Our Town

All indications are that on Tuesday evening (March 9) the Planning and Zoning Commission will grant final approval for a coastal site plan on “a 9.678 acre property located at 22 Sound Shore Drive in the R-6 zone,” so described in the tentative agenda for the Commission’s Tuesday meeting. This 9.678 acre property is otherwise known as the former Cos Cob Power Plant site. The plan for the property, according to the Commission’s agenda, includes a turf field, playscape, open air pavilions, walking trail and amphitheater.

Planning and Zoning approval of this coastal site plan could be construed as a green light to finally move forward after the passing of so much time. It has been almost 23 years since the state conveyed the property to the town for $1 on July 7, 1987.

It should, therefore, be very good news that we are finally taking this step. The possibility of having a new playing field in place by the summer of 2011 is most welcome. After all, the town desperately needs more fields.

But wait a minute. Not so fast. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

The coastal site plan application makes no provision for the affordable housing that was supposed to be built on this site. But this application is not the complete plan. Technically, it is an application “for placement of earthen cap” and “stabilization of existing shoreline for remediation.” Such a plan for “capping” the site is required by the state for remediation approval. This is what the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to act upon. The application has been framed in such a way that the housing issue is not before the Commission.

There is an irony here. The town has come up with a “capping” and remediation plan for state approval that includes recreational and open space uses of the property with no mention of affordable housing on the site and no provision to build housing units elsewhere. And yet, the state legislature would never have turned this property over to the town in the first place were it not for the requirement that a portion of it be used for low and moderate income, and/or senior, housing. Affordable housing was the driving force behind the state’s conveyance of the property to the town in 1987. This seems to have been conveniently forgotten.

The original state stipulation in 1987 was that the town use 25% of the site for low and moderate income housing, or for senior housing. The remainder of the property was to be used for public open space purposes. Unfortunately, the legislation gave no time frame for developing the land for these purposes. After 10 years, on July 8, 1997, at the town’s request, the state legislature amended the original legislation to allow the town to provide ” on or after October 1, 1997, housing units on other property in Town which are equivalent to this requirement.” Another 13 years have passed since that amendment. And still there is no plan for equivalent housing on other property in town.

Last year the Town Attorney took the strange position that the town has already met the housing requirement for the former Cos Cob Power Plant site. This is a highly questionable premise. In the first place, he considers the 40 bedrooms at the Parsonage Cottage senior residence as counting toward meeting the obligation in spite of the fact that Parsonage Cottage had already opened its doors prior to the October 1, 1997 date. He also counts special needs units developed by Pathways since October 1, 1997 as well as the units at the Hill House senior congregate living facility, also developed after the October 1997 date. But these units were developed by private, non-profit organizations without town involvement.

The legislation clearly states that the town should provide equivalent units to meet the requirement. At no time did the town ever claim that Pathways and Hill House were meeting the town’s obligation to provide affordable housing on the former Cos Cob Power Plant site while these private, non-profit organizations were planning and building their housing. Such an idea never entered anyone’s head. To claim so now, after the fact, is absurd, based only on the flimsy argument that these non-profits used federal Community Development Block Grant money as part of their funding packages.

In any case, the Town Attorney’s opinion is of little consequence. According to the 1997 amended legislation, the obligation to use 25% of the site for affordable housing can only be waived by the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development and only if “he determines that the Town has provided” the equivalent housing units elsewhere in town. In other words, only the state can rule on whether or not the town has met the requirement. And it is likely to be quite clear to the state that the town has not met this requirement.

Perhaps Planning and Zoning approval of the coastal site plan on Tuesday will not be a green light to move forward after all. If we want our much needed playing field, maybe it behooves us, after 23 years, to finally come up with a plan for affordable housing. Or maybe we should do this in any case, simply because it is the right thing to do.