Westport residents are not only choosing their first and second selectman, but candidates for all the boards and commissions. This year, there is no real contested race between the candidates for the Board of Education, which controls the largest budget taxpayers support, because there are four candidates and four openings. However, the rest of the positions are true races, and while Democrats have held the majority on every board and commission, it remains to be seen whether or not they can hold on to their control over the town.
Those who run against incumbents of course declare that the status quo must change. Whether or not they agree or disagree with Republican complaints about incautious spending or wasted opportunity or poor financial planning by the Democratic administration, those are concepts easily understood.
One issue has arisen this year, however, which begs clarification.
Charges by some Republicans, including First Selectman hopeful Gavin Anderson and Desiree Soli, who is seeking a position on the Planning and Zoning Commission, that Westporters' property rights are being threatened, is unclear. What does this mean?
Soli has stated that she is opposed to the development of Westport as envisioned by the current candidates on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anderson, running for First Selectman, has said he is worried that new movement by the Planning and Zoning Commisison will endanger residents' property rights.
The Minuteman interviewed Planning and Zoning Director Larry Bradley to gain an understanding beyond the sound bites of what threats may or may not exist to Westporters' property rights.
The issue revolves around multi-family housing, and more specifically, affordable housing. The current Planning and Zoning Commission, which has a Democratic majority, is trying to find a way, with the support of the First Selectman and a mandate from the Town Plan of Conservation and Development, to expand the number of affordable housing units as mandated by state law, fearful that unless Westport increases its percentage of affordable housing units, it will face exposure to developers who could propose developments that would fly in the face of existing zoning laws, and in a lawsuit overwhelm the town and its zoning laws simply because Westport has a paucity of affordable housing.
In court, a judge might have to allow an egregious plan simply to increase the number of affordable units as mandated by state law. Under this scenario, as embedded in Connecticut state law, any resident could sue in a court of law to try to stop such a development. There is no threat to his property rights.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has some leeway in deciding how to encourage affordable housing development, which is difficult at best under any scenario, as evidenced by the tiny number of affordable units which currently exist in town. It is currently considering a text amendment that will be a first step toward making that process slightly easier. If approved by the full commission, this text amendment can be overturned by the RTM, and fought in court as well. There would be no loss of property rights there.
As part of the text amendment under consideration, the Commission is proposing that a developer may submit a special permit application for a specific site in an approved district. Opponents of this plan are clamoring for a rezoning requirement rather than a special permit application to be placed before the Commission.
Under a "rezoning" scenario, if a project is ultimately approved, residents who oppose the project can appeal to the RTM to overturn that decision, a process which is exceptionally difficult. If an appeal exists before the Planning and Zoning Commission, it requires that the original approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission be at least a 5 to 2 majority vote rather than a simple majority, and that the RTM will hear the case within 30 days and vote to overturn the P&Z decision by 24 out of 36 votes, a 2/3 majority.
This is an exceptionally rigorous standard and the only one of its kind in the state. A Planning and Zoning Commission decision has rarely been overturned by the RTM, although it has lost cases in court far more often.
It is trying to insure this RTM protest process that those who champion fighting a loss of property rights are referring to. In short, those who oppose multifamily housing, whether it is affordable, workforce, or senior in nature, are seeking a way to insure an additional layer of town oversight to prevent the process from going forward. The right to appeal in court is an option which is never threatened.