Archive for the 'Development' Category
Zoning & Density in Hartford’s West End
On Thursday, October 29th, the West End Civic Association (WECA) Planning & Zoning Committee met to begin a conversation about many of the zoning-related issues that the neighborhood found contentious during the past year. The agenda listed density as the main topic, with specific mention of converting existing properties to include more approved units, new condo and multi-unit developments, fairness issues around illegal rentals, accessory dwelling units, the financial impact of zoning decisions on homeowners, and finally the fairness of zoning decisions on homeowners.
John Gale, committee chairman, kicked off the meeting with a brief history of zoning in Hartford and the current zoning in the neighborhood. Most of the area north of Farmington Avenue is zoned for single family, though there are a few blocks that allow more density. South of Farmington Avenue is zoned for higher density residential buildings. From there he transitioned to a quick survey of recent WECA Planning & Zoning Committee topics and positions. The stated goal of the meeting was to start a conversation, and to begin the process of working towards a WECA policy on common zoning issues in the neighborhood.
A Wide Open Discussion, Or Not
Once the floor was opened to the attendees, the discussion quickly narrowed to “problem properties,” which were all multi-family homes. The group seemed most concerned about nuisance issues (noise, traffic, parking, …), and discussed the appropriateness of using zoning laws as a primary strategy for fighting back. Although the zoning laws are clear about what is allowed, they are implemented inconsistently. Ambiguities seem to arise from bureaucratic issues like the Assessor and Zoning departments classifying properties differently, and the policy of zoning enforcement on an “as needed” basis. As a result, owners currently have the flexibility to use their properties in ways that conflict with zoning laws as long as they do not upset their neighbors and get reported to the city.
Overall, the group seemed to like that the zoning laws were inconsistent. Multiple attendees noted that the nuisance neighbors were more often than not living in multifamily properties owned by absentee landlords and configured in ways that conflicted with zoning. Others spoke about the limited success that they have had in working with the police department to address “quality of life” issues. Reporting the properties for zoning violations was an effective way to get the attention of the owners, and ultimately address problems caused by the residents.
A minority of the group spoke out against the zoning ambiguity, primarily on the grounds that it was bad business. One attendee described the ordeal he has been through after purchasing a multifamily property. His good-faith efforts to bring it into zoning compliance and improve the property have been halted by confusion within the city about what is allowed. The property in question is categorized differently by the Assessor and Zoning departments, and research by his attorney has uncovered evidence that a third use may predate the city’s 1968 implementation of zoning laws. Other attendees also described their challenging experiences in securing permits.
As a real estate agent trying to sell homes in the West End, it is very important to accurately describe, and advertise, a property so that potential buyers and other real estate agents know exactly what uses are permitted. This is obviously a challenge if the official policy is that many current uses are technically illegal, though allowed through non-enforcement.
But What About Density?
The question of density was not truly the focus of the meeting, though it surfaced periodically and again divided the group. Those supporting increased density generally advocated recognizing existing 3-families and allowing both 3rd-floor rentals and accessory dwelling units. They argued that density is good for local businesses, property values, expanding public transit, and energy efficiency. Those opposed to increased density focused on the traffic and parking issues that already exist in some areas of the neighborhood. The majority seemed to support increased density in theory, though the link to absentee landlords and nuisance neighbors seemed to make many feel it would not be right in practice.
Larger questions about density went unaddressed because no one raised them as issues. The Committee has held meetings to discuss proposals for a vacant lot on Kenyon, the former Medical Society building on Scarborough, and the University of Hartford Asylum campus. Each meeting drew numerous West Enders with a direct interest. And each meeting ended with the neighbors in attendance against aspects of, or all of, the proposed project.
An Important Conversation
Working together as a neighborhood to find agreement on zoning and development issues is challenging, but important, work. Previous meetings have demonstrated that there is not a single consensus among all interested parties. Taking the time to find common ground will allow WECA’s representatives to head off unacceptable projects on the neighborhood’s behalf, which will hopefully reduce the number of emergency zoning meetings. Perhaps the conversation will also help identify uses to encourage for specific properties.
This meeting was the first to allow a forum for the West End to be proactive in addressing a subject about which many have very strong feelings. We encourage everyone to get involved in the discussion by participating in the next meeting and raising issues that are important to them. Ideally, the effort will be able to identify policies that represent the neighborhood’s collective opinion so that owners and potential owners know what to expect when looking to change the use of their property.
The Best Use for Brackett Park?
Last night Hartford’s City Council voted to allow a developer to purchase 5 acres of city park land. With the purchase of this parcel, currently known as Brackett Park, Toraal Development LLC will change the landscape to include 20 two-family, owner-occupied homes, 20 rental units, and a 3 acre park.
The argument for this type of project is that it creates tax revenue for the City of Hartford and promotes home ownership. The argument against this type of project is the precedent it sets by selling City park land to a private developer for private use. Presumably, once this land is sold and developed, it will never be park land again.
Given my profession, I clearly care about homeownership. The question I have is why can’t we make do with the housing stock that we already have in Hartford and increase our homeownership rate with those existing homes?
Let’s take a quick look at the snapshot of Hartford single and multi-family homes currently for sale…
We currently have over a year’s worth of multi-family inventory on the market. Is it a smart decision to be building more multi-family homes? Shouldn’t we be concerned with the ones that are already for sale and trying to get potential homeowners into those? The percentage of these homes that are bank owned or requiring bank approval for the sale is over 30%. What’s being done to ensure these properties are not falling into disrepair and are still paying their property taxes?
We can also look at the numbers for the project. The proposed project has a $7.8 million budget, of which $4 million is coming from the State. The rest of the funds will come from sales. So with 20 two-family homes for sale, to clear the remaining budget of $3.76 million, each unit will need to be sold for a minimum of $188,000 to break even. Since developers generally like to make a profit, the prices will likely be higher.
There are currently 63 two-family or three-family properties for sale north of Albany Avenue. Both the average and median asking price for the group is less than $160,000. What if the State used its $4 million to reimburse up to $100,000 in repairs and improvements on 40 existing properties? There would definitely be some administrative challenges, and they would need to put in rules about owner occupancy, but this sort of strategy would work to improve the existing housing stock rather than building additional housing in an area where there is not demonstrated demand.
What are peoples thoughts on this subject?
An Evening with David Nyberg
On Thursday, October 15, 2009 (tomorrow evening), real estate developer David Nyberg will be hosting a social hour, giving site tours of two Downtown Hartford projects, and participating in a roundtable discussion. I am coordinating the event through HYPE, and would like to extend an invitation to those outside of the HYPE membership to join us. Please RSVP to me (Kyle Bergquist) to register if you are interested in attending; seating is limited.
Mr. Nyberg has been at the forefront of the effort to bring more residential opportunities to Downtown Hartford in recent years. His three Downtown projects include 55 on the Park, The Metropolitan, and most recently 915 Main Street. Mr. Nyberg is also active in the Asylum Hill neighborhood of Hartford as well as other communities.
During this event we’re hoping to get an enthusiastic group together to see a developer’s view of Downtown Hartford. The roundtable portion of the event will give us an opportunity to learn more about Mr. Nyberg himself, his views on Hartford, and his experiences with the City.
Tomorrow evening’s itinerary will be roughly as follows:
5:00 pm: Meet at 901 Main Street for drinks, appetizers, and a site tour
6:00ish: Walk to 266 Pearl Street (The Metropolitan) for a site tour
7:00ish: Walk to 31 Pratt Street (MetroHartford Alliance) for drinks, dinner, and discussion.
Our group is called HYPEd on Downtown Development, and is working to find constructive ways to influence the continued evolution of the capital city’s downtown neighborhood. We’re hoping to be part of the revitalization process that will make Downtown a vibrant mixed-use community. The event is free of charge and open to anyone interested in participating in that spirit.
Again, please RSVP to me (Kyle Bergquist) and either call or email with any questions.