By Kerri Williams
WESTPORT – The Planning and Zoning Commission deliberated about a text amendment on Monday that would allow for off-site affordable housing for the nonprofit Homes with Hope in an existing two-family house in a residential area of town.
The home would serve as two units of affordable housing, replacing the earlier proposed three units of onsite housing at The Gables of Westport, the new 14-unit luxury housing development at 785 Post Road East.
Richard Redniss, of Redniss & Mead, a Stamford land use firm, has requested that the commission adopt text amendment 852, which would allow for offsite affordable housing at most future developments at the discretion of the commission, based on a list of standards for review.
According to Redniss, the proposed housing by developer Ryan Moran checks off many of the boxes of those standards. It would
- serve more people than the onsite housing it would replace,
- be in a residential neighborhood, and
- be more affordable (with a $1,869 rent cap for a family of four).
An “affordability comparison” of the onsite and offsite options was shared at the meeting.
Homes with Hope
One key provision of the proposed amendment is that the zoning commissioner consider “non-profit involvement.” In this discussion, that means Homes with Hope.
According to Helen McAlinden, president and CEO of the non-profit, Homes with Hope helps people afford “workforce housing.” “Many of the people we serve work in Westport. They no longer need to travel a long time in a car or a bus to work.”
McAlinden said the mission of the organization has changed dramatically since she began working there in 2019. Then, Homes with Hope served mostly the “chronically homeless.”
In comments to Westport Journal after the Monday meeting, McAlinden said “Now, 85% of our clients are preventative.
“We can’t get housing for the people we serve,” McAlinden told commissioners. “My ask is that you consider this request. Come see our sites and how well we keep them.”
P&Z Chairman Paul Lebowitz said he “loves to see” McAlinden at meetings because she is “helping out a part of the population who needs it the most.”
Some pushback
But committee member Michael Calise said he was concerned that the two-family house is inherently already a form of affordable housing. By officially providing affordable housing there, the commission would be “destroying what already exists.” he said.
Redniss and some members of the board argued that the house, which is on the market for $1 million, could be torn down by a buyer to create a much more expensive building, thereby taking away any affordability.
“We need to protect it as affordable housing,” Redniss said. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Redniss asked to keep the address of the house out of the public record so that “negative consequences” do not occur, such as neighbors working to prevent the housing.
However, Commissioner John Bolton said he thought that the commission should release the address, otherwise members are “not being transparent.”
Lebowitz said that the specific address is not necessary for commissioners to make an informed decision.
Members voted to continue the hearing at the commission’s June 30 meeting.
SOME PUSHBACK ?
There should be unanimous pushback and a call for accountability.. by all PZ members, not hiding transparency or bullying like with commissioner Calise stance on Hamlet.
what is going on here ?
Why is Michael Calise the only commissioner who is calling this out ?
This is a contractor play to circumvent 8-30g with threats AND, then Benefit by offsite housing.
The answer should and MUST be a resounding N O. !
This thievery and profiteering by building the affordable aspect offsite is only benefiting the developers/investors.
They often go after already existing affordable housing premises to pay as little as they can, to not have to build, and to provide crappy affordable housing. And it is just that. ! CRAPPY !
The only development in town with proper affordable housing is BEDFORD SQUARE.
The ONLY one. And why ?
Because It is onsite.
So units weren’t shrunk and crap.
But the fashion since then is to buy some affordable house/houses, and throw in grudgingly a few cramped units.
It is NOT OK !
The other commissioners are very well aware of this.
This is shady intolerable behavior.
And just like the Hamlet, it is not ok ! And “we the electorate” has made that clear.IF we end up with an 8-30g in Saugatuck in lieu of Disney world, ( which is way worse) it will be 100000% the fault of those on PZ who negotiated and voted for the text amendment, knowing full well what they were doing.
It is not our job as tax payers to bend over in order to facilitate contractor/investor avarice.
Not PZ job either. That is not why we elect them.
And it is certainly not the job of the chairman of PZ to allow the concealment of addresses which might be effected where affordable offsite housing might be put.
What is wrong with the PZ ?
How ironic, the developer is concerned the neighbors might object to a house beside them being turned into a 12 person, when it should be at the Gables- but the gables would rather stick a pin in their eye than have it there. Who loses ???? Affordable housing already existing and the residents.
Who wins ? Ahhhh the contractor !
Commissioner Bolton also asked that for transparency the address should not be kept a secret.
I’d really like to know what is going on here.
Replacing affordable housing off site with existing affordable housing is only benefiting the contractor and their profit.
It screws over the residents in town.
And what about that pathetic fee..
bottom line the contractor needs to pony up 5 million worth of affordable housing in this case if it is to be offsite( which it should not) probably in some dump.
Help us get to a moratorium by providing us with 5m worth of housing.
Or leave it onsite.
It is a nice warning to these greedy developers.
Use YOUR land to accommodate the affordable onsite. Or do it offsite at a cost of every penny of profit to gain by doing so.
I have enormous respect for Homes with Hope, but they are getting spoon fed a merry yarn here. This is WRONG.
No!! 2 offsite units in what is already an affordable unit is not better than 3 in a development with a pool.
We do not have to ghettoize the affordable housing so developers make more money.
I am so tired of this.
I suggest an END to all affordable housing “offsite”.
No more replacing existing affordable housing with new affordable housing.
We need more not less.