By Ken Valenti

WESTPORT–The Planning and Zoning Commission moved closer last night to deciding on a proposed text amendment that would allow a developer to create the required affordable units required for his project off site.
The proposal – text amendment 864 – centers on The Gables, a development at 785 Post Road East, which was approved for three affordable units. Richard Redniss, of Redniss and Mead land-use consultants in Stamford, has proposed an alternate plan to create one townhouse on the site as affordable housing, but then create five units for special needs residents in a house at 3 George Street, possibly with a qualified caretaker in an apartment over the garage.
The townhouse would be managed by Homes with Hope. Abilis, an organization that serves children and adults with developmental disabilities, would take over the George Street house.
Chairman Paul Lebowitz said in the virtual meeting last night that he had long been against off-site affordable housing unless it would benefit the town.
“But this is moving the needle,” he said. “I hear a lot of benefits to the town and not a lot of downside.”
In response to concerns about setting a precedent, Redniss explained that the text amendment was worded to limit similar requests and preserve the commission’s discretion in approving them.
The rule, for instance, could limit the number of qualifying projects by exempting any development that has already received its final Zoning Certificate of Compliance (ZCC). That would leave only two qualifying projects – at 785 and 1620 Post Road East, he said.
Commissioner Patrizia Zucaro urged caution in the ultimate wording.
“I think we need some time to work through the language,” she said. “No matter what you do, it’s going to be difficult not to set a precedent.”
As part of the plan, Redniss proposed removing a state criteria limiting developmental disability services to those with IQs below 70. The move would switch to a federal definition of developmental disability in place of the state’s, broadening the pool of individuals who could qualify.
Commissioner John Bolton argued that the commission members should not make rulings on medical issues beyond their expertise.
“You’re tampering with something we really have no business playing with,” Bolton said.
Another proposal on the table would convert an office space over the commercial space facing the road to two residential units – a request that received support from Commissioners.
The discussion filled the vast majority of the four-and-a-half hour hour meeting on Zoom, at the end of which the commissioners agreed to continue the discussion in a work session at its Feb. 23 meeting.

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.


It’s my understanding that 3 George Street is an illegal 2 family residence.
I appreciate the great care the commissioners are taking here. Avoiding setting precedent is everything; thanks to state regulation, developers already have a lot of power with which to bully municipalities.
I’ll just keep stating this again and again….. wake up folks….. locating off site affordable units does NOT create new units, it takes existing old housing stock and places a deed restriction on the site. Therefore your gross gain of units on paper may be ONE unit but your actual net gain is ZERO units.
That is not the same as constructing new units in a new housing development project ! You are simply taking existing housing units in old homes, adding a deed restriction, while patting yourselves on the back for creating new units.
This is deliberate, delusional and disingenuous, all while throwing hissy fits over 8-30g.
Do you now understand why 8-30g was enacted in 1989? Because affluent communities run by both Democrats and Republicans, refused to provide affordable housing.
This is a deliberate misrepresentation to the community; stating publicly you support affordable housing but then failing to pass meaningful regulations to support your position.
If I were on the P&Z, I’d ask P&Z staff to contact every town in Fairfield County to determine how they are handling this issue.
I am fairly certain off site units are not permitted in Fairfield, Wilton and Ridgefield.
How much time does this P&Z Board need to debate such a mundane issue?
Thankfully taxpayers are not paying P&Z members for their time because I think many residents who understand the nuances of this issue would demand their money back.
Vote this issue down and move onto to other important issues.
~ Joseph Vallone, A.I.A.