Category Archives: Categories

Affordable housing.

Everyone’s talking about it.

But what exactly is it?

It’s complicated.

One person who does understand affordable housing — its definitions, regulations, ambiguities and nuances — is Michelle Perillie.

The other day I headed to Town Hall, for a tutorial from the town’s Planning & Zoning director. Here’s what I learned.

Any discussion of affordable housing starts in Connecticut with “8-30g.” If less than 10% of a town’s housing stock is classified as affordable, it can be subject to 8-30g.

The statute allows developers to build housing that otherwise might be denied by munipal zoning regulations, unless there is a “significant” health or safety concern.

One of Westport’s newest 8-30g projects — 122 Wilton Road, at Kings Highway North — opened last fall. All 19 units are deemed affordable.

Towns can apply for moratoriums — usually 4 years — if they add a certain number of units, showing significant progress to their stock.

Moratoriums are awarded on a points system. Different points are given for different types of units, at different income levels. There is a difference too between points for government funded projects, and those that are simply deed restricted.

While some cities and larger communities have met the 10% goal, most smaller towns have not.

Westport had a moratorium from March 5, 2019 through March 4, 2023.

Affordable housing is generally defined as costing no more than 30% of a household’s income, at 80% of the area median income, and is deed restricted to remain affordable for a specific period of time.

However, only housing built after 1990 — when 8-30g took effect — is considered, when making affordable housing calculations. That means certain units do not count.

Westport currently has 424 units designated as affordable housing. That’s 3.97% of our 10,567 dwelling units (2020 census).

8-30g requires calculations for affordable income and housing costs be based on whichever is lower: the state median income, or area media income. Here, the state median income of $124,600 is lower, so that is what’s used.

There’s a complex formula, involving studio, or 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units, along with units rented at 40%, 60% or 80% of maximum monthly housing costs.

The lowest unit — a studio at 40% of maximum monthly housing costs — would be $697 a month. The most expensive — a 3-bedroom at 80% — would rent for $2,217.

Maximum family income allowable would be $34,888 for a single person at 40% of state median income. The highest income to qualify would be 6 people at 80%: $115,629.

Which brings us back to dwelling units in Westport.

Nearly 90 units qualify under 8-30 because they are government funded. The biggest is Canal Park near Kings Highway North, with 50 units.

Canal Park offers affordable housing for seniors, near downtown.

There are 17 units on Wassell Lane, 8 overseen by Homes with Hope on Saugatuck Avenue, 6 in CLASP homes at 4 sites, and others scattered throughout town.

Many more units are deed restricted. There are 93 units at Hidden Brook and Sasco Creek Village on Post Road East, near Stop & Shop; 78 at Hales Court; 29 at 1177 Post Road East, opposite Greens Farms Elementary School, 19 at the new 122 Wilton Road building, and others on Post Road East, Riverside Aveneu, West End Avenue, Cross Street, Bradley Lane, Belden Place, Oakview Lane, Crescent Park, Myrtle Avenue and Church Lane.

The 6 units at Susie’s House — the former Project Return home for young women on Compo Road North, now run by Homes with Hope — are also deed restricted.

Susie’s House, on Compo Road North, welcomed its first residents in April.

There are 2 units that might not be expected, on Crooked Mile Lane and Cross Highway. Both were formerly illegal accessory apartments that have been converted to affordable housing units.

Certain units that seem affordable do not count, however, for technical reasons. Among them: 36 units at The Saugatuck, on Bridge Street.

Westport is adding points toward its next moratorium, with 4 projects approved, and under construction. There are 78 affordable units on Hiawatha Lane Extension, 22 at 85 Post Road West, 3 at 785 Post Road East, and 2 at 259 Riverside Avenue.

Construction on Post Road West will include affordable units.

Another 6 units have been approved, but are not yet under construction, on Ketchum Street and at 1620 Post Road East.

Westport is addressing its affordable housing neds in many ways. The 2017 Plan of Conservation and Development recommends steps like:

• Supporting and encouraging the Westport Housing Authority in their efforts.
• Considerng ways of integrating affordable and workforce housing in future projects.
• Supporting and encouraging non-profit organizations — for example, Homes with Hope and CLASP — that help address housing needs.

The 2022-2027 Affordable Housing Plan also outlines many ways Westport can work toward creating more diverse housing.

Over many previous years, the Planning & Zoning Commission has adopted regulations to promote a variety of housing choice and opportunities, while striving to maintain the scale and integrity of the town that attracted residents here.

The diversity of housing types includes accessory apartments within single-family homes, and as separate buildings; apartments in areas like the Post Road, Saugatuck and downtown; supportive housing; group homes for seniors and youth, and cluster housing.

Some have already been built.  Some are under construction, or in planning stages.

All will continue to be discussed, as part of Westport’s ongoing discussion of the complex, confusing — but very important — topic of affordable housing.

(“06880” reports often on housing, local politics and more. If you appreciate our 24/7/365 hyper-local coverage, please click here to support our work. Thank you!)

In 1951, Lillian Vernon started a small mail order company at her kitchen table.

Her son, Fred Hochberg. eventaully took over. As president and COO, he transformed it into what Forbes calls “one of the great success stories of American entrepreneurship.”

Hochberg oversaw a near 40-fold increase in annual revenue, from $5 million in 1975 to almost $200 million 18 years later.

He’s also been acting administrator of the Small Business Administration, and chair and president of the Export-Import Bank.

Hochberg wrote a book: “Trade is Not a Four-Letter Word.” And he served as co-chair of the Human Rights Campaign, America’s largest LGBTQ civil rights advocacy organization, as well as on the Democratic National Committee.

With one foot firmly planted in the business world, and the other in Democratic politics, Hochberg can speak to multiple audiences, from a variety of perspectives.

He’ll do that here, on July 10. That evening, he’ll join Steve Parrish in conversation at the Westport Library’s Common Ground Initative. Hochberg will focus on global trade policy, including President Trump’s tariff strategy and other current events.

Steve Parrish (left) and Fred Hochberg.

The Common Ground Initative is the Library’s forum for public discourse on topical issues. The goal is for positive, production discussions on how to move forward as a civil society, and tackle challenging issues.

Parrish — a longtime Westporter, who as senior vice president of global corporate affairs at Altria Group helped engineer the landmark legislation granting the Food & Drug Administration regulatory authority over the tobacco industry — has known Hochberg for many years.

They met while working on Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign. When Hochberg was dean of the Milano School of International Affairs at the New School, he asked Parrish to teach there. And they served together on the Export-Import Bank.

Hochberg “brings tremendous experience” to the Common Ground event, Parrish says. “He’ll do a great job explaining how global trade works, and the impact of trade policy on big and small businesses.”

There will be a lot to talk about. July 9 — the day before Hochberg comes to Westport — is the date that nations without a bilateral accord in place will face Trump’s high “Liberation Day” tariffs.

“Fred is a centrist Democrat,” Parrish says. “He’s always been very aware of the importance of working with the other side of the aisle.

“He has the perspective of traditional Republican support for business. He’ll talk about how the landscape is changing — Republicans are now less for free trade, Democrats for more — and what it all means.”

Hochberg will share perspectives from his government, business and academic experience — and look to the future.

Westporters of all political stripes want to understand more about the complexities and nuances of global trade — including tariffs — Parrish says.

“Fred is very engaging and charming — and very smart,” he adds. “This will be a good one.”

(For more information on the free Common Ground event, and to register, click here.)

(“06880” is where Westport meets the world — trade policy and all. If you like learning about connections — and events — like this, please click here to support our work. Thank you!)

A downed line around Myrtle Avenue has knocked out power to part of downtown.

First responders are dealing with other emergencies as well.

Hang tight, and avoid the area!

Sandra Rose has lived in Westport for 5 years. Her 3 children attend Westport Public Schools. She is a member of the Long Lots PTA, and has closely followed the Long Lots reconstruction project since its inception. Sandra is also part of “Parents for a New LLS.” 

Westport’s Planning & Zoning Commission is weighing the approval of an 8-24 application that would allow construction of a new Long Lots Elementary School, and the relocation of Stepping Stones Preschool.

This isn’t just a vote about land use — it’s a decision about what kind of town we want to be.

The P&Z votes tomorrow (Monday). In that vote, the Commission has an opportunity — and a responsibility — to invest in our future.

After all, this isn’t just about a building. It’s about over 600 elementary school students who are learning every day in a facility that is outdated, overcrowded, and falling short of modern safety standards.

It’s about teachers and staff trying to do their jobs in a space that was not built for the needs of today’s learners.

The original Long Lots Junior High was build in the mid-1950s.

It’s also about our youngest residents, as the plan includes a new home for the cherished Stepping Stones preschool.

If the P&Z does not issue a positive report on the 8-24 application tomorrow, Westport risks missing the state’s critical filing deadline. That could mean forfeiting eligibility for state reimbursement — funds that would significantly ease the financial burden on local taxpayers — or worse, delaying the entire project until 2027. That’s not just a missed deadline; it’s a missed opportunity for every child currently enrolled, and for the many more who will follow.

Unfortunately, at least one vocal opponent has already threatened to invoke a town charter provision that allows just 20 electors (or 2 RTM members) to appeal key land use decisions to the full RTM.

That’s not a democratic groundswell — it’s a stall tactic. Another way this essential project could be held hostage by a small but vocal minority, at the expense of Westport’s children — and our taxpayers.

We cannot allow that to happen.

Opponents have called the proposed new school design a “Taj Mahal,” a “gilded cage,” even a “resort.” But those labels mischaracterize what’s truly at stake.

Rendering of the new Long Lots Elementary School.

We are not building a monument — we are building a school. A modern, functional, state-of-the-art school that will serve more than 600 Westport children and future generations to come — one that finally meets updated educational and safety standards, from secure entrances and emergency systems to infrastructure that’s built for sustainability and resilience.

The new design also thoughtfully allows for greater community access during off-hours by enabling sections of the school to be closed off securely, making the property more welcoming and usable beyond the school day.

Some opponents have gone even further, targeting members of the Long Lots School Building Committee — a group of volunteers who have donated countless hours of their time, knowledge and energy to a process that’s been transparent, deliberate, and community-focused.

Instead of appreciation they have faced repeated personal attacks, with some critics accusing the committee of misleading the public, or worse, deliberately lying.

Long Lots School Building Committee meeting. (Photo/Toni Simonetti)

It’s difficult to identify the true source of this disdain, but it often feels less rooted in fact than in a broad, reflexive opposition to our first selectwoman and anything connected to her office. Personal politics aside, that kind of cynicism helps no one — least of all our children.

It’s no secret that much of the opposition has come from members and supporters of the Westport Community Gardens, frustrated that the proposed plan displaces the garden’s current location.

Yes, this project impacts the Westport Community Gardens — a space that holds meaning and memories for many. As someone who values what the gardens represent, I don’t take this lightly. I take no joy in seeing them move.

But we must be honest: It is no longer feasible for the gardens to remain on the Long Lots site. The educational and safety needs of the new school make that impossible.

Aerial view of Long Lots School and (left) the former Community Gardens.

It’s time to respectfully close that chapter and begin a new one — a community-driven process to find a more permanent, equitable home for the gardens. One with room to grow and thrive long into the future.

This does not have to be a zero-sum choice. We can honor what the gardens have given our community while giving our students and teachers the facilities they need — safe, welcoming, and designed for 21st-century learning. We can come together and reimagine what the gardens could be — not diminished, but renewed.

Let’s seize the chance to expand access to a larger, more inclusive, more permanent community garden — one that serves not just 100 families, but many more. Let’s invest in it together, just as we’re investing in our public schools.

But first, we must act on what’s urgent: building the school. The focus now must be on approving the 8-24 application. Once that’s done and the project is underway, we can turn our full attention to planning a new, improved home for the gardens.

Let’s not pit green space against education — but let’s also be clear: the needs of our children must come first. That means building the school now, and working together to create an even better home for the gardens next.

If you share this vision for Westport’s future, please take a moment to email the Planning & Zoning Commission at pandz@westportct.gov, and urge them to issue a positive report on the updated Long Lots School 8-24 application tomorrow.

Our children, our gardens, and our community will benefit from your support.

(“06880″‘s Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com)

“06880” intern Katherine Phelps reports:

The development team behind The Hamlet at Saugatuck returned again last night to the Planning & Zoning Commission.

Once again, they presented a revised proposal, intended to address concerns raised during earlier public hearings.

More than 90 people attended the Zoom meeting, which lasted over 3 1/2 hours.

The ROAN Ventures team showed updates to the plan. Commissioners offered measured feedback, and residents continued to question the retail/residential/ hotel/marina project’s scale, traffic impact and long-term implications.

One of the biggest changes is the removal of the previously proposed tunnel under Railroad Place. Project architect Joe Barbagallo noted that the design now complies with setback rules.

The “J Building” is rotated 45 degrees on the site, while the “Barn Building” is cut back on its west side, creating a 40-foot buffer from the property line.

The waterfront area also underwent changes. The development team reduced the building’s massing, and adjusted architectural details to preserve view corridors and improve public gathering spaces.

Engineer Andy Soumelidis said the revised “Residential D” building now sits behind the required 10-foot border. He also highlighted an upgraded stormwater management system that captures 1.3 inches of runoff, exceeding Westport’s minimum standard.

Urban planner Marina Khoury outlined operational improvements, including package delivery rooms, garbage pickup routes, and 2 separate loading docks — one serving the Barn, another near the waterfront. She referenced similar design principles used in projects like Friday Harbor in Ontario and The Wharf in Washington, emphasizing walkability and loading efficiency.

Commissioners offered varied reactions. Chair Paul Lebowitz called the increased setbacks “a big improvement,” but expressed concern over the loss of buildings on Railroad Place. He said he wishesd the changes had been presented earlier. 

Michael Calise challenged claims that traffic near Franklin Street improves under the new plan. He noted that the team provided no data to support that assumption, and continued to question their traffic projections.

Patrizia Zucaro asked whether parking has changed — it has not — and whether a management company will coordinate deliveries. ROAN replied that on-site property managers and valet operators will handle logistics.

Commissioners questioned whether or not that can truly be enforced. 

Public comments reflected continued division as well.

Attorney Joel Green, representing the Westport Alliance for Saugatuck, said that no updated documents have been formally submitted and that the public still lacks a clear understanding of the final proposal.

Residents Linda Prestegaard and Carole Reichhelm voiced concerns about parking, especially for employees.

Michele Pickett questioned the loading zones, and asked how events with over 300 attendees might be handled during rush hour.

Dara Lamb asked for a scale model or elevation views, to visualize how the riverfront will look from different vantage points.

Chris Tait, a Representative Town Meeting member whose district includes Saugatuck, asked whether a traffic study will be available before the June 16 meeting.

Kevin McGrath and other residents acknowledged that while no development is perfect, the developers are making an effort to engage with the community, and incorporate feedback.

Commissioner Amy Wistreich closed the meeting by saying she will not vote on the project without seeing complete documents, including traffic, safety and stormwater reports.

ROAN said they expect all materials to be submitted by early tomorrow (Wednesday), at the latest. 

The next P&Z hearing is scheduled for June 11. A possible vote is now expected on June 16.

This story is not a judgment on the selection of Staples High School’s new head football coach.

It reveals, however, important information about the processes by which coaches are evaluated, judged, renewed, not renewed and promoted – and the testimony that the Board of Education, acting May 12 on an appeal of non-renewal by Staples boys soccer head coach Russell Oost-Lievense, heard.

Or did not hear.

This story is based on reporting from witnesses, who requested anonymity to discuss private meetings.

At the May 12 hearing for coach Russ Oost-Lievense’s appeal of his non-renewal, his attorney had this exchange with Staples athletic director VJ Sarullo during her cross-examination of him:

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Have other coaches or students come to you with report of coaches using profanity with student-athletes?

ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: Are you talking about my 2 years here at Staples?

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Yes.

ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: No.

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: No student has ever come to you and made reports of coaches using harsh language?

ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: Not that I can recall.

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: No student has ever come to you and said that a coach has been bullying other players?

ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: No.

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: That’s never happened to you?

ATHLETIC DIRECTOR SARULLO: No.

According to multiple people at a meeting with Sarullo a little over a month earlier, the athletic director was not telling the truth — particularly with the last two answers.

Athletic director VJ Sarullo (center), at this month’s appeal hearing. He is flanked by Staples principal Stafford Thomas, and superintendent of schools Thomas Scarice.

A little over a month before this hearing — on March 25 — a group met to discuss candidates for Staples’ open head football coach position. The meeting included current Staples coaches, Staples Gridiron Club representatives, Staples administrators (including athletic director Sarullo and principal Stafford Thomas), and the captains of the 2024 Staples football team.

The meeting enabled various groups of stakeholders to discuss the 3 final candidates for the position.

At this meeting, the 2024 Staples football captains expressed great concerns about one candidate, an assistant coach on the Staples football staff since 2019. Their concerns related to numerous instances of bullying by the assistant coach, directed at players.

Examples raised by the captains at the March 25 meeting included film sessions that were so intense and humiliating to players that they were brought to tears. A few even considered quitting the team.

Principal Thomas expressed shock, as he had not heard those allegations before. Other people in the meeting were similarly stunned.

Sarullo was not surprised, however. He had heard the allegations numerous times since joining the school in the spring of 2023, from community members.

In fact, Sarullo had not only been informed of the coach’s bullying behavior by students; the previous head coach had also told the athletic director of unacceptable behavior by the assistant.

In both 2023 and ’24, the previous head coach had asked Sarullo to help him discipline the assistant coach, because the head coach believed the assistant had violated rules meant to protect players’ safety.

Instances such as these may be the reason why this assistant coach could not obtain a reference letter from his head coach of the previous 4 years, when applying for the head coaching position in 2025.

Enough concern was expressed during that March 25 meeting that some in the group felt it would be inappropriate for the assistant coach to be promoted to head coach.

Some in the meeting even raised the Staples soccer coaches’ situation, saying it would not be right to promote this assistant, while the soccer coaches were being treated differently.

Sarullo responded to the concerns by announcing that he would have a private meeting with the assistant coach on March 31.

None of this apparently mattered to administrators. On April 2, Sarullo named the assistant football coach as the new head football coach at Staples High School.

This “06880” post is not about whether the assistant is the proper choice for head coach. He has many supporters in town.

It is instead about the “arbitrary and capricious” nature of coaching renewals, non-renewals and promotions — the standard by which the Board of Education was asked to consider Oost-Lievense’s appeal.

The assistant football coach was accused multiple times of numerous instances of bullying students, but he was not non-renewed. Instead, he was promoted.

Oost-Lievense, by contrast, witnessed a single incident of an assistant coach losing his temper with a player. He put an immediate stop to it, told the assistant coach the behavior was unacceptable and could never be repeated again. It was not. The assistant coach apologized to the entire team for his outburst.

The non-renewal of one coach over an “incident” he was not personally involved in, while promoting an assistant coach accused of directly engaging in worse behavior than what the other coach merely observed (and handled), seems to be the very definition of “arbitrary and capricious.”

The Board of Education never heard about the assistant football coach, however. Sarullo (according to those at the meeting with him) did not give truthful testimony when asked whether any students had ever told him that “a coach has been bullying other players.”

Then, when Oost-Lievense’s attorney tried to ask principal Thomas about the bullying allegations raised at the same meeting — which Thomas attended — the superintendent of schools’ attorney objected.

The Board’s attorney sustained the objection, and refused to let Oost-Lievense’s attorney ask Thomas those questions. (See transcript below.*)

Board of Education members made their decision to affirm the non-renewal of Oost-Lievense’s contract based on the evidence their lawyer had allowed them to see.

They had to rule on whether the superintendent’s decision had been “arbitrary and capricious.”

Perhaps though, the failure of 5 members of the board to insist on seeing all the evidence — on May 12 and today — is the most arbitrary and capricious development yet, in this long, sad affair.

==================================================

*Transcript:

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Do you recall that students have come to you and expressed concern that one of the football coaches [Attorney Mooney interrupts: I have an objection] is bullying players so severely [Attorney Mooney interrupts again: I object] that they have been driven to tears?

ATTORNEY MOONEY: This is outrageous. To bring another coach into the situation. There are no facts… [rest of his statement is unclear]

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Well, to be clear, it is directly relevant if one coach has been promoted even after complaints of bullying and violating school policies.

ATTORNEY MOONEY: We are not here to try the fate of another coach. This is highly inappropriate…[next portion is difficult to hear], and irresponsible.

MEDIATOR DORSEY: It is all those things. We are not trying another coach here. We are trying this particular coach.

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: And it goes directly to the question of whether the decision not to renew this coach was arbitrary and capricious [Mediator Dorsey interrupts: No it doesn’t] when other coaches who have been accused of far worse conduct have been promoted.

MEDIATOR DORSEY: No it doesn’t because you don’t have what the other coach … and the board doesn’t have what the other coach did. We’re not here to try another coach.

ATTORNE FRANKLIN: We would have had some of that had my witnesses and evidence not been excluded.

MEDIATOR DORSEY: Well, you’re not going to ask that question so, move on.

ATTORNEY FRANKLIN: Well, I will just say to the board that the fact that there’s evidence which was excluded proving that other coaches have been [Attorney Mooney again interrupts: I object] treated differently from these coaches [Mediator Dorsey interrupts: Objection is sustained] is highly relevant.

BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER ROBERT HARRINGTON: I would be concerned if coaches are treated differently by the administration, as a board member, for sure.

MEDIATOR DORSEY: That’s not here, an issue here either.

BOARD MEMBER HARRINGTON: Well, I’m a board member and it’s an issue for me.

MEDIATOR DORSEY: Well, well that’s fine.