As Westport debates the Hamlet at Saugatuck proposal — and with it, related issues like affordable housing, density and more — Marti Lametta checks in from neighboring Fairfield.
Both towns have a “community feel,” she says. She has been a member of Christ & Holy Trinity Church for 0ver 40 years. She works in Westport, as director of operations for Keller Williams. Marti writes:
I have not heard anyone argue against adding affordable housing — not one person.
I do hear people wanting real solutions to meet the needs of low/moderate income residents, but developers’ proposals are not doing that.
Luxury apartment developments are solving the developers’ needs for high profits, with little relief towards the desperately needed worker housing. As in trickle-down economics, the money stays at the top, while the less profitable issues are not addressed.
Like Westport, Fairfield has changed its zoning regulations at developers’ requests. Multiple impactful developments have been approved by our Town Plan and Zoning (TPZ) Commission, a body that continues to ignore sensible alternatives and residents’ concerns.
441 Post Road in Fairfield, presently the Circle Inn and Diner, is a 6-acre site that backs on a tidal salt marsh. Zoning regulations been have changed for the site, as requested by the developer, and 2 different options have been approved by the commission in record time.
Fairfield’s published zoning regulations allowed for a hotel with 90 rooms. Those regulations have been changed, with the approval of the first application.
The first approved application is for a 278-unit apartment block surrounding a 6-story parking garage, plus a new 110-room hotel with the existing diner remaining.
One proposal for 441 Post Road, Fairfield.
The second approved application is for 2 massive apartment blocks that are 6 stories tall with 478 apartments (it’s under the 8-30g law, so 140 apartments are affordable according to state standards), and a 7-story garage with parking for 687 cars.
This development would be twice the size of Bridgeport Hospital (even the first application was larger than the hospital). Traffic would exit into the circle that contains the McDonalds, with its already dangerous F-rated and congested traffic patterns.
The site backs onto Turney Creek, into which the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the town are allowing stormwater from the site to be piped. Ecosystems will be forever destroyed.
Second Fairfield proposal, near the McDonald’s traffic circle.
We have banded together as the Fairfield Circle Neighbors for Responsible Development, and said we’ve had enough!
We are appealing these TPZ approvals, with Joel Green as our attorney, in Bridgeport Superior Court. Through fliers, newsletters, social media and personal networks we are working to spread awareness of the projects, and raise funds to cover the costs of the appeals process.
At some point we need to all stand up and say that this cannot continue. If Westport residents have the same concerns that we have in Fairfield, please “say no to more out-sized development,” and file the appeals.
I hear the argument that appeals are a waste of time. The argument is not a good one. I work in Westport, and most days go home through Saugatuck. Need I say more?
Stand up and fight back! If you want to follow us along the way, click here to sign up for our newsletter. I hope your Planning & Zoning commissioners listen your concerns.
(“06880″‘s Opinion pages are open to all. Email 06880blog@gmail.com with submissions.)
=================================================
Meanwhile, in another Fairfield County town, CT Mirror reports:
“In a victory for advocates of Connecticut’s affordable housing law, a Superior Court judge last week ruled that the New Canaan Planning & Zoning Commission improperly denied a proposal to build a 102-unit apartment complex that included 31 affordable units.
“The 98-page decision refuted concerns commonly raised by opponents of such developments and emphasized that all towns bear some responsibility for meeting housing needs in the state.
“The ruling, issued in Superior Court in Hartford, says that the planning and zoning commission must approve the construction after the developer makes a couple of minor tweaks to the proposal to build on Weed Street in New Canaan.
“The property is in a residential neighborhood, less than half a mile from the New Canaan train station. It previously had a 10,000-square-foot single-family home and separate pool house, which have been demolished. The current property owner first applied in 2022 to change the zoning and build apartments and made several adjustments to the plan. It was denied in November 2022.
“The developer contested the denial under a Connecticut affordable housing law commonly known by its statutory name — 8-30g. That law allows developers whose affordable housing proposals are denied to sue and force local officials to prove that they declined the proposal for health or safety reasons.
“Towns are exempt from the law if at least 10% of their housing is designated affordable, and they can apply for temporary reprieves as they make progress toward that goal.”
Madness ‼️
These massive housing developments are just too big! The developers need to be pushed to propose reasonable solutions.
Perhaps this is naive, but could a not for profit organization work with the town and local residents and communities to identify properties to purchase at market or below market (or as charitable donations from private individuals) and develop small scale affordable housing across the town? Part of the problem with 8-30(g) seems to be developers who want to maximize their own profits and who have no interest in preserving the character of our town. Also, the more market price housing the put in as part of these developments the harder it seems for u to meet the states mandated affordable housing targets. Rather than Westport residents spending $$$ on lawyers and other experts to fight these developments, could we be less reactive and more proactive and fund a non profit to do this work? Is there a reason this wouldn’t work?
I would imagine the primary issue is money. Land in Westport is rather expensive and with zoning mandating large parcels that helps keep it that way. In the good old days, when land was cheap, someone could build a small house on a one or two acre lot. A builder can’t make money doing that anymore given the cost of land.
That’s why all the tear downs are replaced with giant houses while the demographic of those that can afford those houses seems to be what the what Westport wants to attract notwithstanding the gnashing of teeth about the destruction of town character. Obviously, McMansions don’t help on the affordability front.
The alternative to McMansions from a profit perspective is density which Westport zoning does not, for the most part, allow. The only way to get around that is 8-30g or a settlement with the P&Z under threat of something worse under 8-30g.
I agree you are going down the right track though. A non-profit doesn’t have the same motivations. However, to be sustainable, they can’t just throw money away building small houses on large expensive lots. They, too, would need relief from Westport’s restrictive zoning. They, ultimately, need to build things like the apartment building on Rt 33. So everyone would fight them too.
And, of course, there is the question of money to even start acquiring land.
Arguably, this really is a government thing. The town of Westport owns a lot of land that could certainly be developed for affordable housing which would make the financial burden considerably lower. Baron’s South, Winslow Park, the various underused pocket parks around town. Imagine the public outcry if anyone tried that.
The town could certainly buy more land (e.g., buy out ROAN in the case of the Hamlet) but, of course, that will raise taxes which no one seems to want either. And there remains the density issue which is the only way to achieve the 10% target. Really is a conundrum.
Attorney Weisman’s suggestion might work on new private delevopments if the process can be started early rather than an eleventh hour Hail Mary after fighting them for a year or two.
But all of these things fly in the face of “maintaining the town’s character” as increased density is the only real solution.
The other alternative would be for someone to challenge the constitutionality of 8-30g. If someone could figure out how to get it into federal (rather than state) court, given the current make-up of the Supreme Court, I would imagine there is a decent chance of having it tossed.
Petitions don’t do anything. The legislation isn’t going to change. Joel will fight, but eventually lose. The only recourse is for each town to meet the 10% requirement, that’s where these town’s should focus their resources. Only then will the madness stop.
Fairfield has been hammered by 8-30g approvals in the past year – Beach Road, Greenfield Hill, Reef Road is pending but will be approved. And while I’m sure many Westporters read this post as “sucks for them” – be aware that in the past month, Fairfield has been granted a 4 Year Moratorium until June 2029 – so all developers will now be focused on their cousin to the West.
David is absolutely correct. Petitions mean nothing. Connecticut has no referendum, so it doesn’t matter how many people believe what: don’t forget, state pols went silent when Lamont vetoed HB7004 in 2023. And look at us in Westport and Fairfield, our own state reps vote against us and we re-elect them. There’s no getting around it, until people start naming and shaming Connecticut Reps that keep this 8-30g fiasco alive, it’s their own fault their towns and neighborhoods are being destroyed.
I think most people are more fearful of it happening than have actually experienced exactly how it goes down. The not affordable housing, the fake environmental regs, all it does is make neighborhoods all white, line the pockets of retired town and state employees, now working for private engineering providing “reports” for permits because they “know what the town/DEEP likes,” lining developer pockets, and most importantly, lining the pockets of the equity funds funding the development and the garbage non-profits that fund the political campaigns and those sweet, sweet speaking fees.
Vote for someone else, literally anyone else, or you are full of malarkey about being against 8-30g.
I name and shame Senator Tony Hwang, Rep Christine McCarthy-Vahey, Rep Jennifer Leeper and Rep Sarah Keith. If you voted for any of them, please don’t belabor us with your alligator tears over 8-30g. It is directly your fault. Own it.
Thank you.
8-30g is undefeated.
The Hiawatha community accomplished more than most, and even the Town was helpful, but fast forward to today and guess what’s being built.
You can choose the litigious path, there are always attorneys ready to take your money. But at the end of the process, you’ve only delayed the inevitable.
Westport is 600 units away from shutting this down, and nothing would be more apropos than an OG rebellious artsy community to win the war over predatory development.
Even when these inevitable 8-30g projects are approved, only 30% is required to be affordable. So while the numerator shrinks, the denominator grows.
Come by and see what 8-30g is all about.
20 condos proposed, with two old homes to be destroyed. End Result: Two historic homes saved and five $2.2 million homes built. All part of our Gorham settlement. All blessed by the 8-30g judge. If towns fight, they can get negotiated settlements they can live with.
John,
You won a battle but lost the war. Yes the historic designation was a creative idea and took neighborhood unification. Not an option for the hamlet and just about every other space in town.
And when I drive down your road tonight, it became McMansion central. Zero character.
You send false hope to those eventually losing the battle after a ton and of legal fees. Not helpful.
The lack of fight from the last few P&Zs has been very sad to watch and it has emboldened the extortionists.
And the cost to the town and the neighbors to fight the Gorham debacle wasn’t actually that high. Certainly well worth it.
And the section of Gorham nearest Main Street is very well protected from the glut of McMansions thanks to our historic district.
David, all the houses in the district have remained intact and keeping with the spirit of the Gorham Historic District. All those West of Evergreen to Main Street.