The Norwalk Common Council ad hoc Affordable Housing Committee on Tuesday discussed a draft ordinance and application process that would govern how the city distributes roughly $2 million–$2.5 million in funds collected under its workforce housing regulations.

The committee reviewed proposed eligibility and scoring criteria for applications to the affordable housing account and discussed next steps including appointing a three-person citizen review panel and asking staff to return with additional materials in November.

Why it matters: The fund, generated by developers’ choices under Norwalk’s workforce housing rules (deed-restricted units at set percentages of state median income or a construction fee), is intended to support development or rehabilitation of housing deed-restricted to low-income households. Committee members said the existing balance—driven in part by a pending permit at 24 Belden Avenue that is expected to generate about $130,000—will not by itself finance large projects but could seed multiple smaller efforts or help close funding gaps.

Staff overview and draft framework

Michelle (staff) summarized zoning amendments and other work since May, including a density bonus for projects over 10 units, adjustments to income recertification rules and a three-bedroom counting rule designed to capture family-sized units. Steve (staff) presented a proposed spending framework and an application process designed to disperse funds across multiple projects rather than fund a single large development.

Steve said the fund currently stands "probably around 2 and a quarter, 2 and a half million dollars" and described two distribution models: a higher-maximum award for projects with more than 20 units (up to $1 million) and a smaller-maximum award for projects under 20 units (up to $500,000). He also outlined draft eligibility screens (projects must be current on taxes, not in violation of health/blight/zoning, and compliant with workforce regulations) and scoring categories emphasizing depth of affordability, proximity to transit, sustainability, shovel-readiness and family-sized units.

"To get the funding, they need to hit, like, kind of, like an 80 out of a 100 for the score," Steve said, describing a proposed threshold the review panel would use.

Discussion highlights and concerns

Committee members debated whether to prioritize smaller, middle-housing projects (duplexes, triplexes, townhouses) versus larger developments. Heather Dunn and others argued that smaller projects or conversions of underused commercial properties could increase supply, improve safety and preserve neighborhood character; committee members discussed awarding extra points for projects that rehabilitate blighted properties or repurpose vacant commercial space.

Nicole Ayers and public commenters urged attention to homeownership pathways and the effects of tax abatements on municipal revenue. Lisa Britton, a resident, said she supports senior and single-person housing but is "simply concerned about tax abatements being able to match up with our bank account and, and obviously being able to fund the schools." Diane Cece echoed Britton’s remarks.

Legal and policy constraints

Multiple speakers noted legal limits tied to how the revenue was collected. Steve and committee members said the workforce regulations under state statute require that fees collected be used for projects deed-restricted at certain SMI levels. Committee members acknowledged that deed restrictions both preserve long-term affordability and limit the wealth-building potential of homeownership.

Next steps and implementation mechanics

The committee agreed on several follow-ups: staff will pursue a November presentation on accessory dwelling units (ADUs); the committee will solicit nominations for the three-person citizen review panel (at least one member from the minority party and geographically representative of the city); staff will refine the draft scoring matrix and eligibility rules; and staff will check with finance about whether the account can earn interest while funds await allocation.

Steve suggested using a small third-party financial review (paid by an application fee or the city) to verify a project’s financing stack before the panel scores applications. Committee members discussed using the fund to help smaller developers "compete with the market" so units can be offered at lower SMI levels without being immediately outbid by market-rate buyers.

Capital budget recommendation

Committee members asked whether to recommend a capital-budget appropriation for affordable housing next year. Members voiced different priorities for where any appropriation should be directed—some suggested Norwalk Housing Authority planning, others supported middle-housing or renovation pools for owners on fixed incomes. The committee agreed to continue that discussion at an upcoming meeting and to consider routing a formal recommendation before the budget cycle deadline.

Closing and procedural votes

The committee closed public participation and took routine votes to approve minutes (July 24 and Sept. 18). The July 24 minutes were accepted unanimously; the Sept. 18 minutes passed with one abstention. The meeting adjourned by unanimous vote.

The committee asked staff to return with tightened language on the eligibility and scoring criteria, to solicit and vet candidates for the citizen review panel, and to schedule an ADU presentation for November. If the committee decides to pursue a capital-budget recommendation, members said they will craft a narrower proposal that identifies a lead recipient or program for any allocation.