Compromise Reached On SRO Moratorium

A Board of Alders public hearing on a proposed moratorium on the conversion and demolition of boarding-room units in the city will continue as the proposed language continues to take shape. The rehabilitation of the Hotel Duncan from a boarding house into a luxury ​“boutique” inn will continue, too.

That was the upshot of a previously continued public hearing on the fate of single-occupancy rooms (SROs) in particular, and affordable housing in general, by the Board of Alders Legislation Committee Tuesday night at City Hall.

Meanwhile, a long-awaited affordable housing task force is finally being appointed to look at the broader issue of preserving and creating lower than- market-rate rental apartments in town.

Tuesday night’s hearing concerned an evolving aldermanic proposal for a six-month moratorium on converting any boarding houses and SROs into other uses. That proposal has been controversial because the developer of the Duncan had charged that the alders behind the proposal sought to pass it in order to force him to recognize UNITE HERE as the union for his workers, by otherwise stopping his project. (The alders are affiliated with the union.) The alders never denied it.

But Tuesday night the alders produced an updated version of the moratorium that clearly exempts the Duncan project, for which building permits have already been pulled, and focuses on future projects. The Duncan owner’s attorney, Carolyn Kone, participated in drafting the new version along with attorney Keith Ainsworth, who is representing the alders.

At the end of the night, the alders did not vote on the new version. Instead they agreed to hold another ​“continued” hearing on it first.

The latest version of the proposed moratorium makes clear that rehabilitation, conversions, and demolitions of boarding house units permitted prior to the passage of the proposed ordinance would not be subject to the six- to nine-month moratorium.

“It was for projects going forward,” Kone testified Tuesday. ​“And I feel the additional language that attorney Ainsworth and I worked on makes it clear to any third party looking at the moratorium that it does not apply to the Duncan.”

The exceptions section of the latest version of the proposed revision of the ordinance explicitly reads: “(c) Any Rehabilitation, Conversion and/or Demolition of a Boarding House or a Boarding House Unit which is being carried out pursuant to a building permit issued during the twelve month period prior to the Effective Date of this Ordinance, even if subsequent permits are issued by the City of New Haven Building Department in connection with such Rehabilitation, Conversion and/or Demolition.” (Read about the previous revision here.)

Read the full text of the newly revised moratorium here.

But Kone also noted for the record, ​“in case there ever has to be any legal action,” she disagrees with Ainsworth’s assertion that the revised language did not need to be reviewed by the City Plan Commission. Though that all could be moot if alders don’t use the revised language, or decide not to move forward with a moratorium.

“I think that Connecticut case law is clear that that is the procedure that has to be done,” she said. ​“I don’t think it has to be done if you’re not going to adopt the moratorium as amended.”

Kone said after the meeting that the committee’s decision not to take up the moratorium leaves some uncertainty in terms of where alders might go next with this issue. They could choose not to do anything, choose to adopt the amended language or return to the original language.

She pointed out to alders that even as the city is looking at the issue of SROs and affordable housing, it has had to put people in hotels around the city as housing problems have displaced residents. These temporary housing options might need to pull new permits after people have stayed in them for 30 days or more. Kone also noted that the city is considering a zone change for Westville Village that could further limit locations for SROs.

Though Ainsworth did not testify Tuesday, he said after the meeting that the goal was to preserve the purpose of the moratorium without hindering the Duncan Hotel’s rehabilitation, or that of any hotel housing people for 30 days or more from doing cleanups and minor repairs that might be necessary.

“I didn’t want to narrow the moratorium so that it had no real effect,” he said.

“We were pleased everyone could get what they needed,” he said. ​“In my opinion, not just legally but societally … you don’t want to lose any more SROs in the meantime because the diversity of housing preserves the diversity of your population in a healthy way.”

Of those who testified an hour-long meeting Tuesday, the majority opposed the ordinance amendment as it had been previously proposed.

Brian McGrath, district manager for the Chapel West Special Services District, argued that the city has 51,000 housing units, 35,000 of which are eligible as-of-right to take in boarders. He said the city incentivizing people taking in boarders might be a quicker way to make the shortage of SROs a nonexistent problem — if it is truly a problem at all.

“I think you’re shooting at a problem that you can’t hit,” he said of the proposed moratorium.

Abby Feldman was the only citizen to testify about her own recent displacement from a rental unit, on Chapel Street in Westville, after recent winter storms caused structural damage. She said her landlord was not helpful in helping her and her family find a temporary place to live.

“I realized how difficult it is to find short-term housing in our city,” she said. ​“I do think we need to have rooms available for people in situations like mine where they need temporary housing, or if they are simply someone looking to get back on their feet.”

While the lawyers were pleased with the newly revised ordinance text amendment, Downtown Alder Abby Roth said that the focus of the moratorium, revised or not, remains too narrow in her opinion. She told her colleagues that given that the new zoning ordinance in Westville would further restrict SROs in the city, she would prefer that the task force looks at the issue holistically before alders embark on a moratorium.

“This is just too narrow a slice,” she said.

Fair Haven Heights Alder Rosa Santana asked her fellow committee members to continue the public hearing to allow the public time to look at the revised ordinance amendment pointing out that Independent readers had suggested in a ​“True Vote” poll that alders had not provided the public enough opportunity to review the changes to the proposed moratorium before a previous public hearing. Alders had released the previously revised version of the moratorium just hours before they were slated to hear from the public on the matter last month. This latest version was released Friday.

Westville Alder Adam Marchand stuck by his previous assertion that alders could have voted last month or this month to close the public hearing and vote the matter out of committee. Actually, committee alders initially did vote Tuesday to close the public hearing. Marchand said he believes the Board of Alders’ authority to call for a moratorium is clear. But since it’s not something that’s done every day, he’s happy for residents to have more time to weigh in, he said.

“I commend the intention and spirit of your motion to afford residents maximum opportunity to comment particularly on a new version of the language that was only made broadly available just recently,” Marchand said.