Editor’s Notes: i) This op-ed was submitted by Eric Knapp, who is employed as the Town of Old Lyme’s Land Use Coordinator. He is writing here as a private citizen.
ii) This is the opinion of Eric Knapp.

Many years ago, in my former life as an attorney, I attended a hearing before a land use agency in Canterbury. Ahead of my matter on the agenda was a proposal for a single-family house. A neighbor was strongly opposed. Her argument was stated as follows: I moved to Canterbury so that when I looked out my window, I would not have to see another house. And for years, I have not. If this is approved, I will see this house every day.

This did not turn out to be a winning argument, but it did point to something deeper. The suburban lifestyle is extraordinarily popular. A good number of people want to live on a cul-de-sac, with their own land and few neighbors. 

The problem with this is that there are fixed costs, for land, utilities, driveways, drainage, not to mention basic building materials, and the incentives all point towards maximizing the return on each lot. That means that most of the new subdivisions being built out in this part of the state tend to cater to the top of the market.

As I noted in my last piece, while everyone seems to agree that the market needs more moderately priced homes, the market conditions do not favor this result. The Affordable Housing Statute, C.G.S. §8-30g, was supposed to address this, by offering greater density in exchange for “affordable” units. But this tradeoff has not been the boon it was supposed to be, and most developers in this part of the state use it as a last resort.

Along the shore, a similar dynamic plays out. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pressures homeowners to elevate their homes to be higher than the “flood elevation.” While many of the existing homes are modest ones on small lots, the cost of elevating them is quite high. The result is that if a property owner is willing (or financially able) to elevate a dwelling, they will usually want to maximize the size of the newly-elevated structure. It makes little financial sense to spend $100,000 to elevate a $200,000 house. 

Flood-prone areas are increasingly a patchwork of expensive homes that have been elevated, and their “left behind” smaller homes that have not. 

At some point, and I have no idea when, we will be hit with a Category 3 storm. When that happens, the demographics of the shore will change. FEMA will require damaged houses to be upgraded, and only those with the means to do so will be able to return. 

The state government in Hartford is pushing—with increasing force—for towns to embrace “transit-oriented development.” But the residents of this part of the state stay here precisely because it does not look like the more densely populated communities. Quite literally, you could not pay a resident of Essex or Old Lyme to live in Stamford or Norwalk, or even New London. They like living in their suburbs/exurbs and are loathe to give up the comforts of their shoreline home. 

A local Stew Leonard’s would be convenient but few here pine to live in Newington or Danbury. People may visit Trader Joe’s in Orange, but Rte. 1 there versus here is no comparison.

That brings us back to the “suburban dilemma” mentioned in the title. We are trying to square the lifestyle we love with the housing market we don’t. So far, the lifestyle is winning. It remains to be seen whether this will hold true going forward.