Calise: P&Z ‘Gored Wrong Ox’

By James Lomuscio

Westporter Michael Calise vowed tonight that he is going to pursue his case against the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) affordable housing amendments despite a Stamford Superior Court judge’s ruling that Calise’s case “is without merit.”
Michael Calise addresses the RTM last December as the lead petitioner in an unsuccessful effort to overturn the P&Z action. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com

“My position is right and without bias, and I’m going to pursue this until I prevail,” Calise said about his opposition to text amendments 618 and 619 passed by the P&Z during a work session Nov. 1, 2010. (See WestportNow Nov. 10, 2010)

In his decision handed down Oct. 13, Judge David R. Tobin ruled that the suit did not “demonstrate that the text amendments unfairly singled out the plaintiff or his property to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of creating affordable housing in Westport.”

“Taken together, the text amendments were broad in scope and were designed to encourage affordable housing in many zones in the town,” Tobin wrote. “There is no evidence in the record to establish a claim for partial taking.”

The amendments, approved by a P&Z 6 to 1 vote, were aimed at creating more affordable housing in Westport, an amount a subcommittee had determined to be only 2.31 percent, or 231 units.

To do that, P&Z members decided to reduce restrictions on property owners who wanted to develop housing in business zones along the Post Road.

In doing so,the P&Z stipulated that all new construction of apartments and condominiums in these commercial districts have at least 20 percent of the units designated as affordable.

Calise’s argument was that the P&Z’s decision was too broad, “a one size fits all approach,” and it should only have been applied to the general business district (GBD) along the Post Road as opposed to all districts.

Calise’s two-acre property at 215 Post Road West, for example, is in a business preservation district (BPD), which already had the legal right to build housing units without the affordable housing provision.

The text amendments, he said, were aimed at giving commercial areas without housing the right to build it.

“What it does is it takes value away from properties that already had the right to build these units without affordable housing,” Calise said.

Tobin disagreed, saying that the text amendments were “reasonably related” to the purposes set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes to “promote housing choice and economic diversity in housing for both low and moderate income households, and shall encourage the development of housing which will meet the housing needs.”

Prior to his suit, Calise had taken his case last to the town’s Representative Town Meeting (RTM). On.Dec. 8, the RTM voted not to overturn the P&Z. (See WestportNow Dec. 8, 2010)

“Basically, the judge’s decision was a rubber stamp of a text amendment that’s devoid of ethics,” said Calise. “It really has a negative impact without necessity to do what they did on a number of properties.

“It’s just not fair,” he added.“They rezoned in excess of 200 properties just to get a few affordable units.”

Regarding future recourse, Calise said, “There are many options available to me.”

“I could continue my appeal to another court,” he said. “I could go forward with a new text amendment as the RTM study committee had suggested. That might be a way.”

With the possibility of a new P&Z with the upcoming November elections, Calise added, he might find a commission more sympathetic to a new text amendment he would draft.

He said his amendment would be designed to protect property owners who already had the right to build housing without having to set aside 20 percent as affordable.

“They’ve gored the wrong ox,” he said. “I’m not gong to allow them to prevail. I’m going to continue my fight.

“I just don’t know if they don’t realize the damage they’ve done to these zones, or if they’re callous,” he added.