Quantcast
Advertisement
,

Planning and Zoning approves modified multi-family plan for Isaacs Street

NORWALK, Conn. — The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved a proposal from Wall Street developer Jason Milligan to slightly reduce the number of units at a planned multi-family development on Isaacs Street Wednesday.

Approved in 2024 for a total of 224 units, including 119 extended stay hotel rooms, the commission Wednesday agreed to the proposal from Milligan’s Wall Street Opportunity Fund for 101 extended stay hotel rooms and 106 apartments for the development at 21 and 23 Isaacs St.

The property is currently a parking lot next to The Phoenix, a mid-rise condominium development, and across the street from Wall Street Place apartment complex.

In addition to the number of units, the proposal also included several aesthetic tweaks to the design of the building.

The unanimous vote came a week after the commission narrowly denied a text amendment that would have paved the way to make the project all apartments.

Milligan said Thursday he was “happy in a very small way” the commission voted how it did Wednesday “but it is not the project that I want to build or that I should build,” lamenting last month’s 5-4 denial.

“It is an interim step that is better than the project I have approved,” Milligan said in an email. “Ultimately, this project should be entirely apartments. Hopefully it will be soon.”

“It is unfortunate that it is so difficult, expensive and time consuming to get sensible projects approved,” Milligan said.

His path to getting the project approved as apartments only is unclear. During Wednesday’s meeting Milligan’s attorney, Adam Blank, said the developer could sue the city over last month’s denial but that “we don’t want to have that fight today.” A pilot overlay zoning district proposed by the Wall Street Neighborhood Association could also result in relaxed parking and density requirements.

“There may be litigation over the last decision,” Blank said. “There may be changes that you decide to make for the Wall Street Neighborhood Association. We don’t know how that’s going to shake out, and so we may or may not ask you to make further changes.”

A proposal from the neighborhood association headlined “Don’t block what works” says the overlay district “centers on three narrow changes to unlock the kind of small-scale, walkable, mixed-use growth that the City has already invested $35.5 million to support.” The group has also asked supporters to sign an online petition. The proposal was on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting but was continued to Sept. 16.

If approved, multi-family unit caps, currently 1 per 500 square feet of building lot size, would be removed in the district to give developers more flexibility. Residential developments of 60 units or fewer would also be exempted from providing off-street parking, with graduated requirements for larger developments. Another change would adjust how affordable housing requirements apply to projects of 19 or fewer units, allowing developers to contribute to a housing fund rather than include deed-restricted units.

Milligan said that the overlay district would give developers freedom from onerous regulations that don’t make sense for the area.

“The people who live, work, and support the Wall Street Neighborhood like the changes that have happened here,” he said. “They want more of them.”

Comments

8 responses to “Planning and Zoning approves modified multi-family plan for Isaacs Street”

  1. Scott Vetare

    Yeah baby! Keep building those apartments! Just wondering how many apartments are NOT occupied/rented here in Norwalk?!
    I see greedy politicians and developers since Rilling was elected. Of course no change with Barbara – duff.

  2. David Muccigrosso

    >>Just wondering how many apartments are NOT occupied/rented here in Norwalk?!

    Speculation is a really hard market failure to beat. These buildings get financed with loans containing clauses that force a revaluation if they drop their rents below their wildly (nigh-fraudulently!) optimistic projections.

    You know the only thing that reliably beats it? Creating a supply glut that crashes prices for consumers, punishes the speculators, and resets expectations.

    Your NIMBYism is only enabling the very developers you profess to hate.

  3. Bryan Meek

    @Scott. I’m wondering the same. Drive down West Ave at night. Maybe the rents are so high almost no one can afford the electricity to put a few lights on…..or the whole thing is a scam and Norwalk residents are the marks. NHA sets the floor with 3BRs at Roodner court getting a $3000 monthly subsidy. This creates the market for subdividing firetraps into multi family high rent/SF illegal and these empty corporate/REIT owned taxpayer subsidized high grade cardboard boxes. They don’t care about renting them because we pay them through tax breaks to make 10% “affordable”. After the 7 years is up they will get section 8 vouchers and cash out, while Norwalk picks up all the costs of infrastructure, safety, and schools. We really need the US Attorney ro look at what’s going on here.

  4. David Muccigrosso

    The tax breaks don’t remotely pay for the revenue they’re losing on vacancies.

    They keep the vacancies because they don’t want to lose all their money in a revaluation — it’s essentially a default.

  5. Jason Milligan

    Scott, David and Bryan,

    Your willingness to share your opinions should be commended. I am not sure of your exact complaints though.

    To the extent developers are allowed to pass the risk of failure onto the taxpayers that is bad policy and provides for the wrong incentives.

    Is greed good or bad? It sound bad the way you present it Scott but I wonder if you volunteer all of your time or if you are paid for your work?

    Should developers be allowed to risk their capital and win or lose big? Win if they provide the market what it wants / demands? Lose if they are wrong? If they are wrong and we get too much supply is that good or bad?

    There is little to no vacancy in Norwalk. Even with sky high rents in many instances.

    My thesis is that Norwalk needs more naturally affordable housing options. Affordable because the units are smaller and have less amenities. The amenities are the neighborhood. The walkability and bike ability.

    I have not asked for subsidies. The only reason I would need subsidies would be to pay for the things that the government forces me to build like huge units, expensive amenities and excessive amounts of parking.

    There is a segment of society that proudly is not dependent on a car. It is nearly impossible to provide units with this segment in mind.

    Who are we to judge these people and who are we to prevent them from living car free and reaping the savings for that lifestyle decision?

    It would be great to allow for freedom to create a variety of options and styles of living arrangements.

  6. Bryan Meek

    One important component, depreciation adds about 4% to cash flow on margin. Plus there is so much money in the reit funds it’s low risk

  7. David Muccigrosso

    You’ll get no complaint from me. If it were up to me, I’d abolish all but the most rudimentary zoning, and any other excessive regulations that block housing without meaningfully contributing to safety or affordability.

    We built Washington Street without all that BS. We can build more of it if we repeal that nonsense.

  8. Skip Hagerty

    Needs to be bigger. Build, build!

Leave a Reply

Secret Link