Key Points
- Wilton P&Z Chair Ken Hoffman wants the commission to use “median-income housing” instead of “affordable housing.”
- Officials say the terminology better reflects housing tied to state and area median-income formulas.
- The discussion comes as Wilton weighs broader housing policy changes and compliance with Connecticut’s 8-30g law.
Why It Matters: The terminology shift signals a broader effort by Wilton officials to reshape how residents understand housing policy, affordability mandates and future development planning.
As Wilton’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) continues its efforts to ensure the town’s zoning regulations will comply with the state’s new affordable housing laws, Chair Ken Hoffman would like the commission to take the lead in reframing how the town discusses the issue.
During P&Z’s May 26 meeting, Hoffman requested that, going forward, P&Z use the term “median-income housing” rather than “affordable housing” as it more explicitly reflects the role of state and area median income levels in determining rental and sale prices for qualified housing.
“People have a tendency to kick around the word ‘affordable’ housing, and I think they’re misinterpreting from that word what level we’re really talking about here,” Hoffman said.
The importance of the terminology shift can be traced back to last month’s special session on housing affordability, when the commissioners unanimously agreed to adopt the state median income as a basis for calculating the number of units in at least some developments that will be priced below market rates. The reason for the decision was two-fold: the area median rate is much higher than the state median, and adopting the state median income level will allow the town to qualify for a moratorium on further affordability requirements under the state’s 8-30g affordable housing statute. P&Z may decide to also allow the area median income to be applied for at least some developments; those details will be hammered out in future discussions.
During recent discussions and public hearings, Hoffman and other commissioners have frequently emphasized that many of them campaigned for P&Z on the affordability issue.
P&Z’s emphasis on a more nuanced terminology is part of a broader discussion about housing policy in Wilton and how it has changed over time, both publicly and politically. Commissioners suggested the phrase “affordable housing” can evoke public perceptions that differ from the types of workforce and middle-income housing P&Z is currently discussing.
“Wilton is priced out of people being able to live in Wilton who are vital members of our community,” Hoffman said during the Apr. 15 special session. “Whether we are at the moratorium level or not, we are short housing for younger people, older people and people who are vital members of our community.”
Hoffman singled out first responders, teachers and maintenance workers as examples of people who work in Wilton but who may be unable to afford to rent at current market rates.
P&Z Seeks Meeting with Selectmen to Discuss Housing Authority
Seeking to keep up the momentum that began with last week’s presentation on affordable housing before the Board of Selectmen (BOS), Hoffman told the commissioners that he has submitted a memo to the BOS to request a meeting to discuss the formation of a housing commission to help the town become more proactive in managing all of its housing stock, not just affordable housing.
Hoffman said that a housing authority — similar to those already in place in peer towns such as New Canaan, Darien, Westport, Greenwich and Stamford — “might have better chances of sustaining momentum and getting things done” as well as “taking some of the burden off of [the] Planning and Zoning [Commission], which I don’t believe has time to do all of this.”
Other options include a housing committee, similar to what Wilton had in place until 2023. A committee can advise on policy development, but has limited authority to implement it. A housing commission, in contrast, can be granted the authority to coordinate across town government departments and oversee policy implementation. Both of these options, Hoffman and Ahasic argued, offer less flexibility than an independent authority.
Uniform Affordable Housing Percentage to be Discussed
Commissioner Trevor Huffard asked whether, in the meantime, P&Z should proceed with its proposal to establish a blanket affordable housing percentage applicable to all residential zones, which the commissioners discussed during their Apr. 15 special session on affordable housing. Hoffman agreed, saying that he wanted to ensure all commissioners were able to participate in the discussion (four commissioners were not present for the May 26 meeting).
Director of Planning and Land Use Management Michael Wrinn pointed out that the percentage would only apply to developments with more than a specified number of dwelling units, and that smaller developments would be exempt from that requirement. Earlier this month, P&Z approved an amendment to the Danbury Road East Overlay District of the Wilton Zoning Regulations that changed the minimum number of units required to trigger the affordable housing requirement in a new development from 10 to “greater than 10.”
For the next P&Z meeting on June 8, Wrinn and his staff will prepare documentation for the commissioners outlining the various percentages and minimum-number thresholds throughout the town, to help them deliberate.
I appreciate this shift toward more precise language.
I think part of the tension around “affordable housing” is that the phrase has stopped functioning as one clear term. In law and planning, it refers to income formulas, median-income benchmarks, unit counts, and 8-30g compliance. In public conversation, it can carry a completely different set of assumptions around density, state mandates, taxes, traffic, loss of local control, or broader anxiety about change.
That gap matters, because people may be reacting to the phrase before they are reacting to the actual policy.
The term has also changed because the housing crisis has changed. Decades ago, many middle-class workers could reasonably expect to live in or near the towns where they worked. “Affordable housing” could be understood mostly as a targeted safety-net issue. In high-cost towns like Wilton, the affordability problem has moved much further into the middle of the income distribution. Teachers, first responders, municipal workers, young families, seniors, divorced parents, single-income households, and adult children who grew up here may all be priced out of the community they are connected to.
So the old phrase now carries two meanings at once. Its policy meaning is income-restricted housing calculated through median-income formulas. Its social meaning is often a feared category people associate with poverty, density, loss of control, or demographic change.
That is why “median-income housing” may be a useful correction. It narrows the frame. This is not an abstract moral slogan or a generic “affordable housing” fight. It is about which income benchmark is being used, who qualifies, what units count under 8-30g, and whether Wilton can house the people it depends on.
There is an old Confucian idea called the rectification of names – that disorder begins when words stop matching reality. That feels relevant here. If the language is imprecise, the public conversation becomes distorted before residents even get to the substance.
The same precision should continue through the rest of the process: clear numbers, clear legal context, clear income levels, clear requirements, and clear explanation of who would have decision-making authority.
This may also be an area where the town would benefit from a framework-level public conversation, not only project-by-project debate.