Analysis of Affordable Housing in Westport.

Transcription

66
An Analysis of Affordable Housing in Westport
Along with a handful of municipalities, Westport has the dubious distinction of having one of
the least affordable and least diverse housing markets in Connecticut. Over decades the Town
has failed to address these problems save for a handful of modest, carefully calibrated steps,
while substantive opportunities to create affordable housing have been rejected. It is an
example of what the New York Times has called “The Architecture of Segregation,” a town
that studiously uses its zoning to perpetuate housing segregation. 1
Housing costs in Westport are expensive in the extreme. The median house price in 2013 was
$1,125,000, ranking it fourth most expensive in Connecticut behind only Darien, New Canaan
and Greenwich. 2 Rental housing is nearly non-existent. A mere 14% of Westport's housing
stock is rented, but even this meager amount is illusory. Only 1% of units are in buildings of
10 units or more, meaning the rental inventory is mostly expensive, single family rentals. 3 A
recent search on Craigslist, Apartments.com and Zillow, the three biggest sources of rentals,
showed only eight apartments for rent in Westport, all significantly more expensive than the
corresponding affordable rents under 8-30g.
This out-of-reach-in-the-extreme housing market has several pernicious effects. One is a
near-complete absence of racial diversity. Westport has a population of 26,400 of whom 92%
are white, 4% are Asian, 1% are black and 3% are Hispanic or other. 4 Another is a lack of
economic diversity, with a median family income of $160,000 and only 15% of families
earning under $50,000 per year. 5 A third is a steady decline of young people. A lack of
affordable housing is causing an alarming outflow of Connecticut’s young people, 6 a
phenomenon also occurring in Westport. 7
Selected Westport officials have acknowledged both the pressing need for affordable housing
and the opposition to it. The director of the Westport Housing Authority recently said
“There’s a lack of affordable housing and a lack of affordable senior housing” and “The
reality is, there are not enough units”. 8 In less than a month this past summer, 508 people
applied for three vacancies at Hidden Brook and 300 people applied for 21 new units under
construction at Sasco Creek, both public housing complexes in Westport. 9 “The numbers are
staggering,” the director said. 10 At present, waiting lists are closed for all Westport public
housing. 11 In a 2009 presentation, the First Selectman acknowledged that efforts to construct
affordable housing had raised concerns of “Too much density”, “The fear that this would
1
Editorial page. (2015, September 6). The Architecture of Segregation. The New York Times.
Rating the Towns 2013: Median Home Sale price $300,000 and up (November 2013). Connecticut Magazine.
3
U.S. Census, 2009 – 2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics
4
Demographic and Housing Estimates, Op. Cit.
5
Selected Economic Characteristics, Op. Cit.
6
Gergi, Bassam. (2015, March 25). Rejecting Affordable Housing Speeds Connecticut's Decline. Hartford
Courant.
7
Joseloff, Gordon. (2009, April 14). Presentation at Southwest Regional Plan Association 2009 Housing
Summit at Darien Town Hall, Darien, CT.
8
Lomuscio, James (2015, August 21). Part 5: Senior Housing Needs, Plans and Logjams. Westport Now.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Westport Housing Authority website.
2
67
happened [sic] all over town” and “Proximity to residential areas”, ironic since nearly all of
Westport is residential. 12 He concluded that “The bottom line is people got scared”, a terse
explanation of the town’s longtime aversion to affordable housing. 13
The two most recent Plans of Conservation and Development plainly state the need for
affordable housing. The 1997 Plan, the first issued after the passage of 8-30g, states that
“Affordability of available housing is another important topic of concern” and “There is an
evident need for more affordable housing within Westport”. 14 The 2007 Plan states that
“Housing prices can make it difficult for Westport to attract young adults, young families, or
people who may not be well compensated financially” and lists fully 13 ways to “Promote
affordable housing,” some of which, like “Support legislative efforts to amend CGS 8-30g”,
seem intended to do the opposite. 15
Despite acknowledging the problem, Westport’s response to its intense need for affordable
housing has been limited to a few halting steps. In 1995 Westport had 2.0% affordable
housing. 16 It now has 3.0%, an increase of 112 affordable units in 20 years and a pace at
which it will reach the 10% goal in another 140 years. 17 (Regarding this pace, with no
apparent irony, one of Westport’s state representatives testified that “With our slow but steady
approach it will take us a little while [to reach 10%]…” 18) Furthermore, a majority of the
112 units have come in one particular form, the politically palatable path of reconstructing
existing public housing at higher densities. 19 This approach has obvious limits as Westport
has only a modest stock of public housing. The more controversial approach of building
public housing on a new site has not been undertaken for almost 40 years. 20
Another controversial approach that has also been scrupulously avoided is the enactment of
zoning to enable private construction of affordable housing in any meaningful quantity.
While local officials herald the enactment of inclusionary zoning districts and related
provisions as enlightened progress, even cursory examination shows the provisions form a
Potemkin village of affordability, a welcoming facade covering thinly-disguised hostility.
The maximum overall density in any affordable zone is 8 to 18 units per acre in a town where
raw land costs exceed $1 million per acre, the highest density applying only to extraordinarily
expensive, commercially-zoned parcels along the Post Road, rendering such zoning
12
According to Westport’s 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 87% of Westport’s grand list is
residential property and 13% is commercial.
13
Joseloff, Gordon, op cit.
14
1997 Westport Plan of Conservation and Development, p. 71–72.
15
2007 Westport Plan of Conservation and Development, p. 6-3 – 6-7
16
1995 Affordable Housing Appeal Procedure List
17
2014 Affordable Housing Appeals List
18
Testimony of Rep. Jonathan Steinberg at the public hearing of the Housing Committee, Connecticut General
Assembly, to consider amendments to C.G.S. 8-30g. February 5, 2015.
19
The total increase in public housing units through reconstruction was 59 units. A total of 21 new units were
added, from 72 to 93 units, at the combined Hidden Brook/Sasco Creek public housing complex in 2015. 38
units were added at the Hales Court public housing complex, reconstructed from 40 to 78 units in 2011.
20
The last new public housing site was Canal Park, 50 units for seniors and disabled persons, built in 1977.
68
uneconomic. 21 Were that not restrictive enough, onerous parking requirements, coverage
limits and other hindrances make the various affordable zones mostly unusable.
Ultimately, the facts speak for themselves: 25 years after the passage of 8-30g, Westport has
only 20 deed restricted units and has yet to attain even the modest milestone of a first
moratorium under the statute. 22 By contrast, over the same 25 years, highly usable
inclusionary zoning in Stamford – a municipality that has never even been subject to 8-30g –
has produced almost 1,200 deed restricted units. 23 Westport’s affordable zoning provisions
have had their intended effect of allowing only token amounts affordable housing. Since its
enactment in 2001, no project has been constructed under Westport’s first affordable housing
zone for private development, R-AHZ. 24 Only one project has been constructed using a
similar zone, R-AHZ/W, generating four affordable units. 25 R-AHZ/W is further subject to a
cap permitting no more than two R-AHZ/W developments town-wide, and sets a priority for
Westport residents occupying the affordable units. 26 Another district requiring affordable
units, IHZ, was enacted in 2010 and first used in 2015 to approve a project (not yet
constructed) that will have two affordable units on a 2.5 acre site. 27 A local elected official
hailed this project as an exemplary commitment to affordable housing “…in contrast to other
developers in town who wish to exploit the 8-30g law and over denisify [sic] and over
develop our town. Bravo to one, shame on the others.” 28
Recent events confirm the Planning and Zoning Commission’s continued opposition to
affordable housing, even that restricted to seniors. In the 1990’s the Town acquired Barons
South, a 23-acre parcel on the Post Road. A proposal was eventually formulated for 165 units
of mixed affordable, market-rate and assisted senior housing on 3 acres, with the remaining
20 acres set aside as open space; the development would have increased Westport’s affordable
stock by 15%. However, in 2015, after six years of study and public hearings, the P&Z
quashed the proposal by rezoning the entire parcel to open space. Confirming widespread
opposition to affordable housing, the rezoning was upheld on appeal by the elected, 36member RTM. 29
Further confirmation of widespread opposition to affordable housing was the disposition in
2015 of an 8-30g application to construct a 200-unit multifamily building, with 60 affordable
units, on the site of the Westport Inn. The project would have increased Westport’s
21
Testimony of Planning and Zoning Commission member Catherine Walsh at the public hearing of the Housing
Committee, Connecticut General Assembly, to consider amendments to C.G.S. 8-30g, February 5, 2015.
22
2014 Affordable Housing Appeals List
23
Ibid.
24
One parcel was rezoned to R-AHZ, in 2001, a 2.1 acre assemblage on the corner of Wilton Road and Edge Hill
Lane that was never redeveloped. At present it contains only a single family house. Under R-AHZ, the site
allows up to 5 affordable units.
25
Bradley Commons, 20 townhouse units with 4 units affordable at 80% of State Median Income, was
constructed in 2009. R-AHZ/W does not require units affordable at 60% of State Median Income.
26
Section 19A-17 of the Westport zoning contains the cap. Section 19A-16 enumerates the priority system for
Westport residents.
27
Matlow, Dave (2015, January 14). Selectman Clear Way for Geiger’s Redevelopment. Westport Now.
28
Blog post by RTM member Michael Mandell (2015, January 31), Geiger’s Redevelopment: You Can Bank
On It. 06880 Where Westport meets the world.
29
Amato, Anne M. (2015, April 29). RTM upholds open space designation for Baron’s South. Westport News.
69
affordable stock by 20%. However, after much controversy, the application was abruptly
withdrawn when a third party bought the site for $14.5 million. What made this unusual turn
of events even more unusual, however, was that the sale was orchestrated by the joint efforts
of the First Selectman and Chairman of the P&Z, a bizarre and conflicted role for a P&Z
member to play on an application pending before their commission. 30 Evidencing broad
support for this outcome, during an election season debate among P&Z candidates, no one
faulted the Chairman for playing an inappropriate role; rather, one opponent accused him of
taking too much credit for the sale. 31 Another P&Z incumbent running for re-election stated
that “We bought time” for the First Selectman to negotiate a sale by demanding more studies
from the developer. 32
The plain fact is that Westport's entire political leadership is hostile to 8-30g. In an address to
the local Rotary Club, the First Selectman said that the need for senior housing and the fear of
state imposed high density multifamily housing “keep me awake at night,” 33 a
hypersensitivity to 8-30g in a municipality that has had only one such project, with 10 units,
constructed since the law’s passage in 1990. 34 During the 2015 State legislative session,
every leading elected official in Westport either testified in support of amendments to weaken
8-30g or submitted such an amendment. 35 Ignoring the thousands of affordable units built
under 8-30g, the Chair of the RTM’s Planning and Zoning Committee testified:
8-30g is a well intentioned piece of legislation that has been hijacked by lawyers and
developers more interested in lining their own pockets than building the needed
housing the law was meant to create. 36
He also said “The time has come for you to take the sword out of the hands of the greedy”. 37
A State Representative testified that “…developers and attorneys are the only real
beneficiaries of the 8-30g statute” as well as
For example, no matter how hard it tries, no town whose affordable housing stock
today represents 3% of its total housing can reach the 10% threshold overnight. It will
need several years to do so. 38
30
Lomuscio, James (2015, March 5). Westport Inn Sold, 8-30g Housing Threat Gone. Westport Now.
This accusation came in response to the Chairman’s statement during the debate that “…when we’ve looked at
things like the Westport Inn, which I believe this Commission saved from an 8-30g disaster…”. League of
Women Voters Candidates Debate (2015, October 5), Westport Town Hall, video stream available at
http://view.earthchannel.com/PlayerController.aspx?&PGD=westportct&eID=223 beginning at time stamp
1:00:59.
32
Lomuscio, James (2015, October 5). P&Z Candidates Spar in League Debate. Westport Now.
33
Lomuscio, James (2015, June 9). Marpe: Senior Housing Need, Pension Costs Keep Him Awake. Westport
Now.
34
20 Cross Street, 10 units with 3 affordable units, constructed in 2003 pursuant to 8-30g.
35
The Housing Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly held a public hearing in New Haven on
February 5, 2015 to take testimony on amendments to 8-30g. Testimony in support of amendments to weaken 830g was given by Reps. Gail Lavielle and Jonathan Steinberg, Sen. Toni Boucher, RTM member Matthew
Mandel and P&Z member Catherine Walsh. Sen. Tony Hwang, ranking member of the Housing Committee,
sponsored or co-sponsored three bills to weaken 8-30g in the 2015 legislative session.
36
Testimony of Matthew Mandel, op cit.
37
Ibid.
31
70
This testimony obfuscates the plain fact, stated earlier, that Westport has done precious little
in 25 years and will take far longer than “several years” to reach 10%.
In 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a six-bedroom, 7,100 sq. ft. single
family home with a four-car garage on the parcel proposed for the current project. 39 The
approval succinctly encapsulates Westport’s overall housing policy: Single-family gigantism
is encouraged; denser, more modest housing need not apply.
Prepared by Richard K. Freedman
October 25, 2015
38
Testimony of Rep. Gail Lavielle, op. cit.
Resolution #06-037 of the Planning and Zoning Commission, by letter to the applicant dated February 16,
2007.
39
71
9/29/2015
Rating the Towns 2013: Median Home Sale price $300,000 and up Connecticut
72
HOME | SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES | ADVERTISE | MY ACCOUNT | ABOUT US | CONTACT US
All
MAGAZINE FOOD & DRINK ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
HEALTH & WELLNESS TRAVEL COMMUNITY BESTS & TOPS STYLE & SHOPPING
Search
HOME & GARDEN
EDUCATION
CONNECTICUT MAGAZINE / NOVEMBER 2013 / RATING THE TOWNS 2013 / RATING THE TOWNS 2013: MEDIAN HOME SALE PRICE $300,000 AND UP
Rating the Towns 2013: Median Home Sale
price $300,000 and up
Just about every town among those with the highest median property values offers minuscule crime rates,
worldclass public schools and a thriving local economy. Of course, residents of some of these towns pay dearly
for those characteristics. Median property values in four towns (Darien, New Canaan, Greenwich and Westport)
were more than $1 million in the first half of 2013.
Because we're comparing towns with relatively similar median home values this year, we left cost of living out of
the ratings formula. But median home value is supplied in the breakout boxes we've included in print for the top
10 townsand online at connecticutmag.com for every townso it's well worth taking a look at.
Interestingly, though, the most expensive towns didn't fall neatly into the top of our ratings. Ridgefield, which has
the eighthhighest median home value, edged out Darien and New Canaan for the No. 1 spot, thanks to the
lowest crime rate and highest voter turnout in the group.
1. Ridgefield
population 24,885
crime rate 357.1
2012 graduation rate 98.2
2013 median sale price $605,000
equalized mill rate 15.45
PIC rating 141.79
2013 best restaurants awards 4
voter turnout 89.42
photo by MaryHaroldPhotography
2. Darien
3. New Canaan
4. Wilton
population 20,942
population 19,938
population 18,242
crime rate 493.5
crime rate 665.1
crime rate 516.4
2012 graduation rate 97
2013 median sale price $1,325,000
PIC rating 45.14
PIC rating 38.08
PIC rating 129.84
voter turnout 84.17
voter turnout 82.61
voter turnout 85.57
5. Greenwich
6. Weston
7. Westport
http://www.connecticutmag.com/ConnecticutMagazine/November2013/RatingtheTowns2013/MedianHomeSaleprice300000andup/
1/3
9/29/2015
Rating the Towns 2013: Median Home Sale price $300,000 and up Connecticut
5. Greenwich
6. Weston
7. Westport
population 61,782
population 10,281
population 26,656
crime rate 607
crime rate 406.4
crime rate 1219.3
PIC rating 21.74
PIC rating 107.09
PIC rating 64.54
voter turnout 81.93
voter turnout 81.28
voter turnout 81.7
8. Essex
9. Washington
10. Madison
population 6,698
population 3,557
population 18,239
crime rate 452
crime rate 712.4
crime rate 626.8
equalized mill rate 12
PIC rating 162.3
PIC rating 142.4
PIC rating 180.57
voter turnout 83.62
voter turnout 88.35
voter turnout 78.04
73
Click here for the full chart of the 36 towns that make up this category.
Click here for the Rating the Towns 2013 main page.
Rating the Towns 2013: Median Home Sale price $300,000 and up
Reader Comments
0 Comments
 Recommend
1

CT Connecticut Magazine
⤤ Share
Login
Sort by Best
Start the discussion…
Be the first to comment.
WHAT'S THIS?
ALSO ON CT CONNECTICUT MAGAZINE
UConn Professor Seeks Funding for Time
Machine Feasibility Study
Nothing Says ‘Connecticut’ Like Sperry
Topsiders & Safety Pins? 50 Objects …
2 comments • 2 months ago
1 comment • 5 months ago
kmuzu — This is a simple problem to solve. All
Jody Blankenship — The CHS thanks you for
he needs to do is tell his future self who has
invented the time machine to go back in time …
informing your readers about our exciting
"Connecticut: 50 Objects/50 Stories" project …
Restaurant Review: The White Hart Inn,
Salisbury The Connecticut Table May …
in the magazine, will they all appear in the
publication?
food.
Subscribe
d
Add Disqus to your site
Herbie Hasbrouck Jr — Would love to see these
Tommy John Lee — Great people, amazing
✉
Online Exhibition Connecticut
ὑ
Privacy
http://www.connecticutmag.com/ConnecticutMagazine/November2013/RatingtheTowns2013/MedianHomeSaleprice300000andup/
2/3
74
DP04
SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey
website in the Data and Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community
Survey website in the Methodology section.
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population
Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities and towns and
estimates of housing units for states and counties.
Subject
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Total housing units
Occupied housing units
Vacant housing units
Westport town, Fairfield County, Connecticut
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
10,322
9,477
845
+/-267
+/-219
+/-210
10,322
91.8%
8.2%
(X)
+/-1.9
+/-1.9
1.9
0.0
+/-1.2
+/-2.5
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Total housing units
1-unit, detached
1-unit, attached
2 units
3 or 4 units
5 to 9 units
10 to 19 units
20 or more units
Mobile home
Boat, RV, van, etc.
10,322
9,190
407
198
211
162
16
90
48
0
+/-267
+/-270
+/-131
+/-82
+/-88
+/-55
+/-19
+/-57
+/-48
+/-22
10,322
89.0%
3.9%
1.9%
2.0%
1.6%
0.2%
0.9%
0.5%
0.0%
(X)
+/-1.5
+/-1.2
+/-0.8
+/-0.9
+/-0.5
+/-0.2
+/-0.6
+/-0.5
+/-0.3
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Total housing units
Built 2010 or later
Built 2000 to 2009
Built 1990 to 1999
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1940 to 1949
Built 1939 or earlier
10,322
177
968
513
984
1,034
1,781
2,359
580
1,926
+/-267
+/-82
+/-178
+/-116
+/-154
+/-207
+/-261
+/-284
+/-145
+/-220
10,322
1.7%
9.4%
5.0%
9.5%
10.0%
17.3%
22.9%
5.6%
18.7%
(X)
+/-0.8
+/-1.7
+/-1.1
+/-1.5
+/-2.0
+/-2.5
+/-2.7
+/-1.4
+/-2.1
ROOMS
Total housing units
1 room
2 rooms
10,322
21
95
+/-267
+/-19
+/-64
10,322
0.2%
0.9%
(X)
+/-0.2
+/-0.6
Homeowner vacancy rate
Rental vacancy rate
1 of 5
09/29/2015
Subject
3 rooms
4 rooms
5 rooms
6 rooms
7 rooms
8 rooms
9 rooms or more
Median rooms
BEDROOMS
Total housing units
No bedroom
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4 bedrooms
5 or more bedrooms
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
311
+/-96
3.0%
+/-0.9
517
+/-150
5.0%
+/-1.4
852
+/-161
8.3%
+/-1.5
1,108
+/-189
10.7%
+/-1.9
1,430
+/-244
13.9%
+/-2.3
1,414
+/-176
13.7%
+/-1.7
4,574
+/-312
44.3%
+/-2.9
8.1
+/-0.2
(X)
(X)
10,322
42
355
1,479
2,424
3,835
2,187
+/-267
+/-32
+/-91
+/-223
+/-266
+/-303
+/-230
10,322
0.4%
3.4%
14.3%
23.5%
37.2%
21.2%
(X)
+/-0.3
+/-0.9
+/-2.0
+/-2.6
+/-2.9
+/-2.2
9,477
8,179
1,298
+/-219
+/-237
+/-221
9,477
86.3%
13.7%
(X)
+/-2.2
+/-2.2
2.88
2.30
+/-0.07
+/-0.21
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT
Moved in 2010 or later
Moved in 2000 to 2009
Moved in 1969 or earlier
9,477
916
4,155
2,112
960
559
775
+/-219
+/-168
+/-303
+/-243
+/-185
+/-111
+/-148
9,477
9.7%
43.8%
22.3%
10.1%
5.9%
8.2%
(X)
+/-1.7
+/-2.9
+/-2.6
+/-1.9
+/-1.1
+/-1.6
VEHICLES AVAILABLE
No vehicles available
1 vehicle available
2 vehicles available
3 or more vehicles available
9,477
193
2,049
4,679
2,556
+/-219
+/-90
+/-242
+/-286
+/-229
9,477
2.0%
21.6%
49.4%
27.0%
(X)
+/-0.9
+/-2.3
+/-2.9
+/-2.5
HOUSE HEATING FUEL
Utility gas
Bottled, tank, or LP gas
Electricity
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.
Coal or coke
Wood
Solar energy
Other fuel
No fuel used
9,477
1,981
426
665
6,339
0
24
11
5
26
+/-219
+/-248
+/-117
+/-162
+/-259
+/-22
+/-28
+/-17
+/-8
+/-28
9,477
20.9%
4.5%
7.0%
66.9%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
(X)
+/-2.5
+/-1.2
+/-1.7
+/-2.6
+/-0.3
+/-0.3
+/-0.2
+/-0.1
+/-0.3
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
No telephone service available
9,477
118
149
12
+/-219
+/-84
+/-93
+/-18
9,477
1.2%
1.6%
0.1%
(X)
+/-0.9
+/-1.0
+/-0.2
HOUSING TENURE
Owner-occupied
Renter-occupied
Average household size of owner-occupied unit
Average household size of renter-occupied unit
2 of 5
75
09/29/2015
Subject
OCCUPANTS PER ROOM
1.00 or less
1.01 to 1.50
1.51 or more
VALUE
Owner-occupied units
Less than $50,000
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $499,999
$500,000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 or more
Median (dollars)
MORTGAGE STATUS
Owner-occupied units
Housing units with a mortgage
Housing units without a mortgage
SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS (SMOC)
Housing units with a mortgage
Less than $300
$300 to $499
$500 to $699
$700 to $999
$1,000 to $1,499
$1,500 to $1,999
$2,000 or more
Median (dollars)
Housing units without a mortgage
Less than $100
$100 to $199
$200 to $299
$300 to $399
$400 or more
Median (dollars)
SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (SMOCAPI)
Housing units with a mortgage (excluding units where
SMOCAPI cannot be computed)
Less than 20.0 percent
20.0 to 24.9 percent
35.0 percent or more
Not computed
Housing unit without a mortgage (excluding units
where SMOCAPI cannot be computed)
3 of 5
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
9,477
9,460
8
9
+/-219
+/-215
+/-12
+/-15
9,477
99.8%
0.1%
0.1%
(X)
+/-0.2
+/-0.1
+/-0.2
8,179
51
39
32
133
78
401
3,177
4,268
1,000,000+
+/-237
+/-40
+/-27
+/-44
+/-87
+/-43
+/-131
+/-260
+/-298
***
8,179
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
1.6%
1.0%
4.9%
38.8%
52.2%
(X)
(X)
+/-0.5
+/-0.3
+/-0.5
+/-1.1
+/-0.5
+/-1.6
+/-3.0
+/-3.4
(X)
8,179
5,656
2,523
+/-237
+/-275
+/-233
8,179
69.2%
30.8%
(X)
+/-2.7
+/-2.7
5,656
0
0
9
27
115
302
5,203
4,000+
+/-275
+/-22
+/-22
+/-16
+/-30
+/-61
+/-128
+/-287
***
5,656
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.5%
2.0%
5.3%
92.0%
(X)
(X)
+/-0.6
+/-0.6
+/-0.3
+/-0.5
+/-1.1
+/-2.2
+/-2.6
(X)
2,523
0
0
0
0
2,523
1,000+
+/-233
+/-22
+/-22
+/-22
+/-22
+/-233
***
2,523
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
(X)
(X)
+/-1.3
+/-1.3
+/-1.3
+/-1.3
+/-1.3
(X)
5,610
+/-273
5,610
(X)
2,070
797
526
362
1,855
+/-238
+/-152
+/-128
+/-117
+/-291
36.9%
14.2%
9.4%
6.5%
33.1%
+/-4.0
+/-2.8
+/-2.2
+/-2.1
+/-4.6
46
+/-46
(X)
(X)
2,508
+/-232
2,508
(X)
701
415
293
+/-152
+/-112
+/-100
28.0%
16.5%
11.7%
+/-4.9
+/-4.0
+/-3.9
76
09/29/2015
Subject
Not computed
GROSS RENT
Occupied units paying rent
Less than $200
$200 to $299
$300 to $499
$500 to $749
$750 to $999
$1,000 to $1,499
$1,500 or more
Median (dollars)
No rent paid
GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD
INCOME (GRAPI)
Occupied units paying rent (excluding units where
GRAPI cannot be computed)
Not computed
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
261
+/-99
10.4%
+/-3.7
160
+/-67
6.4%
+/-2.6
157
+/-64
6.3%
+/-2.7
521
+/-96
20.8%
+/-4.0
15
+/-16
(X)
(X)
1,213
33
27
34
20
108
307
684
1,800
+/-212
+/-38
+/-24
+/-32
+/-25
+/-88
+/-99
+/-161
+/-369
1,213
2.7%
2.2%
2.8%
1.6%
8.9%
25.3%
56.4%
(X)
(X)
+/-3.2
+/-2.0
+/-2.7
+/-2.1
+/-6.7
+/-7.8
+/-8.4
(X)
85
+/-53
(X)
(X)
1,190
+/-205
1,190
(X)
214
191
98
168
91
428
+/-99
+/-82
+/-48
+/-71
+/-58
+/-129
18.0%
16.1%
8.2%
14.1%
7.6%
36.0%
+/-7.2
+/-6.6
+/-4.1
+/-5.7
+/-4.8
+/-8.2
108
+/-61
(X)
(X)
77
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is
represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted
roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of
error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to
nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these
tables.
The median gross rent excludes no cash renters.
In prior years, the universe included all owner-occupied units with a mortgage. It is now restricted to include only those units where SMOCAPI is
computed, that is, SMOC and household income are valid values.
In prior years, the universe included all owner-occupied units without a mortgage. It is now restricted to include only those units where SMOCAPI is
computed, that is, SMOC and household income are valid values.
In prior years, the universe included all renter-occupied units. It is now restricted to include only those units where GRAPI is computed, that is, gross
rent and household Income are valid values.
Median calculations for base table sourcing VAL, MHC, SMOC, and TAX should exclude zero values.
The 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 plumbing data for Puerto Rico will not be shown. Research indicates that the questions on
plumbing facilities that were introduced in 2008 in the stateside American Community Survey and the 2008 Puerto Rico Community Survey may not
have been appropriate for Puerto Rico.
Telephone service data are not available for certain geographic areas due to problems with data collection. See Errata Note #93 for details.
4 of 5
09/29/2015
While the 2009-2013 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget78
(OMB)
definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in
ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.
Estimates of urban and rural population, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As
a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey
Explanation of Symbols:
1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to
compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.
2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an
estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an
open-ended distribution.
3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.
4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.
5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A
statistical test is not appropriate.
6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of
sample cases is too small.
8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
79
DP05
ACS DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING ESTIMATES
Subject
SEX AND AGE
Total population
Male
Female
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
26,769
13,027
13,742
+/-41
+/-382
+/-387
26,769
48.7%
51.3%
(X)
+/-1.4
+/-1.4
1,443
2,231
2,585
1,930
683
1,026
3,243
5,372
2,073
1,732
2,254
1,624
573
+/-194
+/-295
+/-308
+/-288
+/-142
+/-220
+/-261
+/-331
+/-281
+/-258
+/-228
+/-220
+/-129
5.4%
8.3%
9.7%
7.2%
2.6%
3.8%
12.1%
20.1%
7.7%
6.5%
8.4%
6.1%
2.1%
+/-0.7
+/-1.1
+/-1.2
+/-1.1
+/-0.5
+/-0.8
+/-1.0
+/-1.2
+/-1.0
+/-1.0
+/-0.9
+/-0.8
+/-0.5
45.3
+/-0.6
(X)
(X)
18 years and over
21 years and over
62 years and over
65 years and over
19,136
18,488
5,485
4,451
+/-311
+/-312
+/-331
+/-289
71.5%
69.1%
20.5%
16.6%
+/-1.2
+/-1.2
+/-1.2
+/-1.1
18 years and over
Male
Female
19,136
9,234
9,902
+/-311
+/-294
+/-297
19,136
48.3%
51.7%
(X)
+/-1.3
+/-1.3
65 years and over
Male
Female
4,451
2,164
2,287
+/-289
+/-187
+/-187
4,451
48.6%
51.4%
(X)
+/-2.7
+/-2.7
26,769
+/-41
26,769
(X)
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
Median age (years)
RACE
Total population
1 of 3
09/29/2015
Subject
One race
Two or more races
One race
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Cherokee tribal grouping
Chippewa tribal grouping
Navajo tribal grouping
Sioux tribal grouping
Asian
Asian Indian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Other Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Native Hawaiian
Guamanian or Chamorro
Samoan
Other Pacific Islander
Some other race
Two or more races
White and Black or African American
White and American Indian and Alaska Native
White and Asian
Black or African American and American Indian and
Alaska Native
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
26,198
+/-169
97.9%
+/-0.6
571
+/-166
2.1%
+/-0.6
26,198
24,253
280
20
0
0
0
0
1,323
226
560
149
34
287
7
60
0
0
0
0
0
322
571
81
15
350
0
+/-169
+/-450
+/-119
+/-33
+/-22
+/-22
+/-22
+/-22
+/-260
+/-127
+/-218
+/-108
+/-30
+/-194
+/-11
+/-46
+/-22
+/-22
+/-22
+/-22
+/-22
+/-185
+/-166
+/-63
+/-24
+/-137
+/-22
97.9%
90.6%
1.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
0.8%
2.1%
0.6%
0.1%
1.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
2.1%
0.3%
0.1%
1.3%
0.0%
+/-0.6
+/-1.7
+/-0.4
+/-0.1
+/-0.1
+/-0.1
+/-0.1
+/-0.1
+/-1.0
+/-0.5
+/-0.8
+/-0.4
+/-0.1
+/-0.7
+/-0.1
+/-0.2
+/-0.1
+/-0.1
+/-0.1
+/-0.1
+/-0.1
+/-0.7
+/-0.6
+/-0.2
+/-0.1
+/-0.5
+/-0.1
Race alone or in combination with one or more other
races
Total population
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Some other race
26,769
24,793
361
57
1,704
0
425
+/-41
+/-370
+/-134
+/-51
+/-318
+/-22
+/-210
26,769
92.6%
1.3%
0.2%
6.4%
0.0%
1.6%
(X)
+/-1.4
+/-0.5
+/-0.2
+/-1.2
+/-0.1
+/-0.8
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Total population
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Cuban
Other Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or Latino
White alone
Black or African American alone
American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone
26,769
901
164
171
96
470
25,868
23,718
280
20
1,287
0
+/-41
+/-262
+/-130
+/-91
+/-75
+/-182
+/-268
+/-459
+/-119
+/-33
+/-252
+/-22
26,769
3.4%
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
1.8%
96.6%
88.6%
1.0%
0.1%
4.8%
0.0%
(X)
+/-1.0
+/-0.5
+/-0.3
+/-0.3
+/-0.7
+/-1.0
+/-1.7
+/-0.4
+/-0.1
+/-0.9
+/-0.1
104
459
33
426
+/-103
+/-142
+/-43
+/-132
0.4%
1.7%
0.1%
1.6%
+/-0.4
+/-0.5
+/-0.2
+/-0.5
Some other race alone
Two or more races
Two races including Some other race
Two races excluding Some other race, and Three
or more races
2 of 3
80
09/29/2015
Subject
Total housing units
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
10,322
+/-267
(X)
81
(X)
tables.
The ACS questions on Hispanic origin and race were revised in 2008 to make them consistent with the Census 2010 question wording. Any changes
in estimates for 2008 and beyond may be due to demographic changes, as well as factors including questionnaire changes, differences in ACS
population controls, and methodological differences in the population estimates, and therefore should be used with caution. For a summary of
questionnaire changes see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/questionnaire_changes/. For more information about changes in the
estimates see http://www.census.gov/population/hispanic/files/acs08researchnote.pdf.
For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data, please see the Census 2010 Brief entitled, Overview of Race and Hispanic
Origin: 2010, issued March 2011. (pdf format)
While the 2009-2013 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
3 of 3
09/29/2015
82
DP03
SELECTED ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Subject
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Population 16 years and over
In labor force
Civilian labor force
Employed
Unemployed
Armed Forces
Not in labor force
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
20,043
12,602
12,602
11,656
946
0
7,441
+/-378
+/-427
+/-427
+/-428
+/-173
+/-22
+/-418
20,043
62.9%
62.9%
58.2%
4.7%
0.0%
37.1%
(X)
+/-1.9
+/-1.9
+/-2.0
+/-0.8
+/-0.2
+/-1.9
Percent Unemployed
12,602
(X)
+/-427
(X)
12,602
7.5%
(X)
+/-1.3
Females 16 years and over
In labor force
Employed
10,211
5,382
5,382
4,885
+/-313
+/-303
+/-303
+/-324
10,211
52.7%
52.7%
47.8%
(X)
+/-2.6
+/-2.6
+/-2.9
Own children under 6 years
All parents in family in labor force
1,752
846
+/-241
+/-181
1,752
48.3%
(X)
+/-8.9
Own children 6 to 17 years
All parents in family in labor force
5,764
2,671
+/-310
+/-300
5,764
46.3%
(X)
+/-5.1
11,436
6,658
328
2,466
220
135
1,629
+/-443
+/-445
+/-105
+/-286
+/-103
+/-76
+/-281
11,436
58.2%
2.9%
21.6%
1.9%
1.2%
14.2%
(X)
+/-3.3
+/-0.9
+/-2.4
+/-0.9
+/-0.7
+/-2.3
41.0
+/-2.3
(X)
(X)
11,656
+/-428
11,656
(X)
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers 16 years and over
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled
Public transportation (excluding taxicab)
Walked
Other means
Worked at home
Mean travel time to work (minutes)
OCCUPATION
Civilian employed population 16 years and over
1 of 5
09/29/2015
Subject
Management, business, science, and arts
occupations
Service occupations
Sales and office occupations
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance
occupations
Production, transportation, and material moving
occupations
INDUSTRY
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
Information
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental
and leasing
Professional, scientific, and management, and
administrative and waste management services
Educational services, and health care and social
assistance
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation and food services
Other services, except public administration
Public administration
CLASS OF WORKER
Private wage and salary workers
Government workers
Self-employed in own not incorporated business
workers
Unpaid family workers
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2013 INFLATIONADJUSTED DOLLARS)
Total households
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
Median household income (dollars)
Mean household income (dollars)
With earnings
Mean earnings (dollars)
With Social Security
Mean Social Security income (dollars)
With retirement income
Mean retirement income (dollars)
With Supplemental Security Income
Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars)
With cash public assistance income
2 of 5
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
7,550
+/-423
64.8%
+/-3.1
820
2,763
253
+/-159
+/-309
+/-96
7.0%
23.7%
2.2%
+/-1.3
+/-2.4
+/-0.8
270
+/-112
2.3%
+/-0.9
11,656
36
+/-428
+/-37
11,656
0.3%
(X)
+/-0.3
327
566
370
824
200
370
2,882
+/-102
+/-145
+/-110
+/-205
+/-79
+/-112
+/-281
2.8%
4.9%
3.2%
7.1%
1.7%
3.2%
24.7%
+/-0.9
+/-1.3
+/-0.9
+/-1.7
+/-0.7
+/-1.0
+/-2.3
2,823
+/-290
24.2%
+/-2.2
1,838
+/-222
15.8%
+/-1.9
723
+/-175
6.2%
+/-1.5
446
251
+/-143
+/-119
3.8%
2.2%
+/-1.2
+/-1.0
11,656
9,064
852
1,720
+/-428
+/-450
+/-208
+/-265
11,656
77.8%
7.3%
14.8%
(X)
+/-2.4
+/-1.8
+/-2.2
20
+/-32
0.2%
+/-0.3
9,477
252
104
268
296
491
964
952
1,292
912
3,946
160,106
255,658
+/-219
+/-91
+/-51
+/-95
+/-101
+/-140
+/-170
+/-197
+/-186
+/-192
+/-277
+/-14,814
+/-16,488
9,477
2.7%
1.1%
2.8%
3.1%
5.2%
10.2%
10.0%
13.6%
9.6%
41.6%
(X)
(X)
(X)
+/-1.0
+/-0.5
+/-1.0
+/-1.1
+/-1.4
+/-1.8
+/-2.1
+/-1.9
+/-2.0
+/-3.1
(X)
(X)
7,882
244,839
2,841
23,615
1,506
40,000
+/-228
+/-16,056
+/-167
+/-1,123
+/-162
+/-6,466
83.2%
(X)
30.0%
(X)
15.9%
(X)
+/-1.8
(X)
+/-1.8
(X)
+/-1.7
(X)
142
13,696
128
+/-72
+/-4,924
+/-62
1.5%
(X)
1.4%
+/-0.8
(X)
+/-0.7
83
09/29/2015
Subject
Mean cash public assistance income (dollars)
With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the past 12
months
Families
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 or more
Median family income (dollars)
Mean family income (dollars)
Per capita income (dollars)
Nonfamily households
Median nonfamily income (dollars)
Mean nonfamily income (dollars)
Median earnings for workers (dollars)
Median earnings for male full-time, year-round workers
(dollars)
Median earnings for female full-time, year-round
workers (dollars)
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
Civilian noninstitutionalized population
With health insurance coverage
With private health insurance
With public coverage
No health insurance coverage
Civilian noninstitutionalized population under 18
years
Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 to 64 years
In labor force:
Employed:
Unemployed:
Not in labor force:
3 of 5
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
7,978
+/-2,665
(X)
(X)
171
+/-73
1.8%
+/-0.8
7,298
95
58
62
133
275
567
749
982
795
3,582
188,581
292,788
+/-183
+/-68
+/-44
+/-47
+/-67
+/-103
+/-142
+/-168
+/-173
+/-165
+/-262
+/-24,909
+/-19,398
7,298
1.3%
0.8%
0.8%
1.8%
3.8%
7.8%
10.3%
13.5%
10.9%
49.1%
(X)
(X)
(X)
+/-0.9
+/-0.6
+/-0.6
+/-0.9
+/-1.4
+/-1.9
+/-2.3
+/-2.3
+/-2.2
+/-3.6
(X)
(X)
91,226
+/-5,697
(X)
(X)
2,179
65,417
125,994
+/-250
+/-8,601
+/-23,967
2,179
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
71,300
156,139
+/-7,141
+/-15,878
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
86,677
+/-14,164
(X)
(X)
26,627
25,878
24,306
5,116
749
+/-94
+/-253
+/-407
+/-382
+/-228
26,627
97.2%
91.3%
19.2%
2.8%
(X)
+/-0.9
+/-1.5
+/-1.4
+/-0.9
7,624
+/-311
7,624
(X)
77
+/-88
1.0%
+/-1.2
14,655
+/-340
14,655
(X)
11,030
10,220
9,794
9,683
212
426
810
676
618
102
134
3,625
3,523
3,382
258
102
+/-371
+/-374
+/-376
+/-384
+/-100
+/-150
+/-172
+/-159
+/-143
+/-70
+/-74
+/-283
+/-275
+/-265
+/-95
+/-60
11,030
10,220
95.8%
94.7%
2.1%
4.2%
810
83.5%
76.3%
12.6%
16.5%
3,625
97.2%
93.3%
7.1%
2.8%
(X)
(X)
+/-1.5
+/-1.6
+/-1.0
+/-1.5
(X)
+/-8.5
+/-9.2
+/-7.7
+/-8.5
(X)
+/-1.6
+/-2.4
+/-2.5
+/-1.6
84
09/29/2015
Subject
PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE
INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE
POVERTY LEVEL
All families
With related children under 18 years
With related children under 5 years only
Married couple families
Families with female householder, no husband present
All people
Under 18 years
Related children under 18 years
Related children under 5 years
Related children 5 to 17 years
18 years and over
18 to 64 years
65 years and over
People in families
Unrelated individuals 15 years and over
Percent Margin of
Estimate
Margin of Error
Percent
Error
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
2.5%
3.6%
0.0%
0.7%
1.0%
0.0%
18.6%
+/-1.3
+/-2.0
+/-6.3
+/-0.7
+/-1.2
+/-7.1
+/-9.7
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
18.5%
0.0%
+/-11.0
+/-37.6
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
(X)
3.5%
3.2%
3.2%
1.8%
3.5%
3.6%
4.0%
2.4%
2.2%
14.0%
+/-1.1
+/-1.7
+/-1.7
+/-2.0
+/-2.1
+/-1.0
+/-1.2
+/-1.2
+/-1.1
+/-3.6
85
tables.
There were changes in the edit between 2009 and 2010 regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security. The changes in the edit
loosened restrictions on disability requirements for receipt of SSI resulting in an increase in the total number of SSI recipients in the American
Community Survey. The changes also loosened restrictions on possible reported monthly amounts in Social Security income resulting in higher Social
Security aggregate amounts. These results more closely match administrative counts compiled by the Social Security Administration.
Workers include members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week.
Census occupation codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). The Census occupation codes for
2010 and later years are based on the 2010 revision of the SOC. To allow for the creation of 2009-2013 tables, occupation data in the multiyear files
(2009-2013) were recoded to 2013 Census occupation codes. We recommend using caution when comparing data coded using 2013 Census
occupation codes with data coded using Census occupation codes prior to 2010. For more information on the Census occupation code changes,
please visit our website at http://www.census.gov/people/io/methodology/.
Industry codes are 4-digit codes and are based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The Census industry codes for 2013
and later years are based on the 2012 revision of the NAICS. To allow for the creation of 2009-2013 and 2011-2013 tables, industry data in the
multiyear files (2009-2013 and 2011-2013) were recoded to 2013 Census industry codes. We recommend using caution when comparing data coded
using 2013 Census industry codes with data coded using Census industry codes prior to 2013. For more information on the Census industry code
changes, please visit our website at http://www.census.gov/people/io/methodology/.
While the 2009-2013 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
4 of 5
09/29/2015
86
87
88
Gordon Joseloff, 1st Selectman,
Westport, CT
89
2007 Westport Plan of
Conservation & Development (POCD)
Overall Goal:
“It is a goal of this Plan to seek ways to
expand the variety of housing choices and
options in Westport in order to help meet
the needs of existing and future residents
while maintaining the character and
integrity of the town.”
90
POCD Goal:
“Westport should continue efforts to help
seniors who may not want or need large
single-family houses to remain in
Westport and to provide opportunities for
others.”
91
Demographic Changes
60%
Percent of Population
50%
40%
30%
20%
0 - 19 years
20 to 54 years
55 and older
10%
0%
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
92
2008 Affordable Housing
Appeals List







Weston 0.03%
Darien 1.81%
Ridgefield 2.05%
Westport 2.18%
Wilton 2.67%
Norwalk 11.31%
Stamford 14.37%
93
Westport is making progress and here is
what else we are trying to do to reach the
10% goal …
Creating senior housing on Baron’s
South, a 21-acre town-owned property.

94
Other Efforts in Westport
New zoning regulation –
 Mixed use development in commercial
areas with 20% of the units affordable.
 Incentives to developers include density,
coverage and height.
 The amendment was withdrawn by the
Commission.
95
Other Efforts in Westport
Concerns raised by public and Commission
members included:
 Too much density
 The fear that this would happened all over town
 Proximity to residential areas
The bottom line is people got scared.
96
We are still looking at alternatives because
we have a graying population that we want
to maintain as well as the desire to allow
more young adults to live and work in our
town.
9/28/2015
Part 5: Senior Housing Needs, Plans and Logjams WestportNow.com Westport, Connecticut
97
WestportNow.c…
Like Page
CLASSIFIEDS
ARCHIVES
Home
Arts & Leisure
Business
Community
Education
Health/Fitness
Letters
Obituaries
Pets Lost/Found
Politics
Property Sales
Real Estate
Special Reports
Sports
Teardowns
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
SEARCH
GO ADVANCED SEARCH
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
SPONSORS
News, Special Reports
2.5k likes
REGISTER / LOG IN
Registration is required to
post comments.
Sign Up • Login Comment Policy
FRI DAY, AU G U S T 21, 2015
SPONSORS
Part 5: Senior Housing Needs, Plans and Logjams
SPONSORS
PILATES for
EVERY BODY
A Place for Women to
Build a Stronger Center
(Editor’s note: WestportNow’s special weeklong series on seniors and
housing concludes today with a look at efforts to add new senior housing to
Westport and current options open to seniors.)
TO TRAVEL IN AND
AROUND WESTPORT,
CHOOSE
By James Lomuscio
Private Sessions
Group Classes
Pilates, TRX, Body Rolling
contact us for info
pilatesforevery
bodywestport.com
PAINTING COMPANY
For all of your painting
and wallpapering needs.
Call George now for a
free estimate:
2032418922
Mention WestportNow and
get 10% discount
Private, 1:1 Training
Studio w/ Jeffrey Crupi
Peak Personal
Fitness, LLC
serving Westport
since 1995
peakpersonalfitnessct.com
The need for senior housing in Westport, whether affordable, market rate,
and/or with an assisted living component, has confounded Westport officials for
years.
It has become a flash point,
however, for the current
Planning and Zoning (P&Z)
Commission.
Chairman Chip Stephens, 60,
has said repeatedly that he is
not against more senior
housing in Westport. On the
contrary, he says it is a need
that has to be addressed, but
by private developers and on
private land, not townowned
land.
CLICK for service details:
• Commuters
• Door‐to‐door
• and more
203‐852‐0000
Francois
du Pont
Jewelers
GETANA & Co.
There is a waiting list of almost 300 for 21 remaining
units under construction at the Westport Housing
Authority’s Sasco Creek Village, 1655 Post Road
East, according to Executive Director Carol Martin.
(CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for
WestportNow.com
In fact, he says this need is
behind formation of the P&Z
Senior Housing Committee
cochaired by P&Z Vice Chairman Jack Whittle, 52, and member Catherine
Walsh, 60. To date, the committee has had two meetings.
6 Sconset Square
Westport, CT
203·226·9804
The P&Z has come under intense criticism from many seniors since its March
vote declaring the 22acre Baron’s South property open space. (See
WestportNow March 19, 2015)
A majority of the Representative Town meeting (RTM) voted to overturn the
P&Z action but failed by four votes to attain the needed super majority. (See
WestportNow April 29, 2015) This effectively put an end to a 135unit, 60
percent affordable, housing complex that had been planned for seven years on
Baron’s South.
The planned senior living facility would have taken up 3.3 acres of Baron’s
South, leaving the rest as open space to be maintained by the developer.
A number of seniors—who make up more than 20 percent of Westport’s
population and whose numbers are growing—say they felt sucker punched by
http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/part_5_senior_housing_needs_plans_and_logjams
1/8
9/28/2015
98
the open space argument and
the P&Z decision.
They cited numerous
meetings of the Baron’s South
Committee, approvals by town
boards and commissions and
the town entering into an
agreement with developer
Jonathan Rose Companies.
The first meeting of the P&Z Senior Housing
Committee on July 21 drew a sparse turnout. So did
the second one on Aug. 6. (CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
David R. McCarthy, project
manager for Jonathan Rose,
queried by WestportNow, said
his company believes the two
goals of senior housing and
open space still can coexist on Baron’s South.
“And if the Westport community can come to a consensus for the use of
Baron’s South that provides for open space and affordable and market rate
senior housing, we would be very interested in reengaging with the town to
implement that plan,” McCarthy said.
Meanwhile, Stephens rejects criticism that the P&Z has turned a blind eye to
senior housing needs.
“We haven’t been blind as a town to senior housing,” he said.
He pointed to the Westport’s Housing Authority’s (WHA) Canal Park facility, 5
Canal St., and senior units set aside at the WHA’s Sasco Creek Village and
Hidden Brook, 1655 Post Road East. He also said that senior tax abatements
are another way of keeping seniors in town.
“We felt that one of the things
lacking and disappearing
slowly is open space,”
Stephens said. “We have to
be fair to all of our
constituents. I personally am
not a fan of giving away open
space to a developer. “
P&Z Chairman Chip Stephens and Commissioner
Cathy Walsh have been adamantly opposed to
senior housing on public land. (CLICK TO
ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
At Baron’s South, the
developer would have a 98
year lease.
“I have spoken to a halfdozen
developers who are interested
in doing a CCRC (continuing
care residential community) on private land,” Stephens said.
He said surrounding communities have done that, “except for New Canaan;
they have it in Waveny Park, but they have a heck of a lot more open space
that Westport.”
“We spent three months working on rezoning it,” Whittle said about the
decision to declare the townowned property recreational open space.“This is
the last great piece of open space in town.
WESTPORTNOW.COM STUFF
“The takeaway here is that we are not against senior housing,” he added. “We
just didn’t think that piece of property was best suited for that (senior housing)
use.”
Whittle reiterated all of the different pathways that the P&Z Senior Housing
Committee is considering for senior housing on private land.
“We’ve taken a lot of feedback, and we’ve listened to developers,” he said,
noting that the third committee meeting would be held some time in
September.
One developer at a P&Z Senior Housing Committee meeting pointed out that
three acres along Post Road East, enough for a small facility, would cost $12
million.
Buy a WestportNow.com
mug, hat, or Tshirt
When asked if asked if high
costs would be a deterrent to
such development, Stephens
responded, “We’re in
Westport; of course it’s going
to cost more.”
Another problem Stephens
and the P&Z majority said
they had with the Baron’s
South proposal was that there
was no guarantee Westporters
would be given preference to
live there.
P&Z Vice Chair Jack Whittle: Baron’s South “is the
last great piece of open space in town.” (CLICK TO
Baron’s South supporters had
2/8
9/28/2015
said that since the housing complex would not be dependent on state and
federal funding but on private monies, some preference could be given to
Westport seniors and that would not be in violation of the federal Fair Housing
Act.
99
“There is no guarantee,” Stephens argued. “Whether we took federal or private
money, we could not restrict it to Westporters. It’s against fair housing.
“The proponents of Baron’s South made it sound like there are 200 people on
a waiting list and this was going to solve their problems,” he added. “It was a
false promise. They can’t be given priorities. It’s just false.”
WHA Executive Director Carol Martin, however, said that Stephens’ concerns
are exaggerated.
About 75 percent of the people served by the WHA, which is dependent on
government money and which has to market outside the town, “have ties to
Westport,” Martin said.
By law, the marketing effort focuses on minorities, she said.
“Even with the targeted marketing efforts, which you would think produce large
number of people from out of town, 70 percent of the folks who live in our units
have ties to Westport, whether they are people who grew up here and moved
back, who worked here or who have family here,” Martin said.
She said waiting list
applications for Hidden Brook
opened July 6 and closed July
31, “and we have 508
applications for three
vacancies,” she said about the
complex of 39 units, which are
not restricted to seniors.
“The numbers are staggering,”
Martin said.
Carol Martin, executive director, Westport
Housing Authority: Senior affordable housing is
best suited for townowned or donated land. CLICK
TO ENLARGE) Contributed photo
Applications for the 21 new
units under construction at
Sasco Creek, also not
restricted to seniors, opened
July 27 and are scheduled to
close on Monday.
“Right now we’re close to 300 applications,” Martin said, adding that she
expects it to rise to between 300 and 400 before Monday.
Martin said there is no way of telling how many applicants are Westporters or
have ties to the community since that is not asked on the application.
“It’s when folks move in and through discussions that we learn of their ties to
Westport,” she said.
“If you grow up in Westport, you’re not driving to Enfield for housing,” Martin
added. “The statistics don’t support the fears.”
The WHAoperated 50unit Canal Park is a sliding scale rental complex.
Individuals 62 and older, or younger persons suffering from disabilities, pay 30
percent of their adjusted gross income in rent.
Canal Park recently opened up its waiting list for a twoweek period, receiving
104 applications before closing the list Aug. 12.
“There’s a lack of affordable housing and a lack of affordable senior housing,”
Martin said. “The reality is, there are not enough units.”
In addition to Canal Park, the
WHA operates Hales Court, a
78home community of Cape
Codstyle houses begun in
1950 on land donated by the
Hales family, with the aim of
providing workforce housing,
Martin said.
The Westport Housing Authority’s 50unit Canal
Park serves those 62 and older subject to income
limits. Contributed photo
Hales Court offers one to
fourbedroom homes and
serves families who earn
between 25 to 50 percent of
the area medium income
(AMI), she said.
The WHA housing at 1655
Post Road East has the same AMI for the 39 town homes in its back section,
Hidden Brook. It will have 54 similar rental units upon the completed expansion
of Sasco Creek Village in the front, according to Martin.
Martin stressed that senior affordable housing is best suited for townowned or
donated land.
3/8
9/28/2015
“The community has to realize that the need far outweighs the ability of a local
housing authority to serve the needs of seniors,” Martin said. “Towns that have
been successful have typically made land available for this use.
100
“The town has to be able to provide the land with a much smaller return,” she
added. “You can’t expect the forprofit world to pay $1 million an acre for
affordable housing. That’s why the land has to be donated.
“There needs to be value placed to the human capital. The return is the value
of the folks you retain in the community. These are the folks who raised
families, helped out in church, did hours and hours of volunteer service. What
we’re telling them is we don’t have a housing option for you.”
Another option for Westport seniors is The Saugatuck, the senior housing
cooperative at 35 Bridge St., in the former Saugatuck Elementary School.
With 36 units, it sits on land leased from the town. Turnover is rare, usually
coming only when an occupant leaves or dies. Admission is restricted to those
62 or older and is based on an applicant’s income and assets.
Private, purchased land was
the thrust of the recent P&Z
Senior Housing Committee
meetings. The committee
explored myriad ways to
entice developers to pursue
projects on private land.
Suggestions ranged from
group homes for seniors to
continuing care residential
communities to multifamily
senior housing without support The Saugatuck, 35 Bridge St., serves 36 seniors in
the former Saugatuck Elementary School. (CLICK
services. There was even the
TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
suggestion of putting three
ranch houses for seniors on an acre in a oneacre residential zone.
Walsh, the committee cochair, said her group was “still brainstorming” with
potential developers to address senior housing needs, not all of them
affordable.
Cochair Whittle said that solutions the committee decided would be “followed
by a text amendment or two that have a reasonable chance of getting around
the P&Z.”
Marshall Breines, 68, principal of Westportbased Affirmative Hillspoint LLC,
the only developer present at the last meeting, said that he could possibly build
a small CCRC on private land with a minimum of three acres.
He noted that the cost factor would allow for only about 10 percent of the units
being set aside as affordable.
His comment drew a strong rebuke from RTM member Jack Klinge, 76, a
Baron’s South supporter, who said a plan with few affordable units “makes me
want to throw up.”
At the first meeting, Klinge
also criticized the P&Z Senior
Housing Committee for going
back to square one after the
now disbanded Baron’s South
Committee had spent seven
years looking at what the new
group was attempting to do.
Walsh fired back that Baron’s
South Committee members
were welcome to attend but
A presentation in February showed an artist’s
chose not to. No Baron’s
rendition of The Winslow at Baron’s South. (CLICK
South members were at the
TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
committee’s two meetings,
which drew 15 persons to the first, 10 to the second.
First Selectman Jim Marpe, 68, who was present at the meetings, urged its co
chairs not to lose sight of the affordable component.
“I think the P&Z Committee is trying to grapple with the whole spectrum of
senior housing,” Marpe said.
“There is a spectrum of senior housing interests that ranges from basic
affordability to market rate with a smaller footprint, but with none of the
traditional requirements of owning a house on a plot of land.
“And of course there are seniors who want to remain in the house they own,
and they are looking to alternatives,” he added. “There is a whole range of
potential housing requirements for seniors that is underserved or absent now in
Westport.”
Human Services Director Barbara Butler, 72, said all of the committee’s
suggestions to increase housing stock were needed to address the growing
4/8
9/28/2015
number of seniors who come from diverse financial backgrounds.
101
Still, pointing to the waiting long list of financially strapped of seniors, she
remains a strong proponent of the Baron’s South project.
Martha Hauhuth, 77, who with
Stephen Daniels, 75, co
chaired the Baron’s South
Committee, said that no one
on the P&Z Senior Housing
Committee reached out to her
for input or to attend
meetings.
“I’m certainly aware the
meetings are being held, and I
could go if I wanted to or if I
Former First Selectman Marty Hauhuth and Steve
thought they would be
Daniels headed the now disbanded Baron’s South
Committee. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Phyllis Groner
productive,” said Hauhuth, a
for WestportNow.com
former first selectman who
retired as executive director of Positive Directions on July 1.
“I’m taking the summer off, and coming to P&Z meetings would not be my
idea of a restful time.”
She remains adamant about the need for more senior housing.
“It is a real need,” Hauhuth said. “It’s not only a real need for seniors to stay in
town. I think it is a need for the town to have people who have wisdom and
experience.
“We have elections coming up for the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
I’m hoping to hear what all of the candidates have to say, and I’m willing to
move forward,” she added.
______
For previous parts of this series, click here.
Posted 08/21 at 05:00 AM
Comments: Comment Policy
Westport community should be very grateful for Jim Lomuscio’s excellent
article and summary of the senior housing issues in our town. When the
Planning and Zoning Commission unaccountably, with almost no notice,
overturned the regulations to reject three years of work to address the issue in
a responsible and balanced way, our seniors rightfully felt betrayed and
diminished. I fully understand Mr. Stevens and Ms. Walsh’s explanations, but
their abuse of the process is unforgiveable and shameful. Ken Bernhard
Posted by Ken Bernhard on August 21, 2015 at 07:25 AM | #
Here, here!
How can developers work with the town of Westport, when P&Z has
established a reputation for the town of being disingenuous?
Baron’s South was purchased for multiuse and serving seniors is an excellent
use of a small part of it.
Posted by Nicholas Pisarro, Jr. on August 21, 2015 at 09:19 AM | #
I find it so frustrating that “no” is never “no” in this town. If there’ s a legacy—or
money—to be made, the same ideas are represented and rehashed until
whatever was proposed comes to pass. I understand that using senior housing
to fulfill longneglected affordable housing obligations would tick a lot of boxes
—no additional kids in our schools,for one—but let ’ s be honest here.
Donating townowned land to provide more options to seniors and ONLY
seniors is patently unfair. I’m sure there are many hardworking town
5/8
9/29/2015
Westport Housing Authority
102
All of our waitlists are currently closed and therefore we are not accepting applications.
http://www.westportha.org/
1/2
103
PREAMBLE
This Plan of Conservation and Development is an update. Earlier Plans of
Development were adopted for the Town of Westport dating back to an original
plan in 1959 and subsequent partial or complete updates in 1975, 1982 and
1987. As the community has grown and developed over time, there have been
notable shifts in Westport priorities and concerns.
In the 1960s when new residential growth was burgeoning and school expansion
costs were an issue, there was a willingness to promote commercial development
to expand the tax base in order to off- set those costs. In the 1970's there was a
shift away from that philosophy as concern grew over the changing community
character and increased traffic associated with commercial expansion. In the
1982 update, the plan was amended to incorporate the Coastal Management Plan
and concern grew for environmental protection. The 1987 Town Plan carried the
growing concern for conservation further, by reclassifying many streets and
highways to place less emphasis on traffic movement and more on neighborhood
character. The 1987 Town Plan also strongly emphasized the conservation of the
low density residential character of Westport with policies for limitation of
commercial and multi-family expansion into single family areas and the protection
of natural resources such as waterways, wetlands and coastal areas.
In 1997, the Town of Westport is almost entirely built up and by and large most
Westporters are pleased with the existing status of development. State statutes
have changed since that last plan was adopted in 1987 and the community is now
obliged to prepare a Plan of Conservation and Development. The emphasis in this
1997 update is on conservation in the broad sense of conserving natural features,
historic and cultural resources and the attractive and high quality residential
neighborhood and business district character.
This current quality of life and community character is under pressure for
potentially detrimental change from a variety of forces. First, Westport has
become such a desirable location for residence that the price of real estate has
risen to the point that persons desiring a modern home in Westport are acquiring
and clearing older smaller residential properties and redeveloping them, or striving
to build on sites which include fragile environmental conditions. Second, a
similar pressure is leading to the redevelopment of many existing commercial
buildings with changes that alter historic character, intensify site utilization and
increase traffic and parking problems. Third, demographic shifts within the
population are creating substantial demands for expanded schools and recreation
facilities. Finally, state solutions to handle the increased traffic through the
community, mostly over state highways, tend to focus on traffic-oriented roadway
improvements which may neglect the historic scale and character of the roadway
and result in undesired revisions to the community appearance.
104
and a house used by recovering addicts.
Under its housing opportunity regulations, Westport provides for elderly accessory apartments in
single family houses; for legalizations of apartments in existence before October 1959 and for
apartments in several commercial zones. In May 1994, the Planning and Zoning staff compiled a list
of 1,154 apartments in residential zones: 558 of these are legal and preexisting non-conforming
apartments; 596 apartments are not in conformance with zoning regulations.
The total of the above variety of units is approximately 2,050, which is about 21% of the total
inventory. Another aspect of housing diversity is the tenancy options available in the community.
The 1990 Census reported that about 17% of Westport's housing was rented, but did not differentiate
between single-family houses, apartments or other rental options.
Housing Affordability
Affordability of available housing is another important topic of concern. Affordability is defined by
the state as housing costs that are no more than 30% of housing income. Based on the 1995
information from the Connecticut Policy and Economic Council about 25% of Westport residents
across all income levels paid in excess of 30% of their income for housing. These households include
515 renters and 1,929 owners.
Of particular concern with respect to a state "special lands use appeals" procedure is the affordability
to those households at or below 80% of the area or state median income levels. About 17% of
Westport households are at income levels below 80% of the state median. A special provision allows
affordable apartments in single family houses to be governed by a standard of 80% of the Norwalk
Metropolitan statistical area median income area.
A 1995 report by the Connecticut Department of Housing listed Westport's qualified affordable
housing inventory as 201 units, about 2% of the total of 9,099 units. The state sets a desire level at
10%, and defines “affordable” as housing that is either government assisted or deed restricted to
lower income occupancy. The Westport qualifying inventory is distributed as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Family rental units
Elderly rental units
CHFA mortgages
Deed restricted
Total
95
50
12
44
201 units
Westport's inventory of affordable units places it close to the top of the list of area towns. Norwalk
has a substantially higher percentage. But Westport exceeds the percentage of five area towns and is
only slightly below the affordable percentage in Fairfield.
Westport Plan of Conservation and Development
Page 71
105
WESTPORT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Norwalk
Fairfield
WESTPORT
Wilton
New Canaan
Darien
Easton
Weston
10.0%
2.15%
2.04%
1.46%
1.35%
1.25%
0.0%
0.0%
COMPARED TO AREA TOWNS
There is an evident need for more affordable housing within Westport. It will be difficult, however,
to create a significant inventory of affordable units through new construction, since development sites
are limited. Therefore, attention will need to be given to means to protect and promote affordability
within the established inventory.
Sales prices of condos tend to run 15% to 20% below the median for detached single family houses.
Expansion of the local condominium inventory has therefore provided a less expensive alternative to
the traditional one-family house. For rental housing the 1990 Census estimated the median monthly
cost at $1,001; for mortgage owner-occupied housing it was estimated at $1,994. Thus, the
inventory of rental units also helps maintain affordable alternatives. Zoning regulations permit up to
five unrelated persons to share a house.
The desirability of Westport as a place to live has resulted in development targeted at upscale
purchasers. Houses much larger than those typical in the established neighborhoods have been built
on half-acre lots in recent subdivisions. A parallel activity has been the acquisition, demolition and
redevelopment of older homes for construction of larger, more modern residences. From July 1996
to May 1997 there were 32 new houses built. There were 11 “teardowns”.
The introduction of very large houses into old neighborhoods whether by new subdivisions or as a
result of demolition is dramatically changing the character of neighborhoods and has already led to
increased pressure for expansion or redevelopment of nearby properties.
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PLAN
Preservation of the single family, one dwelling unit, residential character is the basis for development
of Westport. Residential districts should be maintained and protected against the intrusion and
Westport Plan of Conservation and Development
Page 72
106
WESTPORT
2007 Plan of Conservation and Development
Westport Planning and Zoning Commission
107
Promote Housing Affordability
Affordable Housing
Appeals Procedure
Housing prices can make it difficult for Westport to attract young adults,
young families, or people who may not be well compensated financially.
This can make it difficult to attract people to work at local businesses, local schools, service jobs or other positions.
According to 2007 figures
from the Connecticut Department of Economic and
Community Development,
Westport had 10,065 housing units and was credited
with having 209 units of
assisted housing, 5 units of
CHFA-financed housing,
and 3 units of deedrestricted housing.
Since less than ten percent (10%) of Westport’s housing units meet the
State definition of affordable housing (assisted housing, CHFA financed,
or deed-restricted to persons or families earning less than 80 percent of
the state median income) means that Westport is subject to the State Affordable Housing Appeals procedure (codified as CGS 8-30g) where a
private landowner may choose to not comply with local land use regulations.
Even though Westport has been pro-active over the years in terms of addressing housing options and housing diversity, it has not reached the ten
percent threshold. High land value in Westport as in other similar towns
in the region creates a limiting factor to achieving this goal.
As Westport work towards providing more housing choices, it will do so
in ways that are appropriate for the community and that protect the public health and safety. In addition, Westport will consider ways of integrating affordable, workforce and market rate housing in future projects
in partnerships with public and private organizations.
Westport can and should try to do more in terms of affordable housing
and the following strategies are suggested:
1. Support and encourage the Westport Housing Authority.
The Westport Housing Authority (not a municipal agency) operates
50 units of senior / disabled housing and 114 units of below market
rate housing within Westport. The Authority would like to find ways
to expand their housing offerings (they have an extensive waiting list
at the present time). These efforts should be encouraged since they
will help Westport meet its overall housing goals.
2. Support and encourage supporting non-profit organizations.
Non-profit organizations can provide important services such as
emergency shelters for the homeless, permanent supportive housing
and housing options for Westport citizens in times of need. These efforts should be encouraged since they will help Westport meet its
overall housing goals.
6-3
These 217 units result in
an affordable housing percentage of 2.16 percent,
well below the CGS 8-30g
threshold of 10.0 percent
108
3. Require that all housing construction in Westport either provide
affordable housing units or pay into an affordable housing trust
fund.
CGS Section 8-2i provides that a community may, through its zoning
regulations, require:
• “the setting aside of a reasonable number of housing units for
long-term retention as affordable housing through deed restrictions or other means”, and
• “the making of payments into a housing trust fund to be used
for constructing, rehabilitating or repairing housing affordable
to persons and families of low and moderate income.”
For larger developments, Westport should require the setting aside of
housing units meeting affordability criteria. However, since Westport
is predominantly built up and few opportunities remain for larger
development projects, Westport might consider requiring a payment
be made into an affordable housing trust fund for every type of zoning permit issued in the community in order to establish a funding
source for the creation of housing opportunities.
A payment into an affordable housing fund is not the preferred
mechanism for achieving the goal of creating affordable units. There
may a significant lag time for building affordable units elsewhere on
undetermined sites as opposed to completing market rate units. In
addition, allowing market rate units only without an affordable unit
component on site will actually decrease the percentage required by
regulation and increase multifamily units in general.
4. Consider requiring that any multi-family development provide affordable housing units.
The Town should adopt an inclusionary zoning regulation requiring
some percentage of units in a multi-family development to be deed
restricted to affordable levels.
Strategies giving priority to residents and Town employees should be
established to ensure affordable housing serves the needs of Westport.
6-4
109
5. Seek ways to create more housing units with deed-restrictions on
income.
If the following types of housing units are deed-restricted to affordable levels and rented to income-eligible families, Westport can count
these units as affordable housing under CGS Section 8-30g (and make
progress towards the 10% threshold and a moratorium level):
• existing Town rental housing units at Longshore and elsewhere in Westport.
• new rental housing units on town owned property and elsewhere in Westport.
• accessory apartments in private homes.
6. Review regulations for impediments.
The Town should review zoning requirements in the R-AHZ district
to ensure they do not impede development.
7. Purchase property for affordable housing.
The Town should purchase property that comes on the market for affordable housing. These could be existing homes which would be
rented or sold. Alternatively, it could be land that would be developed by the Town or a non-profit agency or which could be approved
and sold to a private developer. Either way, municipal housing
should focus on the needs of households with lower incomes.
8. Consider providing financing options.
The Town should consider offering low-interest loans to incomeeligible purchasers provided that the property would be deed restricted.
6-5
110
9. Support legislation at the State level to get a “rolling exemption”
for creating affordable housing units.
At the present time, a community can become exempt from CGS 830g in two ways: by reaching the 10% threshold or by creating sufficient units (or equivalent points) to be eligible for a three-year moratorium. Such thresholds are so high for Westport and most other
communities in Connecticut that there is no incentive to produce
units. On the other hand, if Westport qualified for a one-year exemption for producing a small designated number of units there might be
an incentive to do so. While this sounds modest, this simple policy
change could result in the annual construction in Connecticut of several hundreds units of affordable housing by the communities that are
not presently exempt from CGS 8-30g.
In Westport, the annual threshold could be met through the creation
of eligible housing units by the Town of Westport, the Westport
Housing Authority, non-profit organizations, private developers and
other organizations producing affordable housing.
10. Allow some accessory apartments to be approved by Staff.
Allow accessory apartments for those under age 62 with the requirement they meet state affordability requirements.
11. Pursue ways to utilize existing multi family housing stock to convert into affordable units in conformance with state requirements.
There are units in Westport that could be deed restricted as affordable
and counted toward the state requirement to help alleviate pressure
to create new construction.
Housing Conference
6-6
Non-Profit Housing
111
12. Support legislative efforts to amend CGS 8-30g.
As Westport works toward providing more housing choices, it will
seek to do so in ways that are appropriate for the community and that
protect the public health and safety. Westport will continue to support legislative efforts to amend CGS 8-30g which will give each
community incentives and more credit for providing affordable housing in ways appropriate for that community.
13. Consider a separate cap on the number of accessory apartments
permitted in single-family zones.
Should the efforts made to convert new or existing accessory apartments become popular and the result is an over-abundance of rental
units, consideration should be given to instituting a cap.
6-7
112
Action Areas Categories
While the Future Land Use Plan shows the overall categorization of all
areas of Westport, the “Action Areas” map on the facing page highlights
the major policy recommendations of this Plan:
Downtown Action Area
Focus on enhancing the main activity
center of Westport
Saugatuck Action Area
Focus on enhancing the secondary activity center in Westport
Route 1 Action Area
Focus on enhancing the appearance and
function of the Post Road
Generalized Potential
Housing Diversity Areas
Areas with the most potential to provide
for housing diversity and where sidewalks should be a priority
Proposed Greenway Trails
Areas proposed for the eventual establishment of off-street and on-street trails
interconnecting different areas
12-4
113
Action Areas
136
Town of Westport, CT
W
N
TO
ES
Newtown Tpke.
East
on
Rd.
n.
D
IEL
L
rr y
yb e
Ba
WILT
ON
.
Rd
IR F
FA
n
tow
ley
Co
57
RR IT
ME
136
Y
KW
.
Ave
ton
Clin
33
TP
os s
Cr
y.
Hw
wy.
.
57
.
Rd
r th
No
122 Wilton Road
Ln
n
ilto
W
Ne
Cr oss H
r ry
ybe
Ba
wto
wn
Tpk
e
MERRITT PKWY
e.
Av
No
Ro
C
rth
.
Rd
ille
sev
po
om
Rd
33
.
Ol d
Main St.
n
Lo
d
ll R
Hi
.
d
oo
W
sid
g
Lo n
Hw
y.
S.
.
ve
eA
.
Rd
1
Rd
.
Co
m
Hills
P
po R
oin
t
.W
.
al Ave.
r. S.
ector
Imperi
side D
d Conn
136
e. S.
Rd
1
ng
Morni
Po
st
Post Rd. E.
d. E
.
an
ood Isl
Bridge
d.
Maple Av
d . S.
King s
Pos
tR
R
Lots
Sherw
NORWA LK
ots
136
33
1
gL
rm
Fa
ns
ee
Gr
d.
sR
95
95
St.
Rd.
95
Point
B
id
hs
.
ve
eA
Co
o
mp
Hills
c
ea
Rd
S.
136
Comp
oB
eac
Rd h
.
rb
Ha
or
Rd
.
Legend
Downtown Action Area
Cross Way
Saugatuck Action Area
Route 1 Action Area
Generalized Potential Housing Diversity Areas
Proposed Greenway Trails
This map was compiled from multiple data sources
with different scales and projections. This map
does not meet National Map Accuracy Standards
and should only be used for general planning purposes.
3,000
Feet
114
115
116
117
118
119
2014 Affordable Housing Appeals List - Exempt Municipalities
Town
Ansonia
Bloomfield
Bridgeport
Bristol
Brooklyn
Danbury
Derby
East Hartford
East Windsor
Enfield
Groton
Hartford
Killingly
Manchester
Mansfield
Meriden
Middletown
New Britain
New Haven
New London
Norwalk
Norwich
Plainfield
Putnam
Stamford
Torrington
Vernon
Waterbury
West Haven
Winchester
Windham
Single
Total Housing
Tenant
Family
Deed
Totally
Units 2010
Governmentally
Rental
Assisted Percent
CHFA /USDA Restricted
Census
Assisted
Assistance
Mortgages Units
Units
Affordable
371
642
112
9
1,134
13.92%
8,148
9,019
591
149
311
0
1,051
11.65%
5870
3779
1036
20
10,705
18.78%
57,012
1633
823
1065
0
3,521
13.04%
27,011
231
12
135
0
378
11.68%
3,235
1587
904
344
296
3,131
10.05%
31,154
275
314
69
0
658
11.25%
5,849
1700
1054
952
0
3,706
17.38%
21,328
559
43
119
14
735
14.57%
5,045
1340
211
581
7
2,139
12.18%
17,558
3589
76
369
10
4,044
22.49%
17,978
10,299
7812
1523
0
19,634
37.89%
51,822
495
107
488
0
1,090
14.36%
7,592
1834
977
923
36
3,770
14.50%
25,996
417
125
117
2
661
10.99%
6,017
2027
1033
1065
11
4,136
15.97%
25,892
2974
1047
614
25
4,660
21.96%
21,223
3421
1602
1192
382
6,597
21.13%
31,226
8880
5336
1188
581
15,985
29.08%
54,967
1685
674
487
98
2,944
24.86%
11,840
2334
997
261
599
4,191
11.83%
35,415
2109
721
554
0
3,384
18.14%
18,659
377
166
460
0
1,003
16.10%
6,229
383
69
208
0
660
15.35%
4,299
4862
1732
326
1295
8,215
16.24%
50,573
1112
277
639
17
2,045
12.20%
16,761
1387
391
374
12
2,164
15.57%
13,896
5171
3074
2327
326
10,898
22.71%
47,991
1024
1451
429
0
2,904
12.94%
22,446
348
444
187
0
979
17.44%
5,613
1862
541
575
0
2,978
31.12%
9,570
120
2014 Affordable Housing Appeals List - Non-Exempt Municipalities
Town
Andover
Ashford
Avon
Barkhamsted
Beacon Falls
Berlin
Bethany
Bethel
Bethlehem
Bolton
Bozrah
Branford
Bridgewater
Brookfield
Burlington
Canaan
Canterbury
Canton
Chaplin
Cheshire
Chester
Clinton
Colchester
Colebrook
Columbia
Cornwall
Coventry
Cromwell
Darien
Deep River
Durham
Eastford
East Granby
East Haddam
East Hampton
East Haven
East Lyme
Easton
Ellington
Essex
Fairfield
Farmington
Franklin
Glastonbury
Goshen
Granby
Greenwich
Single
Total Housing
Tenant
Family
Deed
Totally
Units 2010
Governmentally
Rental
Assisted Percent
Census
Assisted
Assistance
Mortgages Units
Units
Affordable
24
1
32
0
57
4.33%
1,317
32
2
50
0
84
4.41%
1,903
244
8
26
0
278
3.76%
7,389
0
4
13
0
17
1.07%
1,589
0
2
31
0
33
1.32%
2,509
556
43
94
6
699
8.59%
8,140
0
0
2
1
3
0.15%
2,044
252
15
66
64
397
5.43%
7,310
24
0
1
0
25
1.59%
1,575
0
3
23
0
26
1.29%
2,015
0
2
34
0
36
3.40%
1,059
243
56
179
0
478
3.42%
13,972
0
0
2
0
2
0.23%
881
35
7
48
70
160
2.44%
6,562
27
0
34
0
61
1.80%
3,389
25
3
30
1
59
7.57%
779
76
0
79
0
155
7.59%
2,043
211
17
68
32
328
7.56%
4,339
0
0
36
0
36
3.64%
988
277
12
78
17
384
3.68%
10,424
23
3
12
0
38
1.98%
1,923
84
9
47
0
140
2.31%
6,065
364
34
145
0
543
8.78%
6,182
0
0
10
1
11
1.52%
722
24
3
63
0
90
3.90%
2,308
18
2
3
0
23
2.28%
1,007
103
1
176
20
300
5.88%
5,099
212
13
203
0
428
7.13%
6,001
136
7
1
95
239
3.38%
7,074
26
24
26
0
76
3.63%
2,096
36
4
14
0
54
2.00%
2,694
0
0
24
0
24
3.03%
793
72
2
35
0
109
5.07%
2,152
73
1
47
1
122
2.71%
4,508
70
5
98
25
198
3.61%
5,485
542
141
307
0
990
7.90%
12,533
396
10
95
19
520
6.15%
8,458
0
0
0
11
11
0.41%
2,715
260
9
106
0
375
5.63%
6,665
36
5
12
0
53
1.63%
3,261
241
94
34
116
485
2.24%
21,648
496
110
123
155
884
7.96%
11,106
27
0
16
0
43
5.58%
771
583
37
124
2
746
5.46%
13,656
1
0
9
0
10
0.60%
1,664
85
1
47
5
138
3.17%
4,360
839
334
2
54
1,229
4.79%
25,631
121
Total Housing
Tenant
Units 2010
Governmentally
Rental
Town
Census
Assisted
Assistance
153
67
5,118
Griswold
177
7
9,596
Guilford
3,504
Haddam
22
0
903
545
25,114
Hamden
0
2
793
Hampton
2
1
856
Hartland
22
0
2,282
Harwinton
58
3
3,567
Hebron
52
4
1,665
Kent
0
0
2,598
Killingworth
26
5
3,125
Lebanon
32
5
5,987
Ledyard
2
0
1,730
Lisbon
140
5
3,975
Litchfield
0
0
1,223
Lyme
90
1
8,049
Madison
24
2
2,389
Marlborough
77
3
2,892
Middlebury
30
2
1,863
Middlefield
726
212
23,074
Milford
32
3
6,918
Monroe
81
28
7,407
Montville
20
4
1,314
Morris
537
368
13,061
Naugatuck
163
9
7,551
New Canaan
0
0
5,593
New Fairfield
12
5
2,923
New Hartford
537
148
13,011
Newington
269
27
11,731
New Milford
134
3
10,061
Newtown
28
2
967
Norfolk
62
10
5,629
North Branford
138
1
1,587
North Canaan
343
36
9,491
North Haven
0
2
2,306
North Stonington
64
2
5,021
Old Lyme
50
7
5,602
Old Saybrook
46
6
5,345
Orange
36
3
4,746
Oxford
242
21
8,063
Plainville
178
18
5,109
Plymouth
32
1
1,684
Pomfret
185
82
4,077
Portland
40
5
2,019
Preston
0
4
3,474
Prospect
0
0
3,811
Redding
179
1
9,420
Ridgefield
235
30
8,843
Rocky Hill
Single
Family
Deed
Totally
Assisted Percent
Mortgages Units
Units
Affordable
237
0
457
8.93%
36
0
220
2.29%
25
0
47
1.34%
477
4
1,929
7.68%
42
0
44
5.55%
8
0
11
1.29%
36
0
58
2.54%
46
0
107
3.00%
4
0
60
3.60%
11
5
16
0.62%
88
0
119
3.81%
204
0
241
4.03%
57
0
59
3.41%
28
29
202
5.08%
2
8
10
0.82%
10
29
130
1.62%
23
0
49
2.05%
15
20
115
3.98%
13
1
46
2.47%
220
107
1,265
5.48%
23
1
59
0.85%
240
0
349
4.71%
1
0
25
1.90%
311
0
1,216
9.31%
2
31
205
2.71%
27
13
40
0.72%
46
15
78
2.67%
390
36
1,111
8.54%
147
16
459
3.91%
29
15
181
1.80%
9
0
39
4.03%
62
0
134
2.38%
8
0
147
9.26%
76
1
456
4.80%
22
0
24
1.04%
9
3
78
1.55%
19
20
96
1.71%
10
6
68
1.27%
12
0
51
1.07%
311
22
596
7.39%
224
0
420
8.22%
28
0
61
3.62%
64
0
331
8.12%
44
0
89
4.41%
38
0
42
1.21%
0
0
0
0.00%
9
48
237
2.52%
179
0
444
5.02%
122
Town
Roxbury
Salem
Salisbury
Scotland
Seymour
Sharon
Shelton
Sherman
Simsbury
Somers
Southbury
Southington
South Windsor
Sprague
Stafford
Sterling
Stonington
Stratford
Suffield
Thomaston
Thompson
Tolland
Trumbull
Union
Voluntown
Wallingford
Warren
Washington
Waterford
Watertown
Westbrook
West Hartford
Weston
Westport
Wethersfield
Willington
Wilton
Windsor
Windsor Locks
Wolcott
Woodbridge
Woodbury
Woodstock
Total
Total Housing
Tenant
Units 2010
Governmentally
Rental
Census
Assisted
Assistance
19
0
1,167
1
0
1,635
16
2
2,593
0
0
680
6,968
262
18
20
2
1,775
344
34
16,146
0
2
1,831
241
19
9,123
146
12
3,479
90
4
9,091
609
67
17,447
427
49
10,243
20
13
1,248
178
13
5,124
0
6
1,511
297
15
9,467
524
381
21,091
212
3
5,469
104
4
3,276
151
25
4,171
98
2
5,451
315
15
13,157
0
0
388
20
4
1,127
481
115
18,945
0
0
811
14
6
2,124
123
20
8,634
205
18
9,096
140
7
3,937
621
832
26,396
0
1
3,674
246
45
10,399
615
134
11,677
160
1
2,637
136
7
6,475
154
297
11,767
137
153
5,429
313
4
6,276
30
5
3,478
59
2
4,564
24
3
3,582
1,487,891
91,251
41,637
Single
Family
Deed
Totally
Assisted Percent
Mortgages Units
Units
Affordable
1
0
20
1.71%
34
0
35
2.14%
7
12
37
1.43%
13
0
13
1.91%
97
0
377
5.41%
4
0
26
1.46%
87
82
547
3.39%
3
0
5
0.27%
62
0
322
3.53%
31
0
189
5.43%
18
0
112
1.23%
295
51
1,022
5.86%
239
0
715
6.98%
47
0
80
6.41%
231
0
422
8.24%
61
0
67
4.43%
71
0
383
4.05%
278
33
1,216
5.77%
64
15
294
5.38%
115
0
223
6.81%
133
0
309
7.41%
93
3
196
3.60%
36
317
683
5.19%
12
0
12
3.09%
38
0
62
5.50%
310
35
941
4.97%
5
0
5
0.62%
7
23
50
2.35%
239
0
382
4.42%
145
0
368
4.05%
17
24
188
4.78%
316
287
2,056
7.79%
0
0
1
0.03%
2
20
313
3.01%
231
0
980
8.39%
46
0
207
7.85%
7
100
250
3.86%
401
26
878
7.46%
187
0
477
8.79%
131
0
448
7.14%
6
0
41
1.18%
25
0
86
1.88%
72
0
99
2.76%
29,874
5,893
168,655
11.34%
123
We will hear from Representative Steinberg, and he will be
followed by I think it's Carla Weil.
Is Representative Steinberg here?
A VOICE: Yes, he is. He is on his way up.
SENATOR WINFIELD: Oh, okay.
REP. STEINBERG: I'm going to resist the urge to do the Ickey
shuffle for my time finally coming up.
Distinguished Chairs, Vice Chairs, Ranking Members, I'm Jonathan
Steinberg, State Representative of the 136th District,
representing Westport. You have my testimony, both in electronic
and written form. I'm not going to read it for you here today,
but let me start by thanking you for sponsoring this candid
dialogue about something that matters to so many of our
communities, but as you've heard said, really matters to
everyone here in the state.
I find I -- I agree with the testimony from so many people here
tonight that we need to encourage diversity in all of our
communities. It is the path of opportunity, and every community
has the responsibility to play their part in this. We're in this
together.
I heard David Fink testify that in the 20-odd years that 8-30g
has been in -- in operation, literally thousands of units
apparently are directly attributable to the 8-30g Statute. But I
also heard Commissioner Klein say that we are still a long ways
away from building the units that we need to meet the need.
So the question I have is how do we do better? How do we get
more units built? And I would submit to you that perhaps there
are some things that we aren't doing that we could be doing. I
have great faith in programs such as HOMEConnecticut; however,
we recognize that those kind of incentives cost money, and we're
in a difficult situation financially as a state, so that may or
may not happen.
So when we come down to incentives for many of the suburban
municipalities, it comes down to the moratorium. That's what's
in front of us; that's the incentive. So how do you motivate
municipalities to achieve the moratorium? Not only should they
be successful, they should feel they're being successful, and
they're not feeling that right now. They're still feeling abused
124
and put upon. So how do we put them on the path to continuing to
build the kind of affordable units that will get them, maybe
never to the 10 percent -- I -- I wonder whether our community
could ever accomplish that without tearing down a lot of homes?
There's not a lot of free land in my town. But how do we keep
them on the path so they're continuing to build affordable units
that will actually welcome people from all different
communities?
And that's what I think many of the bills that you have before
you here today potentially focus on, which is putting them on
the path, rewarding steady progress, making people feel good
rather than constantly having them under the sword of Damocles
of -- of developers who are not interested in really seriously
doing Affordable Housing.
You've heard David Fink testify that Westport's within hailing
range of the moratorium. With our slow but steady approach it
will take us a little while, or we could get there with one big
project. Westport is blessed not with only one big project, but
two big projects. They're really bad projects unfortunately. I
understand that both the Senators have visited Westport and have
seen exactly what we're talking about. Let's be straight: The
developers aren't really interested in Affordable Housing.
They're interested in squeezing as many market-rate apartments
as they can into these small properties.
So is this really what we want to accomplish? Yes, Westport
could then qualify for a moratorium. And when that moratorium is
over, we'll be stuck with that project. And you may need to redefine blight in that context, because that would be a different
kind of blight for a community such as ours, not because it's
falling apart, not because it -- it's bringing in some -- some
disparate element, but because it's scale and it's density
simply don't make sense in our community.
So I would encourage you to focus on those things that bring us
together, the incentives that are encouraging communities to
stay on the right path. Let's talk about how we can make the
moratorium more accessible, more achievable, and how they can
keep achieving along that path.
Thank you.
SENATOR WINFIELD: Thank you, Representative. Are there
questions?
125
Representative Butler.
REP. BUTLER: Thank you. Just a quick comment. Representative, I
just want to let you know that I really appreciate your
commentary. I -- I really -- I know that over the years you've
actually looked at this in several different ways, but I think
you're actually looking at this in terms of where we need to be.
So I -- I appreciate that perspective. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR WINFIELD: Thank you.
We will hear from Carla, I think it's Weil, and George Brennan.
CARLA WEIL: Good evening, Chairman Butler, Chairman HolderWinfield, Senator Hwang, Representative Kupchick, and other
Honorable Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to
talk about the 8-30g Statute tonight.
I'm Carla Weil. I'm the executive director of the Greater New
Haven Community Loan Fund. I've been working for over 26 years
to help finance and create housing that's affordable to
individuals and families across our state. It's been my
experience that the 8-30g Statute has been an extremely
important tool for making sure that families have housing
options. Therefore I am here this evening to speak in opposition
to -- I won't read them all, but the litany of bills that have
been mentioned tonight, any that would -- related to the 8-30g
Statute that would repeal or seriously weaken it.
Housing opportunity means that families in Connecticut should be
able to find affordable places to live that allow them
convenient access to jobs, school, transportation, and
preferably also proximity to culture, religious anchors,
friends, and family members. Choice means that these options
need to be available throughout the state in urban, suburban,
and rural communities for all families regardless of their
income or their race.
126
Affordable Reality in Westport.
This paper will address the reality of affordable housing in Westport and the steps undertaken by the
Town to further encourage a diversity of housing. It has long been our goal to service all of our citizens
including those in need of assistance. We do have a diversity of housing stock for low income groups,
special needs, the homeless and the elderly. 8-30 g counts only units constructed after 1990 and units
which are deed restricted for 40 years. The majority of units in the town of Westport which service our
lower income groups do not fall into either category, but they still exist.
2010 census reports 10399 dwelling units-used for calculating 8-30 G points- includes single and multifamily units. (single family homes count 9860)*
1069 documented apartments in private “single family “units - accessory, elderly conversion, pre 1959
only 7 are deed restricted for 40 years to comply with 8 30 G **
539 total apartments in complexes ***
288 units total completed units affordable either Government Assisted, Deed Restricted but categorized
as affordable 2.75% as per 8-30 G requirements.
9 group homes with 43 total known beds–counts for 20 affordable but ineligible units.
21 units approved, but not yet completed- Gault 2, Sasco Brook, Bedford
43 low income units not on the DECD list–low income housing which does not fully comply with all
aspects of funding source—shelter vs service, but still services low income citizens. The Saugatuck,
Homestead, Star (6 beds)
2 trailer parks with total units per park unknown as of the writing of this document estimation of 50
units.
Westport has always believed and encouraged increasing the diversity of housing stock while
maintaining our small town character. It clearly stated as a goal in our POCD. In recent years the
Planning and Zoning commission has taken legislative action to further encourage diversity of housing.
The listing below represents legislation enacted to promote diversity of housing within the town to
comply with 8-30 G requirements.
1. §16-2.12
Mobile Home Replacement Units
2. §18
Residence C Zone
3. §19
Affordable Housing Zone
4. §19A
Affordable Housing Zone/Workforce
80% affordable
15% affordable
30% affordable
20% affordable
10% work force
5. §20
Municipal Housing Zone
100% affordable
127
6. §32-1
Supportive Housing
7. §32-12
Inclusionary 2 family & Multi-family Housing
100% affordable
20% affordable
8. 32.15 and 32.15 A
Managed Residential Community and senior residential
community on Town Owned land 60% affordable
9. §32-17
Affordable/Middle Income Housing on Town Land
50% affordable
50% (80% AMI)
10. §39A
Inclusionary Housing Zone
20% affordable
In addition to the above, Westport has effectively maintained its diversity of housing stock by encouraging
the legalization of existing apartments in private homes. The town recognized that there were over 1000
units which would continue to benefit lower incomes, but do not comply with the statue. ( home owners do
not want to deed restrict for 40 years) The P&Z took multiple steps to preserve these housing units.
The 2010 Amnesty program to legalize pre-existing accessory apartments, including pre 1959 resulted in
over 200 small in home apartments being legalized.
32-18 Historic Structures- has legalized accessory apartments in historic homes.
Text amendment 469-created the definition of Managed Residential Community which allowed for the
conversion of the Saugatuck School into low cost housing for the elderly. This project of 36 units does
not count toward 8-30 G but does provide low cost housing for seniors.
Success story 1-IHZ success story
Although the commission passed text amendments 618 and 619 to allow affordable housing in 8 specific
split commercial/residential zones in Dec. 2010, there were zero applications until 2014. The Geigers
property has been approved, by straw vote, by the commission –final approval will occur 2/5/14. The
project will be fully compliant with 39 A. Mixed use in commercial zone, and multifamily including 20%
affordable in the residential zone. A second project by the same development team is also in the design
stages.
Success story 2 ---Dramatic upgrading of existing low income housing stock.
In the past 5 years, Westport via the Housing Authority, embarked on an ambitious plan to upgrade the
aging low income housing units at both Hales Court and Sasco Creek. Hales Court was built in the 1950’s
and consisted of small single family homes. The entire development was demolished and rebuilt with
twice the number of units-78. Sasco Creek contained aged single family trailers. This development is
currently under construction and also results in an increase in affordable units . The old units are being
replaced with beautiful town house apartments.
Abuses of 8-30 G
128
Certain developers regularly threaten using 8-30 G to break local zoning laws. One such instance
occurred in recent years. Gorham Ave, is a 1.5 parcel of land, with 2 existing homes within a small single
family neighborhood. The developer threated to build 20 units via 8-30 G. After costly litigation, the
town settled out of court for 5 additional single family homes + the two existing homes all 7 homes on a
1.5 acres of land. Settlement resulted in zero affordable units.
The economic reality
Westport has always been pro-active in creating various projects which would allow for an increase in
housing stock to be compliant with 8-30 G. The issue is one of economics, the cost of raw land in
Westport exceeds $1M per acre. Westport is thereby adversely affected by 8-30 g due to the high cost
of land. In 2014, it became evident that we had recovered from the economic meltdown of 2008. There
are plans, well known to the town to present 8-30 g projects with 400 units. We also know of plans for
an additional 600 units.
*From the town assessor list of “Condos in Westport” and the 2010 census
**Planning and Zoning Dept. records.
***Town Assessor documents plus actual physical counts of known complexes not listed on “Condos in
Westport “document.
Catherine A Walsh
Past Chair Westport P&Z, current member P&Z
2/4/14
10/20/2015
Selectmen Clear Way for Geiger’s Redevelopment WestportNow.com Westport, Connecticut
129
WestportNow.c…
Like Page
CLASSIFIEDS
ARCHIVES
Home
Arts & Leisure
Business
Community
Education
Health/Fitness
Letters
Obituaries
Pets Lost/Found
Politics
Property Sales
Real Estate
Special Reports
Sports
Teardowns
SPONSORS
PILATES for
EVERY BODY
Private Sessions
Group Classes
contact us for info
pilatesforevery
bodywestport.com
PAINTING COMPANY
free estimate:
2032418922
get 10% discount
Peak Personal
Fitness, LLC
serving Westport
since 1995
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
SEARCH
GO ADVANCED SEARCH
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2015
SPONSORS
News, Real Estate
2.6k likes
REGISTER / LOG IN
post comments.
WE DN E S DAY, JAN U ARY 14, 2015
SPONSORS
Selectmen Clear Way for Geiger’s Redevelopment
By Dave Matlow
The Westport Board of Selectmen today cleared the way for redevelopment of
the 2.5acre Geiger’s Garden Center property at 1135 Post Road East into a
commercial and residential complex.
By a unanimous vote, the
board approved expansion of
the capacity of the existing
sanitary service use to
accommodate the
redevelopment that would
include two affordable housing
units among 12 proposed. The
matter next moves to the
Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z) on Jan.
22.
TO TRAVEL IN AND
AROUND WESTPORT,
CHOOSE
• Commuters
• and more
203‐852‐0000
The 2.5acre Geiger’s property at 1135 Post Road
East, which will become a retail and residential
The development would
complex with 12 housing units, two of them
include a bank in the front,
affordable. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for
WestportNow.com
retail, and four buildings with
eight twobedroom units and
four onebedroom units. The two affordable units would be a twobedroom unit
and a onebedroom, David Ginter of Redniss and Mead, civil engineering
consultants, told the board.
Cathy Talmadge, a neighbor on Morningside Drive North and a member of the
Representative Town Meeting (RTM), told the board the neighbors were very
supportive of the project.
Francois
du Pont
Jewelers
GETANA & Co.
6 Sconset Square
Westport, CT
203·226·9804
“We’re eager to see this move forward,” she said, adding that she tried 12
years ago unsuccessfully to expand the sewer capacity when she put on an
addition to her home. “They (the developers) used a lot of restraint. It could
have been more intense. They even put in underground parking.”
Rick Redniss, a principal of Redniss and Mead, noted that the project will be
the first under inclusionary housing text amendments passed by the P&Z in
November 2010. (See WestportNow Nov. 10, 2010)
The P&Z had labored for three years to draft the regulations, which narrowly
averted being overturned a month later by the RTM. (See WestportNow Dec.
8, 2010)
Under the regulations, cluster apartments are permitted next to commercial
structures along the Post Road corridor providing that 20 percent are listed as
affordable.
Real estate developer Michael Calise, the main petitioner seeking for the RTM
http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/selectmen_clear_way_for_geigers_redevelopment/
1/3
10/20/2015
Selectmen Clear Way for Geiger’s Redevelopment WestportNow.com Westport, Connecticut
130
to overturn the regulations, had argued that while he was in favor of affordable
housing, he felt the new regulations were inequitable.
Calise, who owns property at 215 Post Road West, told the RTM: “The bottom
line is that if you are building an affordable unit, you are going to have to pay a
market rate to build it.”
He likened the 20 percent rule to having Mitchells give away two suits for every
10 they sell or Westport Pizzeria two pies for every 10 sold.
Posted 01/14 at 02:33 PM
No comments yet.
You need to Register and be logged in to post comments. If you are
already registered but are not logged in, you can Login here.
Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:
http://
Remember my personal information
Notify me of followup comments?
You must be logged in to comment. You must also answer the question or
solve the equation below:
What is missing: North, South, East, ? (4 character(s) required) Buy a WestportNow.com
mug, hat, or Tshirt
Please note by clicking on "Submit" you acknowledge that you have read the
Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such
terms. Inappropriate posts may be removed.
Submit
Preview
Next entry: Comings & Goings: Saugatuck Fabrics to Saugatuck Ave.
Previous entry: Housing, Transportation Top Selectmen Session With
Legislators
<< Back to main
http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/selectmen_clear_way_for_geigers_redevelopment/
2/3
10/20/2015
Geiger’s Redevelopment: You Can Bank On It | 06880
131
06880
Where Westport meets the world
Geiger’s Redevelopment: You Can Bank On It
Posted on January 31, 2015 | 16 Comments
Lost in last week’s hoopla over what Jon Stewart called “Blizzardpocalypsegeddon” were positive reviews
given by the Planning & Zoning Commission to plans to redevelop the 2acre Geiger’s property.
Neighbors — who have worried about the future of the garden center, which looks handsome from the front
but shabby in back — were also largely positive.
So what will go on the site, at the corner of the Post Road and Morningside North?
A commercial/residential complex. It includes 12 residential rental units — 2 of them classified as
“affordable” — along with a retail building.
And a bank.
That last part is particularly good news. Because — as every Westporter knows — if there’s one thing this
town needs, it’s banks.
http://06880danwoog.com/2015/01/31/geigersredevelopmentyoucanbankonit/
 Follow
1/7
10/20/2015
SHARE THIS:
 Email
 Facebook
132
Follow “06880”
3
 Twitter
3
 Tumblr
Print
LinkedIn
Get
new
 Reddit
every
post delivered
 Google
to your Inbox.
Join 4,743 other followers
 Like
Be the first to like this.
Enter your email address
This entry was posted in Local business, Local politics, Real estate. Bookmark the permalink.
Sign me up
16 RESPONSES TO “GEIGER’S REDEVELOPMENT: YOU CAN BANK ON IT”
Build a website with WordPress.com
Susan Feliciano | January 31, 2015 at 1:02 pm |
Referencing your last sentence, when our children were young and we’d ferry ourselves up and
down the Post Road a dozen times a week and see “new construction” all the time we’d say, “Fifty
bucks its another Bank.” We probably all do/did/do that in this town. But then I would say, “I
think it’ll be a Catholic Book Store” they (of course, knowing I’d actually like that) would chime in
together, going “BANK!!” and laugh…of course, they were ALWAYS right! Always right…
Bobbie Herman | January 31, 2015 at 1:09 pm |
Maybe they’ll put in a nail salon, too.
Stephanie Bass | January 31, 2015 at 1:50 pm |
Curious as to what “affordable” means in this town. Can you do the leg work and tell us what the
numbers are for rentals? Thanks.
Mary Maynard | January 31, 2015 at 2:46 pm |
What plans do “they” have for the beautiful old barn? mmm
Dan Woog | January 31, 2015 at 2:59 pm |
According to yesterday’s Westport News:
“The only remaining disappointment for some people is the planned dismantling a historic
barn on the property, which was one of the sticking points in earlier plans. The developer
intends to offer the vintage pieces of the structure to new occupants for them to use in the
interior construction of their units, should they choose.
“Richard Redniss, project engineer, said the applicants tried their best to preserve the barn,
but it was cost prohibitive and impractical.
“‘The barn is in rough shape,’ he said, noting that a lot of time and money had been devoted to
2/7
10/20/2015
trying to preserve it. ‘It’s not all original, so it needs a lot of help to bring it up to code.’
133
“Wendy Crowther, a local historian, said she was disappointed, in part because the Historic
District Commission did not step in to save it.
“‘I have a passionate interest in the barn and in preservation in Westport in general,’ she said,
also expressing concern that dismantling the barn would cause the ‘bones’ of the building to be
damaged or lost.
“‘We’re happy to work with a decommission plan,’ Redniss said regarding the barn.
“‘As long as we have a goodfaith effort to do that and a goodfaith effort to integrate into the
new structure,’ P&Z Commissioner Alan Hodge said, the plan would likely satisfy the
commission.”
(To read the full story, click here: http://www.westportnews.com/news/article/Revisedplan
todevelopGeigerssitewins6035047.php
Wendy Crowther | February 8, 2015 at 6:05 pm |
I was on vacation when Dan posted this article – I’m just catching up with my emails and
blogs now.
I was misquoted in the Westport News article from which Dan drew the above quotes
regarding my comments at the P&Z hearing. I did not say that I was “disappointed that the
HDC did not step in to save it” [the barn]. What I did say was that I was disappointed that
the HDC had offered no further comment regarding the present plan for the barn. Having
sadly accepted that the barn will essentially be lost, I made suggestions to the P&Z (in the
absence of any suggestions from the HDC) as to how the barn’s bones might be
deconstructed, stored, and repurposed. I also requested that the P&Z, as a condition of
approval, require the developer to create signage (to be placed inside or outside the new
quasireplica barn) that would reflect the long history of the site and the original barn that
has stood upon it for 150 years.
Previous to this P&Z meeting, I’d provided the developer and the P&Z with a 19page
document containing all of the historical data I’d researched and written on the barn and
its former owners, all done in hopes that the barn would be saved on the site.
This final plan for the Geiger site represents only the tiniest of preservation victories. That’s
because the old barn won’t end up crushed into a dumpster on its way to the landfill (at
least not yet). If dismantled properly and marketed well by the developer, some of the
barn’s elements might stand a chance of being reused elsewhere. However, Westport will
lose its last authentic, antique, Post Road barn – a barn going back to the Coley family and
to the early ministers of Greens Farms Congregational Church, et. al.
3/7
10/20/2015
In its place we’ll get a new, fake, barnlike building. This is how the developer will pay
134
homage to the antique barn that they’ll remove (I’ll give them some credit for that). And
hopefully, per my suggestion, a historical sign or marker on the site will tell the old barn’s
story.
It’s better than nothing, but a sad loss for me.
P.S. I totally agree with Matt Mandell’s comments below.
Matt Murray | January 31, 2015 at 2:54 pm |
I’ll take a swipe at this. In the past year these are the following stats as far as two bedroom units
(homes, condos, multifamily properties). I’m not sure what qualifies as affordable, but…….
Rooms Beds Baths Total Sq Ft Closed Price
Min 4 2 1 644 $1,300
Max 6 2 4 2,559 $4,500
Avg 5 2 2 1,360 $2,821
Median 5 2 2 1,220 $2,700
(I hope this renders well, if not I’ll try to send it to Dan and maybe he can post a chart).
Matt Murray | January 31, 2015 at 3:12 pm |
As I suspected, this did not render well. Dan tried editing it, too. I sent a PDF to Dan but that
doesn’t post well. If anyone wants the stats on that PDF I’d be happy to forward them.
Mary Maynard | January 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm |
Thânk you, Dan. Ít sém sá to uế bít and piéces ò the barn á decoration. Đóes Anyone know hơ to
giết nhậpò of. Mỹ keyboard? I Thìn ít í vietnamese. mmm
Dan Woog | January 31, 2015 at 5:26 pm |
Mary: Go to Control Panel. Click on “Region and Language.” Then go to “Keyboards and
Language.” Hit “Change Keyboard.” Scroll down. Find “Vietnamese.” Click “Remove.” Hit
“Apply,” then “Okay.” Good luck! This is a fullservice blog! – Dan
David J. Loffredo | January 31, 2015 at 6:19 pm |
“Affordable” has nothing to do with the actual cost of the real estate – plus these are rental units.
Even if you were able to purchase something, it would come with a very restrictive deed.
Affordable housing and 830g eligibility has only to do with your income as a % of the state’s
median income, which is an annually moving target.
Matthew Mandell | January 31, 2015 at 6:28 pm |
4/7
10/20/2015
There are two parts to the Geiger project and approval by P&Z
135
1. What occurred was that a developer used a zone that was created to specifically use a post road
property and build a mixed use development with affordable units, 20% of the total number.
This shows that Westport is working to create affordable housing, a developer worked within our
zoning and all is good. This is in contrast to other developers in town who wish to exploit the 8
30g law and over denisify and over develop our town. Bravo to one, shame on the others.
2. The Barn. The developer, Coastal, on first attempt was going to raze the barn. People objected,
they met with them. To the credit of the developers and Mr. Redniss their consultant, they came
up with a plan to save the barn in exchange for a few bennies, such as an easing up on a few
parking spots. This was a good plan, a give and take by all parties to save the barn. The P&Z
concerned that such bennies would be abused, possibly by other developers, denied the plan.
Personally, I did not share that concern and advocated for the plan.
So everyone went back to square one and the barn is toast. Hopefully they will find a way to use
the pieces and pay homage to it. In the mean time P&Z needs to adjust its regs to allow for the
saving of historical buildings on commercial properties. Section 3218 in the regs has this for
residential properties, they need to incorporate it for commercial. Time is running out. We lost an
1835 house on Post Road West in July, and now this 150 year old will go. We did save Kemper
Gunn.
Both these issues are about town character. One concerning our self determination to choose the
density and location of affordable housing as we see fit. The other is preserving our past while
embracing the inevitable changes as we move forward. The Geiger project is a great lesson.
Stephanie Bass | January 31, 2015 at 9:12 pm |
I get that “affordble” means income, not rental $$$s; I hear you saying that it is a % of median
income for the state of Ct. and rolls every year. So, what was the median income for the state in
2014? And if you are already in, and don’t qualify for the next year because the median income
rolled or you make more $$$ and place yourself out of the range, must you move? This sounds
like one big mess.
David J. Loffredo | February 1, 2015 at 9:30 am |
There are two rules:
1) Less than 80% of the State Median Income. In 2014 the SMI for a family of 1 = $54K, family
of 2 = $71K, family of 3 = $87K, family of 4 = $104K. I don’t know if you have to “requalify”
periodically or how that works.
2) What you pay for housing can not be more than 30% of your household income.
5/7
10/20/2015
So if you do the math:
136
Family of 1 = 54K x .8 = 43.2K x .3 = 13K/year for rent max
So you get an idea of what they can rent 1/2/3 bedroom units for and so forth. The income bar
is what I think we struggle with in Westport, there are a lot of people who think they might
qualify who have too much income coming from investments, etc – that they’re disqualified
right off the bat.
I hope this helps. I think conceptually it’s a great idea but practically speaking it’s pretty
limited and allows for developers to abuse it.
Bart Shuldman | February 1, 2015 at 2:49 pm |
As most know, almost all Westporters will not qualify for affordable housing. It is not only
your income, but you add in a percentage of your assets, such as 401k’s, savings, etc. and
don’t think you can move money to a child to hide your assets. They look back.
With more affordable housing coming and adding more children to our schools, someone
should do a calculation of the costs coming. If the average cost per student is $30k, what
happens to taxes? What happens to class sizes?
As more senior citizens are forced to leave due to the higher taxes and more young people
buy those homes then we are removing a tax payer who has no children in our schools to
one with 2.2 children added.
My understanding is Westport already meets the 10% state requirement if we could add the
housing before 1990. Why the statue does not allow a town to include before 1990 is
ridiculous. It punishes towns that were forward thinking years ago.
Westport could face serious school and tax issues as we must add in more affordable
housing. As some feel it is good, I would suggest we understand the cost first. Just look to
OPEB, a benefit program that has horrible cost issues to Westport to see what happens
when future costs are not discussed.
Stephanie Bass | February 1, 2015 at 2:36 pm |
Thank you, David. That’s exactly what I wanted to know. The money left after paying rent would
make it extremely dificult for any single person or family in this group to live in Westport.
Blog at WordPress.com.
The Coraline Theme.
6/7
9/30/2015
RTM upholds open space designation for Baron's South Westport News
137
RTM upholds open space
designation for Baron's South
Anne M. Amato
Updated 12:44 pm, Wednesday, April 29, 2015
ADVERTISEMENT
Get Out of Your Timeshare
webuyandselltimeshares.com
No upfront or hidden fees to sell your timeshare. Rated "A" by BBB.
The controversial designation of the townowned Baron's South property as open space was upheld during a
Tuesday night special session of the Representative Town Meeting where debate continued into the wee
hours of Wednesday morning.
The full RTM decided after more than six hours of discussion not to overturn the Planning and Zoning
Commission's vote in March to classify as open space the 22acre property adjacent to downtown. Twothirds
of the legislative body or 24 votes would have been needed to reverse the P&Z decision. The vote was 20
yes to 14 no, four votes short of the number needed.
Four petitions had been filed by citizens asking that the P&Z decision be reversed and the RTM's Planning
and Zoning Committee on April 20 had recommended the full body overturn the zoners.
"I was torn on this issue," said RTM member Kristan Hamlin, District 4. She said her constituents expressed
concerns that trees at the property would be torn down and parking lots constructed" if a senior housing/care
project proposed for a slice of the property were built.
Baron's South, for more than five years, has been under consideration as the site for a housing/care complex
for senior citizens, the latest version of which would comprise 165 units. That project would be built on a slice
of the property just over three acres near the Westport Center for Senior Activities, according to the latest
plan by developer Jonathan Rose Cos.
ADVERTISEMENT
The P&Z's openspace decision in March came a week after the developer filed a preapplication for the
seniors' project with the P&Z, which prompted proponents of the project to begin circulating their petitions
calling for reversal.
http://www.westportnews.com/news/article/RTMupholdsopenspacedesignationforBarons6230617.php
1/3
9/30/2015
138
"We bought Baron's South to stop a developer from buying it, but now we are considering giving it away to a
developer," Hamlin added.
RTM member Clarissa Moore, District 4, said keeping the property as open space "would benefit everybody
and increase the beauty of the town. She said Baron's South was never "a good fit" for the senior housing
development and suggested a developer "buys some land" for the project.
ADVERTISEMENT
RTM member Lynn Hogan, District 3, was one of several members who questioned the P&Z's process in
making its decision. "This matter needs to be fully discussed and debated," she said. "This is not about
housing, but the process," she added. "Is it fair that four P&Z members made this decision?" she said. "If
there is any indication of impropriety, we need to overturn."
"I got hundreds of emails," said RTM member Jeffrey Wieser, District 4. "This debate isn't about seniors," he
said, adding the decision on future use of the property should be made by more than "four people on the
P&Z."
"I know the P&Z's heart was in the right place, but they got this very wrong," said RTM member Rick Weber,
District 9. "Let's be the moral conscious of our community. It was wrong for the P&Z to rezone Baron's South
before seeing the developer's plan."
RTM member Jack Klinge, District 7, said that when the town agreed to purchase the Baron's estate in 1999
"it was simple and straightforward that it be for municipal use." He said over the years the property was
considered for many uses, including a police headquarters and affordable housing for town employees but
none of those were approved. He said overturning the P&Z vote would leave room for more discussion.
RTM member Peter Gold, District 5, said he was "more than a little annoyed by the process that got us here
tonight." He added he didn't want to see anything on the Baron's South property "that isn't already there."
"This has been a very unpleasant, very messy process, said RTM member John Suggs, District 5, who noted
this was his "most important vote" in seven years.
"It hasn't been Westport at our finest," he said, referring to claims made concerning conflicts of interest by
proponents on both sides of the issue. "I ask (First Selectman) Jim Marpe to have everyone file disclosure
statements. We have to clean up our act."
RTM member Matthew Mandell, who chairs the RTM's P&Z Committee, said the commission's decision to
designate the property as open space was rushed, "that's very clear."
2/3
9/30/2015
139
He said the commission "didn't follow its own rules" and that's the reason the decision should be overturned.
Only four of the seven P&Z commission members voted for the open space designation. P&Z member David
Lessing, who was not at that March meeting, spoke Tuesday night, agreeing with Mandell. "We know we can
say the process wasn't rushed, but it was rushed," he said. "This is not about open space, but how we make
decisions as a town."
Prior to the vote, the petitioners presented their case to the RTM. "I'm here on behalf of 482 petitioners who
want the property available for municipal purposes," said Ken Bernhard, a member of the Baron's South
Committee. "There are no personal agendas here only a community allegiance."
He said the property was bought for municipal use and not "just open space." If that was the case, he said, "we
wouldn't have a senior center there." The center is located on the property and the housing proposal would
have added amenities to it.
Wendy Crowther, the only person to present a petition supporting the P&Z decision, said, "The land and its
location doesn't favor development."
P&Z Commission Chairman Chip Stephens, who voted for the open space designation, said the panel's
decision was based on criteria in the town's Plan of Conservation and Development which states the zoning
commission should "preserve, enhance and protect the natural environment." He said his commission's
"primary responsibility for promoting the implementation of the POCD."
"I can't tell you how many preapps we see," said fellow P&Z member Cathy Walsh, who also voted for the
designation. "We did not rush this. We spent a lot of time and we followed the process."
"This was discussed over a fourmonth period," added Jack Whittle, the P&Z vice chairman, about the vote.
"We didn't do it to beat the developer to the punch," he said. "Should we have waited," he asked. "Waited
for what?"
But P&Z member Andra Vebell, the only member to vote against the designation, urged the RTM to overturn
the commission vote, saying, "The concept of development deserves further discussion."
3/3
140
141
10/8/2015
P&Z Candidates Spar in League Debate WestportNow.com Westport, Connecticut
142
WestportNow.c…
Like Page
CLASSIFIEDS
ARCHIVES
Home
Arts & Leisure
Business
Community
Education
Health/Fitness
Letters
Obituaries
Pets Lost/Found
Politics
Property Sales
Real Estate
Special Reports
Sports
Teardowns
SPONSORS
PILATES for
EVERY BODY
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
Peak Personal
Fitness, LLC
serving Westport
since 1995
post comments.
P&Z Candidates Spar in League Debate
By James Lomuscio
Tonight’s League of Women Voters (LWV) of Westport debate among
candidates for the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) at times seemed
like a debate about a single subject—Baron’s South.
The sevenyear effort to build
a senior housing complex on
the 22acre townowned
property was mentioned
repeatedly by participants
seven months after its
controversial end in March
with the Republicancontrolled
P&Z declaring all of the land
open space.
pilatesforevery
bodywestport.com
REGISTER / LOG IN
SPONSORS
contact us for info
get 10% discount
SPONSORS
MO N DAY, O CT O BE R 05, 2015
Private Sessions
Group Classes
free estimate:
2032418922
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 08, 2015
News
PAINTING COMPANY
GO ADVANCED SEARCH
SEARCH
2.5k likes
Tonight’s League of Women Voters of Westport
Town Hall event featured a debate among
candidates for the Planning and Zoning
Commission. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Phyllis
Groner for WestportNow.com
In fact, the issue became so
contentious at the debate’s
onset that Republican P&Z
Chairman Chip Stephens
asked all of the other
candidates and LWV
TO TRAVEL IN AND
AROUND WESTPORT,
CHOOSE
• Commuters
• and more
203‐852‐0000
Francois
du Pont
Jewelers
GETANA & Co.
Moderator Jean Rabinow to move on.
“This has to be more than a oneissue debate,” said Stephens, who had earlier
cited traffic and congestion as major town issues.
Tonight’s debate, which was preceded by introduction from candidates for the
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Assessment Appeals, featured
eight of the nine P&Z candidates.
6 Sconset Square
Westport, CT
203·226·9804
In attendance were Republican incumbents Catherine Walsh, Jack Whittle and
Stephens, with Al Gratrix absent and reportedly in Canada on business.
Joining them on stage was Democratic challenger Paul Lebowitz, and the
minority party Coalition for Westport’s (CFW) three candidates: Denise Torve,
Glenn Payne and Howard Lathrop, a former Democratic P&Z member.
Despite Stephens’ push to move on, Baron’s South remained as focal point
with Lebowitz and Torve in particular criticizing the incumbents for their
decision. A majority of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) later voted to
overturn the decision but failed by four votes to attain the required twothirds
majority.
The first question of the night went to Torve, who was asked to name the
town’s most pressing issue.
She said there were myriad ones, “so many issues that need to be addressed,”
such as the state’s affordable housing statute 830g that allows developers to
http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/pz_candidates_spar_in_league_debate/
1/5
10/8/2015
143
ride roughshod over local
zoning laws if a town does not
have 10 percent of its housing
stock as affordable, which
Westport does not.
Other issues Torve cited were
the need for senior housing
and the current P&Z “not
being friendly.” She said the
commission “pulled the rug
out from under the feet” of the
developer that had been
selected for the Baron’s South
project.
Audience members listen to tonight’s League of
Women Voters of Westport debate in the Town Hall
auditorium. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Phyllis Groner
for WestportNow.com
Lebowitz agreed.
“The first thing I think needs to happen is that we need to bring respect back to
the P&Z,” said Lebowitz, “to reach out to seniors and to let them know their
voices will be heard.”
He also said the new P&Z will be faced with updating the town’s 2007 Plan of
Conservation of Development, which is revised every 10 years.
Walsh was quick to offer rebuttal.
“I don’t like the reference that we pulled the rug out from under the developer,”
said Walsh, a longtime proponent of using private land for senior housing.
She also said the P&Z has since formed a Senior Housing Committee to look
at private land options. She added that there has been interest from a
developer to spend $12 million on land to construct senior housing.
“I attended two of the three subcommittee meetings, and I heard a developer
say it would cost $12 million,” said Lebowitz. “He didn’t say he would do it. He
lamented it. That developer was very upset that it would cost $12 million.”
Whittle, who like Stephens grew up in town, countered that the P&Z acted “in
the best interest of the 27,000 Westport residents instead of the 100 seniors
that could have benefited.”
“This was a no brainer,”
Whittle said.
Average Amazon.com
customer review
169
I love Boost Nutrition
Drink
I love Boost; I drink one
almost every day. It
tastes good and it has
many
vitamins/minerals.
“
”
Lebowitz also criticized the
current P&Z, saying its base
line traffic study had not been
enough to address the town’s
traffic problems.
On other matters, most
seemed to be in agreement
that the Downtown Master
Plan in response to current
and future development was
P&Z Commission Chair Chip Stephens said, “This
has to be more than a oneissue debate,” referring to well done. They gave credit to
Baron’s South. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Phyllis
the Downtown Steering
Committee chaired by Melissa
Kane and done in coordination with the RBA Group, a hired consultant.
“I think the downtown study was outstandingly done, many wonderful ideas”
said Payne, acknowledging that “you can’t get everything.”
Lathrop concurred that the committee, Kane and RBA “did a great job.” He
added that he would like to see more housing in the plan, especially for seniors
since “people are graying.”
Westport’s seniors currently comprise more than 20 percent of the town’s
population, and their numbers are increasing, according to town officials.
mug, hat, or Tshirt
Lebowitz, too, lauded, the study. However, he again took aim at the current
P&Z, this time for “not being involved” with it.
Walsh fired back that she was involved and had met with Kane.
Despite candidates’ laurels for the Downtown Master Plan, Stephens insisted,
“It’s not a plan, it’s a study.”
“It’s like a Christmas basket
that has a lot of things that
look good and feel good; it’s a
wish list,” he said.
Stephens also said “95
percent of the people like it
(the downtown) the way it is.”
Stephens gave his
commission credit for helping
to save the Westport Inn from
2/5
10/8/2015
being turned into a fivestory,
more than 200unit housing
complex on Post Road Easr
by a developer looking to skirt
zoning regulations via 830g.
Catherine Walsh, Republican, and Howard Lathrop,
Coalition for Westport (and former P&Z Democrat)
listen to the debate. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Phyllis
144
“We worked to save the Westport Inn,” he said.
Lebowitz said that the inn had been saved by the efforts of First Selectman
Jim Marpe and that Stephens was taking undue credit.
“Being on the commission we can take credit for supporting the first
selectman,” said Walsh.
She said that by demanding more studies from the developer, “We bought
time,” for Marpe to negotiate, finding a new buyer for the inn.
Other questions the candidates fielded had to do with the current commission’s
text amendment 672 which puts a cap of 10,000 square feet on a downtown
commercial structures and the question of how the town, in acquiring open
space, is poised to maintain it.
Payne, for one, called the 10,000square foot limit an arbitrary number, and
said, “anyone who flies the flag of Walmart is fear mongering.”
Lathrop agreed, saying that the downtown needs variety.
“It needs to be overturned,” he said of the amendment.
“We all want charm and
diversity, but that doesn’t
mean it has to be small,”
added Torve.
Whittle was quick to defend
the amendment, saying that
before it was passed, Main
Street could have witnessed
“a 40,000square foot
superstore.”
Paul Lebowitz is the sole Democrat running for the
P&Z. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Phyllis Groner for
WestportNow.com
Regarding the maintenance of
open space, Lebowitz said the
P&Z declared Baron’s South
open space without a plan for
maintaining it.
Torve pointed out that the preferred developer, Jonathan Rose Cos., had
planed to use only three acres of Baron’s South for the senior complex, and
that the rest would be left as open space that the developer would maintain.
“That was an opportunity that was lost,” said Torve. “It is not maintained at this
time, and it never was.”
The next LWV debate is for Board of Finance and Board of Education
candidates and is scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 14.
Posted 10/05 at 11:07 PM
Does anyone know the cost to Westport tax payers for the Downtown ‘Plan’? Have we been provided any cost figures? How will it all be paid?
I agree with Chip Stephens, the Downtown Plan is a wish list of ideas, 180
pages of wish items if you care to read it, that has limited details of the cost to
Westport tax payers. While it appears a lot of discussion was about Baron’s South and how it might
help some senior citizens in Westport, is anyone else concerned about the
potential for rising taxes in Westport for all the proposed projects, that will hurt
3/5
8/23/2015
Marpe: Senior Housing Need, Pension Costs Keep Him Awake WestportNow.com Westport, Connecticut
145
WestportNow.c…
Like Page
CLASSIFIEDS
ARCHIVES
Home
Arts & Leisure
Business
Community
Education
Health/Fitness
Letters
Obituaries
Pets Lost/Found
Politics
Property Sales
Real Estate
Special Reports
Sports
Teardowns
SPONSORS
PILATES for
EVERY BODY
Pilates Mat & Stretch
Tuesdays @ 10:30
contact us for info
pilatesforevery
bodywestport.com
PAINTING COMPANY
free estimate:
2032418922
get 10% discount
Gym w/ Jeffrey Crupi
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
SEARCH
SUNDAY, AUGUST 23, 2015
GO ADVANCED SEARCH
News, Politics
SPONSORS
serving Westport
since 1995
REGISTER / LOG IN
post comments.
T U E S DAY, JU N E 09, 2015
SPONSORS
Marpe: Senior Housing Need, Pension Costs Keep Him
Awake
By James Lomuscio
Westport First Selectman Jim Marpe said today the need for senior housing,
the fear of stateimposed high density multifamily housing, and the needs to
cut pension and other benefits costs in three upcoming contract negotiations
“keep me awake at night.”
Addressing the Westport
Rotary Club, he asked, “What
allows me to fall asleep?” And then answered: “The
town’s strong financial
position, the continuing growth
of the grand list at $10 billion,
our reserves and a tripleA
bond rating.”
Marpe, who took office in
November 2013, also said he
finds comfort in the quality of
First Selectman Jim Marpe addresses today’s
town employees, “and what
meeting of the Westport Rotary Club. (CLICK TO
really makes it work so well, is ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
that so many Westporters are
committed to service on behalf of their fellow citizens.”
“I am constantly reminded that there are so many good things that happen
here, not because the government makes it happen, but because so many of
our citizens volunteer to make things happen,” Marpe said.
Then with a nod to his audience, Marpe, a fellow Rotarian, praised members
of the Westport Rotary as “the embodiment of that volunteer spirit.”
Peak Personal
Fitness, LLC
2.5k likes
TO TRAVEL IN AND
AROUND WESTPORT,
CHOOSE
• Commuters
• and more
203‐852‐0000
Francois
du Pont
Jewelers
FREIDA ROTHMAN
6 Sconset Square
Westport, CT
203·226·9804
Marpe’s review of the current state of town affairs at the club’s weekly meeting
in Branson Hall at Christ & Holy Trinity Church was pretty much similar to talks
he has given recently to other groups.
He opened on a high note, citing the 201516 total operating budget of
$202,505,295, a 2.1 percent increase over the current fiscal year. As a result,
the mill rate was set at 18.09 percent, a 1 percent increase from last year.
“Because we were able to lower the mill rate last year, our mill rate has been
effectively flat for three years running while we maintain a conservative 11
percent operating reserve and tripleA bond rating,” he said.
A tight budget has been bolstered by a swelling grand list due what what he
described as “a development boom.”
“For a lot of real estate developers, the recession is in the rear view mirror,”
http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/marpe_senior_housing_need_pension_costs_keep_him_awake/
1/4
8/23/2015
Marpe: Senior Housing Need, Pension Costs Keep Him Awake WestportNow.com Westport, Connecticut
Marpe said.
146
He then mentioned a long list
of developments and town
improvements, crediting many
of them to beginning under
former First Selectman
Gordon Joseloff, also a Rotary
member, who was present.
Among the milestones Marpe
cited were: the Bedford
Square project underway on
Church Lane; the relocation of
Rotrary members questioned First Selectman Jim
the historic KemperGunn
Marpe about deer, dredging of the Saugatuck River,
House to its new location on
and regional governing efforts. (CLICK TO
Elm Street; and working
collaboratively with
representatives of Bridgewater Associates, the hedge fund that employs 1,400
at its Westport headquarters, as the company undertakes “major renovations to
their facilities as part of their commitment to staying in Westport.”
“And we have been busy polishing the crown jewels of the town,” he said. “The
golf course at Longshore is looking better and better, and it was named one of
the top 10 public golf courses in Connecticut, a testament to the hard work and
dedication of Valley Crest (management company) and our Parks & Recreation
Department.”
Marpe also pointed out the completed dredging of Compo Beach’s Ned Dimes
Marina and its shored up the peninsula with a boulder riprap and the addition
of a walking path along that section of shoreline.
In answer to a question about dredging of the Saugatuck River, he said he has
put $2.5 million in his capital forecast for next year to take on the task.
In another update of good news, Marpe noted that the Inn at Longshore will be
getting a new restaurant in the fall, Pearl of Westport, and that the new, local
owners are investing up to $800,000 in upgrades, for when restaurant opens
late fall.
Topping a long list of accomplishments Marpe said he is proud of his work with
finding a buyer of the Westport Inn to keep it as an inn.
The sale thwarted previous owner Sheldon Stein’s plan for a fivestory, 200
unit housing complex, using the state’s affordable housing statute 830g.
The statute allows a developer to override local zoning regulations if a town
does not have 10 percent of its housing listed as affordable, which Westport
does not.
Marpe also said he is proud of his commitment to find affordable housing for
the town’ seniors, despite the fact the Baron’s South senior complex was shot
down by the Planning and Zoning Commission declaring the land open space.
“I will continue to pursue alternatives that will introduce more affordable senior
housing in Westport,” he said. “At the same time, we are looking at what
needs to be improved at the Center for Senior Activities.”
Marpe, former vice chairman and acting chairman of the Board of Education,
said he was also proud of the town’s collaboration with the Westport Public
Schools on matters such as a shared insurance consultant, solarizing school
buildings, security upgrades and energy performance.
Back to town matters, he pointed to a shared emergency dispatch center
between Westport and New Canaan fire departments.
In the coming year, Marpe predicts having more things to add to his
accomplishment roster with the implementation of the Downtown Master Plan,
as well as master plans for Compo Beach and Longshore, and increased focus
on the acquisition of open space.
mug, hat, or Tshirt
One issue raised by a questioner, however, left Marpe without an answer—
what to do about the town’s bothersome deer population.
He noted that Westport, by a special act of the state legislature, was the only
town in the state with the right to ban hunting.
Marpe said Joseloff had left on his desk a report from the Deer Management
Committee which essentially urged contraception be tried to reduce the deer
herd.
He said he was not sure this was practical and said solutions were still being
sought. He added that he had called several members of the Deer
Management Committee but had not made contact with them.
Asked about Westport’s participation in regional governing efforts, Marpe said
Westport was now a member of the Western Connecticut Council of
Governments (WCCOG), the successor to the South Western Regional
Planning Agency (SWRPA).
He said efforts to form the group, which now includes 18 municipalities, had
http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2_5/comments/marpe_senior_housing_need_pension_costs_keep_him_awake/
2/4
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157

Analysis of Affordable Housing in Westport.

Transcription

Similar documents

BNIM Powerpoint Template - Kansas City Public Schools

Service Request - MEDI

BNIM Powerpoint Template - Kansas City Public Schools

Bridging the Gap - Causeway Collaborative

westport™ collection 3670

Play Slot Machines Real Money

2452-2490 Black Rock Turnpike, Fairfield, CT

Reference Guide How to Contact Us - Tri

Boardwalk 164` Westport