By James Lomuscio
Big houses got big support at a Westport Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing tonight. McMansion defenders touted everything from the American Dream and property rights to the increased value of surrounding homes to less water runoff than small ranch houses.
The conversations even took philosophical turns when some begged the questions of how big is too big, and the precise definition of McMansion.
“They’re now part of the landscape in every neighborhood, and they’re not an intrusion anymore,” said Kenneth Camarro, a real estate agent.
A Fairfield resident, Camarro said his town’s zoning body explored limiting home sizes several years ago but backed off “because we would have created a large number of nonconforming structures.”
“People could not claim injury,” he said about neighbors whose homes rose in value while dwarfed by behemoth structures.
The Westport meeting was the second of two public hearings concerning P&Z text amendment 621 designed to change coverage requirements in the hope of limiting big houses.
Under the proposal, all residential zones would limit house sizes to 15 percent of the total 25 percent of allowable lot coverage. The amendment would also make pools, decks, porches and patios part of the total coverage instead of the house coverage.
The amendment’s genesis was a 2007 survey of 400 Westport households. More than 78 percent of those polled favored limiting house size to preserve the town’s character.
The amendment’s opponents, however, argued the changes would place the burden on houses on smaller lots, making them nonconforming.
Laurence Bradley, Planning and Zoning Department director who introduced the proposed amendment, said that if it passed the number of nonconforming homes would jump by 306.
There was also a second round of discussions on two other text amendments Bradley introduced tonight, 618 and 619 which would facilitate the construction of affordable housing along the Post Road.
These amendments aim at bringing more economic diversity to Westport, which has only 2.7 percent of its housing stock listed as affordable compared to the state goal of 10 percent.
These amendments, which would require that 20 percent of new construction in Post Road residential and residential-commercial zones be affordable, received mostly favorable nods.
Land use consultants and architects made suggestions for some adjustments, such as increasing the height of buildings from 35 to 40 feet and keeping the setbacks at 30 feet instead of 20.
“Overall, I think if you apply this particular concept to the general business district, it certainly has the potential for working,” said Michael Calise, a property owner and developer.
Calise stressed, however, that such development remain in the general business district and not in areas designated for condominiums.
The amendments aimed at putting the brakes on big houses, however, brought more objections that suggestions.
Lois Schine, a member of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), said, “Changing the coverage requirements takes away the value of my property.” She called it “a taking.”
“My lot is assessed at a greater value because I have big houses built around me,” she said about her modest-sized home on Bayberry Lane.
“I question the validity of a telephone survey done in 2007,” Schine added. “I’d like to see one now because the world has changed in three years.”
June Getraer, who lives on Greens Farms Road, suggested the town “mail a questionnaire to each and every household in town, and you would get a more informed result.”
“What would our town have looked like if we did not allow big houses?” Getraer asked. “What would our tax base be?”
Sheldon Minkowitz, a Westport resident since 1965 and a builder who said he has constructed more than 200 houses in town, argued that if big homes were so detrimental, Westport would not have witnessed increased home values nor remain a desirable place to live.
“How can you come up with a solution if you have not defined a problem?” he asked.
One of the problem cited was that big houses generate more roof rain runoff that pollutes local waterways. Minkowitz countered that current engineering requirements stipulate that such new construction have a dry wells installed to keep the water on site.
“Every liter has to go into a dry well,” he said. “So, this story that you’re tearing houses down and causing drainage problems is factually incorrect.”
Minkowitz continued that an existing 1,500-square-foot home sends more runoff into aquifers than large homes.
Matthew Mandell, an RTM member, said while he was happy to hear that, his biggest concern is what takes place during demolition with the clear cutting of trees and resulting runoff.
I support the idea of limiting of house size in Westport, especially the height stipulation which is much greater than our sister towns of Fairfield, Weston and Wilton. I recently thought of moving within our town and looked at several older, smaller homes – about 2,500 sq feet. Two houses I rejected outright because they were next to – and “dwarfed by” newer much larger and taller homes. They looked as if they were being guarded/threatened by giants.
As for the tax base issue – I have wondered over the past 4-5 years just where all this added revenue has gone. Our taxes have continued to rise while cutbacks have been deemed necessary. In the words of a familiar song, “Where has all the money gone?”
Finally, people move to Westport because they want to move to a town with a location on the shore and an excellent school system, not because we have large homes. It’s a matter of services and geography, in my opinion.