Norwich
The working affordability requirements, which representatives of the Planning Commission and its Affordable Housing Subcommittee said were subject to change, would mandate that 25 percent of units in a development along the well-traveled corridor be affordable to people making 70 percent of the Windsor County median family income — or about $45,549, as adjusted for household size, officials said.
The proposal also calls for an increasing proportion of development units to be available to rent or own at the county median income as building projects grow in size.
The district would cover both sides of Route 5 South and most of the land between River Road and the point where Interstate 91 passes over Route 5 North, according to draft documents.
Talk of major housing developments in Norwich, however far off they may be, has sparked debate over the area’s housing market and the future character of the town as the Planning Commission draws closer to submitting a concrete zoning proposal.
Proponents of the plan say that Norwich must do its part in providing a housing base for the Upper Valley, which has struggled with shortages for years. Some Norwich residents, however, are raising concerns about whether developments of the scale floated by the Planning Commission could change the rural character of the town.
“We want to make Norwich a more affordable place to live, and (this plan) would allow people of different incomes to be able to afford to live in Norwich,” said Jeff Lubell, a Norwich Planning Commission member who also sits on the Affordable Housing Subcommittee. “Norwich is becoming much more difficult for people of low and moderate income to afford. Without developing more affordable housing, Norwich will become increasingly difficult to live in for those who are not wealthy.”
Not only do affordable housing developments allow for more diversity in the area’s central communities, the proponents say, but the projects also make economic sense.
Anne Duncan Cooley, executive director of the Upper Valley Housing Coalition, cited a study from the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission that concluded the region lacked about 4,000 units of workforce housing. The vacancy rate for renting, she said, is somewhere around 1 or 2 percent, which is at least 50 percent less than the desirable number.
“Vermont’s having a very hard time attracting and retaining young people, and that’s in part because they don’t have the housing,” she said in an interview on Wednesday.
Pointing to developments like Gile Hill, an apartment complex in Hanover, and the numerous new studio apartments popping up in Lebanon and Hartford, Duncan Cooley said the other three core towns had left Norwich behind in terms of housing creation. “You’ve seen significantly more development in each of those towns than you’ve seen in Norwich,” she said.
That translates to a rent of about $1,139 for a three-person household, including utilities, Lubell said.
The current draft of the plan would require that affordable and market-rate housing units remain at their price point, and also would provide similar affordability options for residents who wish to own their homes.
A draft document provided by Lubell and dated Nov. 7 says that new housing in the potential new district could have a maximum density of 8 units per acre, with the allowable density decreasing with size.
On that scale, a 20-acre development could fit as many as 130 units.
“It’s the size of the thing that puts me off,” said Stuart Richards, a former Affordable Housing Subcommittee chairman who has been a vocal critic of the high-density zoning plan. “I lived here because I went to school here. I lived here back when (New Hampshire Route) 12A was cornfields, and I also remember that the interstates were not finished. And I also remember — and this is not so long ago — when (New Hampshire Route) 120 was not developed. And now it’s trending toward being another 12A.”
In an interview on Wednesday, Richards said he grew up in New York City and moved here to escape what he saw as an overdeveloped, cramped community.
“I’m seeing the suburbanization and folks who would like to replicate the kinds of places that they probably came from. And make no mistake, this really is an attempt to suburbanize Norwich,” he said.
Duncan Cooley, Lubell and other proponents of the zoning change repeatedly noted in comments this week that there were no proposed developments on the table — only the potential for changes in zoning — and that a given project wouldn’t necessarily be of the maximum size.
If someone wanted to build high-density housing along the Route 5 and River Road corridor, Lubell said, he or she likely would have to satisfy Act 250, the Vermont law regulating large developments, and also contend with nearby wetlands, which have their own requirements.
But Richards, and other residents like him, are still concerned. Even if the district were created and a 50-unit development built, he said, “it’s a huge departure from what is existing and what traditionally has existed in Norwich.”
A longtime real estate developer who currently is a senior vice president for Lebanon-based Global Rescue, Richards also expressed concern about potential changes to height limits in town, as well as potential expense issues with sewer systems. Waste systems, he said, could cost developers or the town millions, either to build or hook into those of nearby towns.
Richards added he had heard arguments that the region, and Norwich, needed to expand its stock of affordable and workforce housing.
“I’ve heard that, and I don’t necessarily disagree with the fact that we should have it,” he said. “ … but not at the expense of totally destroying the character of the town of Norwich.”
Lubell confirmed that the Planning Commission was considering easing the height limit in the potential new district to allow for three stories, rather than two. As for sewage, Lubell said that any proposed development would have to “cover the costs in full” of connecting new housing to wastewater systems in Hartford or Hanover.
“To my knowledge, the Planning Commission does not envision the town of Norwich bearing any financial costs associated with the extension of these services,” he said.
In a separate interview, Duncan Cooley addressed Richards’ point about the potential effect on Norwich’s rural “village” character. “I understand that. Being concerned about change is very valid. Change is coming, whether or not we do anything to shape it. If we don’t make thoughtful provisions for housing our new, younger workforce or housing our seniors, there will be changes that’ll happen for those people that won’t necessarily be positive. The status quo, although it’s what we’re used to, isn’t necessarily the best for the future,” she said.
In order to make a change to Norwich’s zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission must submit a plan to the Selectboard, which casts the deciding vote. Voters then have a short period to petition for a townwide vote, if they so choose. After that, the change becomes final.
During tonight’s meeting, members of the commission are scheduled to discuss potential January public hearing dates, according to an agenda.
The purpose of the public forums, Planning Commission Chairman Jeff Goodrich said in a Wednesday interview, will be to tell the public, “Here’s where we’ve been over the past 10, 20, 30 years, and here’s where we are today, including with respect to this district, and we’d appreciate your comments.”
The Planning Commission’s meeting will begin at 7 p.m. in Tracy Hall.
Rob Wolfe can be reached at rwolfe@vnews.com or 603-727-3242.