By Gretchen Webster
After a lengthy and contentious discussion on a zoning amendment that would allow developers to use off-site housing units to meet state affordability requirements, the Planning and Zoning Commission postponed a vote on the amendment for another month.
The affordable housing text amendment 852 was proposed by the developers of the Gables of Westport, a 14-unit luxury apartment development at 785 Post Road East. The amendment would allow the developers to establish two / three affordable housing units to be managed by the non-profit organization Homes with Hope in an undisclosed residential location in town.
The Gables property is located in an Inclusionary Housing Zone (IHZ) which is an overlay zone increasing the allowable density of housing within the zone, Planning and Zoning Chairman Paul Lebowitz explained after the meeting. The purpose of the zone is to increase the diversity of housing choices and includes affordability restrictions, he said.
Discussion continued to July 28
The P&Z was deeply divided on whether to approve the amendment proposed by Richard Redniss for developer Ryan Moran, an amendment that has come before the commission twice before and held over for more discussion and a vote. The vote on the proposed amendment was moved to July 28 because the P&Z’s July agendas are full of meetings on the proposed Hamlet development plan for Saugatuck.
Several commission members, including John Bolton and Michael Calise, thought that allowing a developer to use off-site housing units was giving developers free rein to meet requirements, while others, led by Neil Cohn, thought the regulation change would help Homes with Hope aid more residents who cannot afford homes in Westport.
“I have a real problem with everything about this … I hate offsite affordable housing,” said Bolton. “They weaponized something to make some kind of a point. If this commission was to approve something like this then we have created a template allowing a developer to get his obligation for affordable housing approved. I don’t like it.”
Cohn, favoring the amendment change, said, “It’s about doing the right thing to have truly affordable housing. I believe [affordable housing] enriches our town by enabling a greater diversity of people to live here.”
The other commissioners were caught between favoring more chances to provide affordable housing stock in town, and allowing developers to take what they perceived as an easier way to meet state regulations by keeping affordable units out of their developments, allowing them to sell all on-site units at market price.
“I don’t like off-site affordable housing,” Lebowitz said. “This is a really good proposal. It gives Homes for Hope a terrific opportunity. But there are more benefits to the applicant and to Homes with Hope than there is to the town.”
Homes with Hope in support
Helen McAlinden, the president and CEO of Homes with Hope, was asked to speak to the commission by Cohn.
“This amendment would allow people with limited income to get affordable housing,” she said. “We have 380 people on a wait list for deeply affordable housing.”
She said that even so-called “affordable” housing in Westport is beyond the reach of too many area residents. The off-site units proposed by the developer, she said, would be partially subsidized by Homes with Hope, allowing for lower rents.
“Naturally affordable” units are demoed weekly
Redniss cited statistics that said that what he called “naturally occurring affordable housing,” such as smaller homes built in the 1950s and 1960s were being demolished in Westport at an alarming rate. The numbers of houses being demolished to make room for larger, more expensive homes works out “to over one demolition a week,” he said, and there is no way to protect the older, more affordable housing stock in town.
“Taking existing units and fixing them up … and having Homes with Hope manage them is vastly superior and a completely different level of management,” Redniss said.
At the end of the meeting, the P&Z attempted to modify the wording of the proposed amendment to satisfy some of the commission members who were on the fence about voting to approve it.
However, because of the late hour and differences of opinion, the commissioners decided instead to postpone their vote on the amendment until their July 28 meeting.
The Gables (who names these developments? – Gables? Hamlet? Can we call one The Shire, next?) have fourteen new units. So the natural place for the developer to provide affordable housing is right there. Isn’t much of the point of 8-30g to spread out affordable units rather than dumping them somewhere else?
While Mr Redniss’s point about the demolition of “naturally occurring affordable housing” is both true and a favorite local topic of mine, it is, within the context of this discussion, beside the point. As a practical (rather than legal) matter, what Westport lacks is “starter homes” that would benefit young professionals looking to begin to raise families. That is not what Homes with Hope is about.
Finally, I think Homes with Hope should be careful about doing the bidding for property developers. Basically, guilting P&Z into letting a developer off the hook for providing /some/ affordable housing in a new development, allowing them to sell/rent all at a market rate, and allowing them to refab an older property to rent at an affordable rate. It’s great for the developer’s bottom line more than anything else.
I’m curious as to the waitlist of 380 people. Are they local? Are those people seeking affordable housing throughout Fairfield County? Just looking for context on the number.
I attended this meeting until the bitter end, when tempers flared and exhausted Commissioners were unable to resolve their differences.
The resolution of the controversy now lies at the feet of Commissioner Patrizia Zuccaro, whose even-tempered demeanor may determine the fate of this new regulation.
She observed that she is not in favor of text amendments or off-site affordable housing but was somewhat swayed by the voracious pleas of Commissioner Cohn, the unrelenting narrative of attorney Redniss, and the altruistic mission of Homes with Hope.
But this “tool in the toolbox” is not altruism. It is not an overall benefit to the Westport community. It is yet another exploitation of the PZC and of an admirable nonprofit to give developers a way out of complying with what they deem an annoying town regulation.
Don’t do it.
If altruism is the objective, let developers donate their skills and money freely to Homes with Hope rather than weaponizing a charitable organization and exploiting the emotions of our elected officials.
In Governor Lamont’s veto of HB 5002, local governments just ducked a very close attempt to remove local control over affordable housing decisions. Now our town is willing to cede that control by considering yet ANOTHER bad text amendment.
Don’t give developers another opportunity to stand before you and arrogantly declare: “We fully comply with YOUR regulation” when that regulation is a very bad one, written by those very same applicants. We have seen this movie before in the ongoing Hamlet saga, starring the attorney who largely authored text amendment #819.
Every day perfectly available affordable homes are torn down to make way for $3-, $4-, and $5-million homes of anywhere from 3,000-5,000 square feet. Property owners have an unassailable right to monetize their property in this favorable sellers’ market. But why give commercial developers another way to avoid putting affordable homes in their high-priced multifamily developments?
The existing regulation is clean and simple. The proposed text amendment #852 is convoluted with loophole after loophole It is written NOT for the single small project now before the PZC, but as an evergreen avenue to avoid onsite affordable homes forever, for this and hundreds of new developments we don’t yet know about.
Westport needs all manner of affordable homes – for those who work in our town offices, schools, police and fire departments. For those whose misfortune prevent them from being able to buy here. For those who are trying to age in place in the town in which they have lived for decades.
Westport is a wealthy town. There are bountiful means for altruism in Westport. There are an untapped number of ways the fortunate can help the unfortunate. This text amendment is not one of them.
I’m having trouble understanding why this proposal is controversial. It seems to me that if the goal is more affordable housing, whether it’s on site or off makes little difference.
The only negative I can see is that the proposal creates a separation and emphasizes a distinction between affordable and market rate housing which is less socially desirable than it would be to integrate the two.
Here we go again…another affordable housing text amendment designed to put the required on-site affordable units “somewhere else”. In this case, the plan appears to shift the affordable units over to the Hiawatha neighborhood.
Developers and their advisors are using every possible angle (like exploiting Homes with Hope as a cover) to sell more units at market rates. Westport gains nothing and likely will lose even more when the state dings us for not achieving our required moratorium points.
Our elected leaders should work to ensure that affordable units remain on site as the letter and spirit of the law requires, not enable other to evade those standards in he name of adding a “tool” to the developers ‘ toolbox.
Affordable housing issues in Westport are complicated – divided across multiple agencies, non profits, and commissions. The last thing Westport needs is another layer of regulation that only developers are equipped to follow. PZ Commissioners Bolton, Lebowitz and Calise, who opposed Amendment 852 deserve our thanks and support on this issue; I urge all of the Commissioners to join them.
For the life of me I cannot imagine why the PZ would pass this amendment and cede, what control they have left, once these developers are done threatening 8-30g as an alternative. I must thank the commissioners who appear to be a hard NO on this.
I would think it far better to see our elected Commissioners be able to draw from their experience and direct traffic on this issue, every time.
The only thing I might agree with Redniss on, is that we will never get to 10% affordable, but the reason for that is quite simply the allowances given post 2016, to these developers, because anywhere they can cite, “it’s in the amendment, or zone allows it”
They do just that.
Those allowances all benefit the developers and their profit.
Here is an example of quite likely one of the only responsible builds in 10 years.
BEDFORD SQUARE.
24 units
4 affordable onsite.
Since then for the most part most developments have looked for offsite.
MILL
31 units – some 2 bed, some 3 bed
Instead of any onsite ( would have been 7)
Developer was allowed buy a town owned property on Riverside avenue for 500k- half its worth, and turn it into a 5 modest units. – aided by an amendment Redniss brought to the PZ which passed.
Savings to developer at least 7 million.
BANKSIDE
12 units
2 should have been onsite
Instead a very modest house on church lane was used to create 2 affordable housing units.
Savings to developer at least $5-7 million
GABLES( not built yet)
Promised 3 units onsite , likely to sway commissioners to allow far more than the zone regulations permit.
Then cloak and dagger. they now want to throw them offsite. How convenient.
So they have crafted an amendment, which if passed allows this. And folks, this will affect many many many more applications. For example whatever is planned where the Humane Society is, since there’s already according to redniss a developer contracted to purchase it.
They use “homes with hope” to sell their idea to the commission.
The usual codology, by using “disabled”, “special needs” “homeless”, they hope people will shut up and waive the regs.
Gables would be let put 2/3 units offsite, in a house I believe is #26 Davenport Drive, in the Haiwatha neighborhood, so it is already affordable.
$1 million – and developer saves at a minimum 4 million.
Redniss stated this is private enterprise helping affordable housing.
IT IS NOT !
it is developers using all the fruits the cudgel of affordable housing 8-30g policy brings, yet, wanting to shirk on the affordable part by throwing it up somewhere else, in this case on the other side of town.
Their justification that we get the same moratorium points.
But what they don’t say is their profit goes up by millions. And we the town lose 2 affordable units in the process.
While I appreciate those existing units do not count towards points. They are nonetheless part of our affordable stock.
If a resident were to buy that home, sure they can put a McMansion on it, but that is highly unlikely in said neighborhood and it is a self serving and grasping at straws justification by Redniss.
Affordable housing should be “onsite”.
If the Commission wants to negotiate offsite, that is their right, but they do not have to.
This amendment brings us a step closer to it no longer being up to the Commissiob.
Why is this EVER a good idea.
We see what the Hamlet text amendment has brought. A disaster.
And the answer to every grievance- it’s in the zone because of the amendment.
I would suggest affordable housing onsite, if commission wants to then allow it offsite, it should not be replacing already affordable housing, in an affordable housing neighborhood, and it should be a dollar for dollar exercise, not a units for units or points for points.
If 10 units onsite are worth 2 million each. And the developer is permitted to move them offsite then they should spend 20 million on alternative equivalent offsite.
There should be no financial extra benefit to the developer to put them offsite.
If there is a financial benefit they will continue to request offsite. And it will continue to be a practice of finding the cheapest homes they can find as replacements for onsite.
This amendment is a disaster ! As was the last one in 2020 brought by Redniss, which passed.
It will come back to haunt us.
Next, town owned properties- owned by you and I, should never be given to developers to use as their affordable for other developments.
Why would the residents of Westport want to do that- EVER.
I am a huge fan of Homes with hope, but in this case they are just plain wrong.
I was thrilled that they have received almost 11 million in grants over the past few years and I think their work is a beautiful thing.
But we need all sorts of affordable housing.
From 40% to 60% to 80%.
3 onsite units even if one or 2 are at 80% instead of 60% are far far preferable to 2 far more modest ones offsite, which are replacing already affordable.
Deeded for 40 years is fine. Again a lot can happen in 40 years.
Redniss is looking to help his client, I understand that is his job, and boy was it evident that he is good at sales.
I cannot imagine for the life of me why any commissioner would want to hand those reigns over to developers.
Thank you.
Affordable housing is confusing.
I support it, amongst many reasons because I know the teachers, fire fighters and police officers who work for our town, especially, starting out, cannot afford it.
Mr. Redniss appears more confused than myself.
Mr. Redniss Seems to think the private sector developer is doing us all a favor !
Mr. Redniss is mistaken.
Where construction is concerned of these “developments” especially the ones outside of zoning ( which is almost if not all) there is no confusion. I am not confused, and Mr. Redniss is certainly not confused.
Contractor comes along with a plan.
Their goal is offsite housing, no matter what, but preferably at a cost saving, and they pay Redniss to do their bidding.
Whether it’s amendment changes or negotiating,
Mr. Redniss job is to make his contractor happy.
But anything Mr. Redniss does to make the contractor happy means, passing text amendments etc.. so his contractor no longer has to negotiate affordable housing with our PZ.
This is the big kicker.
ONSITE affordable housing is the states preference.
Units are identical down to the fit and finish and access to the amenities.
OFFSITE is governed by our town, to the huge advantage of the developer. The MO is pretty much if it has running water and a kitchen and bathroom, it is acceptable.
So if I was on the waiting list for affordable housing, I’d be praying for onsite governed by the state.
Certainly not offsite -be happy with the crumbs you get thrown.
Homeless housing is NOT affordable housing !!!! If it were, affordable housing might have qualified for 11 million in grants.
This is most important to digest !
We have people /residents from all walks of life who for whatever reason are on that list for affordable, not homeless housing.
And I’m going to advocate for them ! If there’s a choice between an offsite 1900 barely renovated dump ( which passes mind you town inspection) and an onsite brand new, efficient( think new long lots school) with a pool thrown in as an amenity, I’m voting for the onsite unit.
We must not forget that homes with hope is NOT, the only act in town !
We have many many residents in need of houses, apts, studios, young and older.
If we can provide them with the same “luxury” digs then let’s do it and be proud.
Homes with hope was the proud recipient of 11 million in grant money over 3 years, and as a town and state tax payer, I am proud to say that my taxes went to a very worthy cause.
Bottom line, we must address affordable housing and it cannot all be about homes with hope ! Fact !
I do not appreciate Commissioner Cohn calling on Helen in an attempt to make other commissioners feel bad.
In fact I object to it.
It is not ok.
This was a DIRECT attempt to FORCE other commissioners hands, and not once, but several times.
If Commissioner Cohn feels so strongly about Homes with hope, then he should join their board, but quite frankly I care about our teachers, our firefighters and our police force.
I note several members of that board are on the towns affordable housing board which I feel after this Redniss amendment is a direct conflict of interest.
We have glendinning, , hamlet( tbd) and humane society coming up !!!!
I believe some or all of these will benefit from this text amendment.
Finally, we have several elected officials living in affordable housing.
One on the post road, in district 5, and one on church lane, in district 9.
Perhaps they would like to weigh in on offsite vs onsite.
Either way Mr Redniss is not a friend of affordable housing onsite.