By Ken Valenti
WESTPORT–The Planning & Zoning Commission narrowly defeated a proposal last night that would have allowed developers to build required affordable housing units distant from their main developments in the Inclusionary Housing Overlay District.
The vote was 4-3. Against votes were lodged by John Bolton, Michael Valante, Michael Calise and Craig Schiavone. In favor votes were made by Chair Paul Lebowitz, Michael Cammeyer and Bre Injeski.
The proposal, Text Amendment 864, would have allowed developers’ to request P&Z approval to build the affordable housing offsite. Several opponents objected to the idea on the principle that affordable housing units should be included in the developments.
The text amendment was tied to The Gables, a development at 785 Post Road East. Land use consultant Richard Redniss spearheaded efforts to create several units of housing for special needs residents at 3 George St.
Alternate commissioner Valante, opposing the idea, referred to Redniss’s frequent argument that the option to create affordable housing offsite was “another tool in the tool box” for the town.
“It’s a tool in their toolbox and…we get hit in the head with it,” Valante said.
Commission Chairman Lebowitz noted that the text amendment gave the commission the power to rule on individual projects upon determining that the offsite units would be superior to ones that would have been created onsite.
“The idea that offsite is somehow verboten – that’s a German word for “Don’t build it here” – I think should be taken out back and eliminated from our lexicon for a number of reasons,” Lebowitz said.
Some members said they would support the idea if only special needs units could be created offsite, while affordable units based on finances still would have to be built as part of the main development. But the text amendment was not worded to make that distinction.
Commissioner Bolton said he had been ready to vote for the proposal a week earlier when Lebowitz suggested adding language to the amendment saying that 50 percent of the residents serviced must meet the state criteria for special needs. (Part of the text amendment suggests switching to the broader federal criteria for housing purposes.)
Last night, Lebowitz rejected that idea, arguing that applying a number would discourage developers from building in Westport.
“All of this is just beyond disappointing,” Bolton said. “I just can’t believe this because I was really ready to sit down and vote yes for this. I really was.”
In the same meeting, the commission postponed discussion of a special permit request for 785 Post Road East that would allow the developer to create two residential units on top of commercial space facing the road on site. It was rescheduled for the April 20 meeting.
Redniss also proposed adjustments to a 30-unit development planned at 455 Post Road East, to meet commissioners’ concerns, including increasing parking spaces to 60 from 51. The continuation of that discussion was also scheduled for April 20.
Ken Valenti
A career journalist and lifelong resident of the New York City region, Ken Valenti has enjoyed decades of reporting local, regional and national news in New York and Connecticut. Topics of special interest are development, the environment, Long Island Sound and transportation. When not reporting, he’s always on the lookout for the perfect coffee shop or used book sale.
The Westport I grew up in didn’t celebrate wealth. We celebrated individuality and by extension differences in point of view, artistic achievement, and the removal of the barriers to success for the little guy.
I’m sorry, but this whole offsite housing idea goes against our principles, you know, sending the poor people to Norwalk as somehow counting as affordable units in a new development.
It is true, however, issues like this can pull in nuanced reasoning: for instance the state mandates that tend to obstruct property rights, which by the way is the foundation of our nation.
But in this case, because of our abundance of obnoxious rich people moving into town lately, I would tend to want to make them have poor as dirt neighbors— right next door.
This is a classic case of overcompensation for an unrelated problem, and in such cases it is always best to revert to first principles—the principal here is that Westport should bend backwards to be welcoming to all, even if it goes against my libertarian instincts—because Westport is more of a Utopia by its nature and setting, whereas making the poor people move somewhere else would be dystopian.
Allowing developers to maximize profits on new projects while stuffing affordable units in less desirable projects misses the whole point of affordable housing requirements.