By Kerri Williams
WESTPORT – A text amendment that would allow developers to build affordable housing units off site is back before the Planning and Zoning Commission again Monday, promising to bring some pushback from residents.
Text Amendment 855, submitted by Richard Redniss on behalf of the developer of the 13-unit Gables project at 785 Post Road East, has been on the P&Z agenda since October but has so far been continued without testimony. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the idea during its meeting Monday, Dec. 8.
A different request from Redniss on behalf of the same developer, which was later withdrawn, was the subject of contentious debate in June.
In October, Redniss said the latest proposal gives developers and town planners an additional option when assessing projects.
But 11 residents have written letters asking the commission to deny the latest proposed amendment, with many saying it would allow developers to place affordable housing away from their upscale developments in less desirable locations in town.
“…When we designate certain buildings or blocks as ‘affordable,’ we’re creating a second class of citizens. Schoolchildren always know where the ‘poor kids’ live. Let’s not do that,” said Stacy Prince, of Little Lane, in her letter to the commission.
The proposed change would allow some, or all, of the required 20 percent affordable housing units at the Gables property to be created off site, or in a different location if given the go ahead by the commission. The P&Z would have to determine whether the affordable units would be “superior” to on-site units by looking at certain criteria, which includes location, amenities, and the number of people served.
But resident Toni Simonetti sees the proposal as a “loophole” for developers. “For many, many reasons, I object to the text amendment clearing the way for rampant ‘offsite’ affordable housing,” she wrote. She went on to say that such a practice would segregate the “haves from the have nots.”
Dara Lamb, of Sea Spray Road, pointed out in her letter that the developer of the Gables knew about the town’s 20 percent affordable housing requirement before beginning their project.
“Allowing them to devise a scheme to skirt them now sets a terrible precedent not just for the affordable requirement but would potentially encourage delayed and/or non-compliance with any zoning rule now in effect,” she wrote.
Kerri Williams
Kerri Williams is an award-winning writer and journalist. She has worked as a reporter at the Norwalk Hour, as Living editor at the Darien News-Review, and managing editor for the Norwalk Citizen-News. For Westport Journal, she is a reporter as well as a gardening columnist, writing “Cultivating with Kerri.” She recently published her first children’s book – “Mabel’s Big Move,” based on her daughter with special needs.
If interested in learning about the Westport success stories and the opportunities for more tune into the Pzc hearing tomorrow night.
I’ve seen the few examples to which Mr. Redniss refers. A couple of self-described “successes” are not reason enough to make a wholesale change in how the town’s planning and zoning officials manage housing developments.
In no way should the Planning and Zoning Commission institutionalize a loophole that allows offsite options for affordable housing requirements.
Mr. Redniss and his fellow developers can always do these good deeds for vulnerable populations without question, and with plenty of gratitude from all of us. But is it a good deed when done in exchange for lucrative business transaction?
To use self -described good deeds as a way out of complying with regulations is unseemly. Further, it is the “tug at heart strings” he employs that is especially maddening.
The current regulations are clear: you must include affordable homes in new housing developments. Only by preserving this requirement do we have the slightest chance of achieving some parity in housing stock.
We need more affordable homes in Westport. The average cost of a home here continues to rise beyond $2 million, and headlines of a $54 million transaction make breathless headlines. Just peruse this news site’s weekly property sales report.
And let good deeds be just that.
I recently spent a fair amount of time analyzing a potential multi-family housing site in Ridgefield and at the time, (although I suspect nothing has changed) their zoning regulations prohibited the relocation of affordable units off site. I can’t speak about other Towns but perhaps P&Z should have staff do some research.
Reason being in Ridgefield; their prudent sensibility. Most Town Planners recognize that affordable units created off the site of a proposed new development, are units probably already renting at affordable rates, yet not deed restricted. Therefore, buying an old home and deed restricting the rental rates is not creating new units that would effectively ease our housing crisis. This process adds zero new units to the Town.
When I hear local developers pushing this issue, I hear nothing more than double talk. This is blatant discrimination and potential ammunition for a law suit from the ACLU.
Buying existing tired old units and claiming you are helping our Town solve our housing crisis is factually false, ethically misguided and should be rejected by all of our Planning and Zoning Board members. Developers are not building ground up new units of equal value off site, they are deed restricting existing old units already functioning in the community.
Why would or should this Town refuse to follow the spirit of the law and actually attempt to create new affordable units?
The only legitimate way to add affordable units to this Town’s list (to be counted towards our required 10%) is to mandate the construction of affordable units within the developer’s project.
As a point of information; when a developer elects to recognize the moral obligation (often skirted as enforcement is difficult) of the Fair Housing Act, affordability becomes more nuanced and complicated.
All developers are obligated to follow the Fair Housing Act which, aside from the obvious anti-discrimination regulations, (race, religion, etc.) it dives deeper into respecting a tenant’s dignity.
For example; affordable units are not permitted to be designated as the worst apartments within the building, the units the developer believes will be the most difficult to rent at market rate.
The affordable units must be scattered throughout the building, on all floors, not located on the basement level or the units with poor views, or clustered in the least desireable part of the building.
Also, the affordable units must be accessed through the same front door, have the same interior finishes, equal access to parking and to all the building’s amenities.
As an architect and an affordable housing developer with over (40) years in the industry, just hearing my Town is considering permitting offsite affordable housing units, simply makes my head want to explode.
Come on P&Z members, you can do better than that, vote this issue down, forever !
~ Joseph Vallone, A.I.A.
Amen!
Mr Vallone, I’m curious as to what passes for “fair” in your lexicon. According to you it is not fair for the individual paying way less than another to not get the prime units in a development. So the shlub paying market rates should get the basement apartments with no view? There is so much wrong with these twisted leftist views it is hard to know where to start. But let’s just start with that concept. Perhaps you know the term cui bene (who benefits) which certainly comes to mind when developers with financial interests promote such projects in town. The aforementioned market rate tenant certainly does not benefit, so who does?
Sharon Wylie with this amendment the affordable housing unit seeking folks will just be offered housing that is already somewhat affordable. The developers of 830-G developments have already skirted all local zoning allowing them to build many multiple units of what would be allowed otherwise. They are in fact given a gift. If they can’t make it work financially with mandated affordable on site affordable units as a quid pro quo arrangement then perhaps they are in the wrong business. They can always build luxury developments following our zoning laws. They do have a choice.
Renters of complexes that include fair minded affordable units can simply choose to rent or not rent lower level or suboptimal view units. It’s their choice.
Do you ask your fellow travelers what they have paid for their airline seat in the same class on the same plane? Many have paid wildly different prices for the exact same thing. We have all been “shlebs” at one time or another- it is not the end of the world. We survive….and arguably prosper. In this case potentially having our teachers, firemen, police men and local shopkeepers and service personnel able to live in the same halls as other more fortunately paid professionals is something we should all advocate for instead of feeling taken advantage of.
Your rambling comment misses the point, to say the least. Perhaps you have read recently about Instacart charging wildly different prices for the same item or Uber doing the same. People are justifiably outraged. For some reason, people on the left seem to believe that when it comes to housing, one should accept such disparity with alacrity and goodwill. In fact, it is not fair that people should expect to live in the same building with all amenities and luxurious appointments being exactly the same without paying for it. Airline ticket prices certainly do not affect people like the money they must spend every month for their residence. Having said that, as a Flight Attendant for 48 years, I have always been struck by the entitled attitude of the passengers on the Super Saver ticket who also thought that their seat and meal choice should be on par with the full fare passenger. Obnoxious expectations in all cases.