Chip Stephens: Why I Voted No

In the wake of Thursday night’s 6-1 vote by the Planning & Zoning Commission defeating a text amendment that would have permitted development of senior housing on the Baron’s South property, Chip Stephens sent this statement to all Westporters:

As chair of the Planning & Zoning, I owe you my explanation of our decision on text amendment 677.

Let me address 3 points that drove me to my position. There were more, but these were the biggest issues in my decision: fairness, density and open space.

Chip Stephens

Chip Stephens

Fairness. 20% is the bare minimum affordability required of most projects, mandated by state statute. It is the minimum that also entails fairness of the affordable units, so they are not clustered by themselves, and match the same quality and size as other units.

This idea was dismissed in the original sub-text. It showed that affordable units would be limited to 1 bedroom, not necessarily the same size and type. It was later withdrawn due to concerns of the commissioners.

It was obvious from the start that the project planners were trying for the very minimum affordability offering they could get away with, in order to satisfy the developer’s “needs.”

Then we were told there would be a second tier of “moderate” affordable units (20%, with the possibility of being raised to 25%). This level may be moderate to some, but in reality was out of reach for many Westporters of that certain age. Believe it or not, not all have $1 million or more left in home equity or resources when they reach the qualifying age. Add to this the true price of market-driven units (the new 60 %).

Also, the affordability of the nursing or memory units was not addressed. Both of those units were guaranteed to be very profitable and very pricey, but merited very little discussion in the proposal (understandably so, to sell this project).

My  biggest problem regarding fairness was that we were told to “believe” that well-deserving Westporters would be the first and only to qualify for these subsidized units. What is a “deserving” Westporter ? Who decides this? On what basis?

Is it a lifelong resident? A resident of less than, say, 5 years? One who rented, or was on subsidized housing, or just summered in Westport and spent the balance of the time in Florida?

Is it a paid elected official? A non-paid elected official? A Little League coach, teacher, artistic contributor or longtime charitable volunteer ?

Chip Stephens wonders who would determine which "deserving" Westporters would be able to live at the Baron's South housing complex.

Chip Stephens wonders who would determine which “deserving” Westporters would be able to live at the Baron’s South housing complex.

Would there be a point system of lifelong taxes paid, of public and charitable activity, or would it just be whoever was the longest on the list of those wishing this type of housing?

Who would make that decision, and who makes the rules of what is right and fair? Would these decisions and rules be challenged by social advocates, using laws that “protect” the poor, religious rights, or race and nationality? This is a very slippery slope I believe we would face with such an exclusionary policy, whether state and federal funds were involved or not.  There is no certain promise or guarantee of such a “deserving Westport” — only entitlement.

Density. Regulations that set a cap on multifamily housing units to limit density were enacted by prior commissions. That cap is close to being reached. With hundreds of units being considered and on the drawing boards, we better be thinking about what kind of density we envision here in the next 3-5 years.

Do we accept the eventual morphing of Westport into a community like many Westchester County neighbors?  The recent downtown planning survey showed very strong agreement that residents appreciate the character and rural nature of the town today — not of the town of the 1950s, ’60s or ’70s. When we envision hundreds of new multifamily units, how will that impact our resources, taxes, schools and infrastructure?

Yes, the sub-text proposed said that raising this cap would apply to this one “issue” (though it did open the door to at least 13 qualifying locations). Nothing we face at P and Z is one-off. Just look at the issue of preservation of historic houses, or listen to developers use previous “one-offs” to justify their proposals.  This is a discussion which we all face now. It will intensify over the coming months.

Chip Stephens worries about other proposals for multifamily housing that are in the pipeline.

Chip Stephens worries about other proposals for multifamily housing that are in the pipeline.

Open space. Westport open space, both public and private, is a finite resource. Once developed, open space is unlikely to revert back. Robert Moses tried to run multi-lane highways through Central Park in the ’60s. If not for the efforts of those looking to maintain New York’s open space as a sacred cow, today’s city would be much different.

Our beaches, open spaces and parks are not out of the reach of development. Such use has been discussed beyond just this project. Some people want more athletic fields, new art venues, new community center space, more affordable housing. All are very well-intentioned, laudable goals.  But there is only so much free space left in this town. When it is gone, it is gone.

We need to balance our goals, expectations and well-intentioned wants with the realities of limited space, our fragile watershed, etc. Our predecessors on earlier P&Z Commissions, along with others, worked long hours and gave great thought to the regulations that make Westport what it is today.

As your  current commissioners, we are the guardians of those rules. Of course, we are open to all who look to alter those rules to fit their intentions, whether socially or financially driven. It is our mandate to fairly consider all that comes before us. But it is our responsibility to judge in the spirit of  yesterday’s lessons, today’s opinions, and tomorrow’s inheritance of the legacy we leave behind.

The Planning & Zoning Commission must consider many different  -- and often competing -- "town character" interests when interpreting existing regulations, and crafting  new ones. Chip

The Planning & Zoning Commission must consider many different — and often competing — “town character” interests when interpreting existing regulations, and crafting new ones.

In conclusion: Remember, there still stands a regulation allowing a project of the Baron South type. That has not changed.

To those who are passionate and committed to this: The door is not shut. To all who that came and spoke both for and against; to those who worked hard over the past years on this effort, and to those who agree or disagree with our decision:  We gave it our best. We gave it an abundance of our time and thought. We gave all their chance to speak and their voices heard. We did what we saw as right, affirming Westport’s regulations and character.

We stand on our decision. I hope this helps you understand it.

 

12 responses to “Chip Stephens: Why I Voted No

  1. Well said. Good vote, Chip.
    🙂

  2. Michael Calise

    Many Thanks too the entire commission for their dedication and spirit, we are truly fortunate to be so well served

  3. Great summary Chip. While I commend and respect the hard work and commitment of the Baron’s South Committee, P&Z made the right decision.

  4. Ann Marie Flynn

    Thank you for being such a good Chairman….it’s appreciated by all.

  5. Athena Ploumis bradley

    Well done Mr., Chip Stephens . You clearly put much though ,research and effort into this pitch perfect presentation.
    Thank You !

  6. Chip’s first point is one that has bothered me immensely, and I’m glad it’s being addressed here. We’ve all heard stories of how New York co-op boards arbitrarily decide who’s worthy of admission, and we don’t want to set up a system here that could evolve in that direction, however well-intentioned.

    I believe we should be using strict economic criteria for admission, however the tiers are structured, with a wait list based on first come, first served. Westport has always welcomed newcomers, and we should continue to do so.

  7. Thank You Mr. Chip Stevens for your service to the residents of Westport. We are all better off with people such as yourself serving our town.
    Well done!

  8. Westport seems to be behind in the idea of social housing.

  9. In so expressing his thinking, Chip Stephens reminds us all of the thoughtfulness that he brings to his task. In addition to that thoughtfulness and his decision making, Chip’s conduct of all of the meetings on this matter is also deserving of our appreciation. He continues to grow in his role as Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Statesmanslike may be a bit strong for some, but it is the word that first comes to me.
    Don Bergmann

  10. Chip. Thanks for sharing your thoughts behind your decision. It gives us all an understanding of how you looked at this project. As one who stood up years ago to ask questions about some of the issues you raised it does question how the original amendment was passed. It would be good to hear from those on the RTM who voted to go forward. It is also refreshing to have an elected official share their true thinking. Whether I agree or not it gives us an insight as we read your well thought out reasons.

  11. The camera can even be wireless, in this case the camera transmits a signal with a receiver that is certainly connected to the DVR or VCR.
    One from the main benefits of IP CCTV is how the images could be accessed from any browser anywhere
    inside world if the person or users contain the log in details for the system.
    Cctv dvr d1 The 8900 4 and 8 channel DVR is expandable up
    to 1TB the 16 channel is expandable around
    6TB.

    CCTV system should simply be part of your integrated approach that considers all aspects in the security problems being
    experienced. This technology is quite exceptional because footages are just recorded
    when motion triggers the DVR system.