood Road, a privately maintained street..
When Levy gave a presentation emphasizing the smart-building features of Vessel’s structures, he emphasized that construction is steel with no wood or wallboard. Walls and floors are pre-manufactured panels made of nonflammable materials, and the entire building would have fire alarms and sprinklers.
Nevertheless, one commissioner said, fire safety is a concern because Avon has a volunteer fire department and no other four-story buildings. But town staff advised that the commission had previously approved a different building of more than three stories.
When one commissioner said 800-square-foot two-bedroom units and 560-square-foot single-bedroom apartments seemed awfully small, another replied that the project is intended for people on tighter-than-usual budgets.
“My daughter lives within that with two people in New York City,” another added.
A commissioner suggested that having just one window per apartment poses a health issue, and could be a concern for tenants trying to flee fires even though the building would have two stairwells.
Levy emphasized that Vessel designs its buildings for efficiency, saying its tenants don’t want to spend more money for the sort of unusable space that can be found in some older homes.
“The units are designed so there’s zero wasted space, and we’ve looked at ergonomics and how people use space,” Levy said.
During the company’s presentation, traffic consultant Mark Vertucci told commissioners the project wouldn’t have a significant impact on traffic either at the Route 44 and Avonwood intersection or at the Route 10 and Route 44 intersection nearby.
Levin announced the hearing would be continued until June 11, and asked Levy to consider modifying the proposal in the meantime. One change she’d like is a written agreement giving the town authority when Vessel wants to change building management companies. She said that with some large landlords around the country, tenants have bad experiences when a new management company is brought in.
Levy said he’s open to suggesting protections, but wouldn’t grant the town the power to block changes in the management company.
“You could effectively shut down operation of my building if you didn’t consent,” he said.
Vessel’s controversial plan to build 42 “attainably priced” apartments near Granby’s town center also hit a new obstacle this month when the wetlands board unanimously rejected its request for a permit.
That decision focused on potential wetlands impacts from Vessel Technologies’ plan, but the nights of lengthy hearings leading up to it illustrated a deeper rift between the developer and some residents of the relatively rural town.
The company’s unique approach to addressing Connecticut’s housing shortage has gone over well in New London, Cheshire and elsewhere, but hit public pushback in Simsbury, Glastonbury and Granby.
The company is on track to lease 250 units over the next year, with at least 200 more on the books and extensive plans beyond that.
In its short time in Connecticut, Vessel has become one of the state’s most controversial developers. Proponents see the company as future-thinking and innovative, with a sustainable and environmentally sensible answer to Connecticut’s housing shortage. Critics balk that it brings lower-priced apartments and cookie-cutter modernistic buildings into quaint, historic villages.
Vessel has said that with smaller but ultra-modern apartments, it can offer attractive housing to people who fall between those extremes: Medical assistants, bank clerks, car mechanics, entry-level teachers, highway department workers and others.
The company produces nearly identical modular buildings that have an unmistakably modernistic look, and advertises a heavy infusion of smart-home technology and space efficiency. Its one- and two-bedroom units are notably smaller than most new construction, but are priced below market rates and designed to minimize or eliminate utility bills.
Comments / 0