Greenwich’s Affordable Housing Trust Board met on Friday with a single item on the agenda: “Discuss Mason Street.”
This was a reference to the 8-30g application to redevelop properties including the former Honda dealership. It was unanimously denied by the Greenwich Planning & Zoning commission on Sept 17.
Attending the meeting was the developer Josh Caspi and attorney Tom Heagney, who described plans to resubmit the application with the units to be entirely comprised of condominiums for sale, in two buildings, one on the east and one on the west side of Mason Street.
There would be 12 affordable condos in each building and a reduced overall total of 75 units, down from 92.
On Sept 17, the P&Z commission’s motion listed several reasons for denial including incomplete information about plans for the intersection with Bruce Park Ave, remediation of contamination, and traffic.
The trust fund board had issued a commitment letter for $100,000 in funding for the project.
The proposal was for a combined total of 92 units in the two buildings – one with condos for sale and one with units for rent.
The below market units were proposed to be split, with 3 affordable condo units in the 52-unit for-sale condo building, and 25 affordable rentals in the 40-unit rental unit building.
Mr. Caspi now seeks a new commitment letter from the trust to reflect an all-condo proposal. Out of the 75 condos, 12 units would be for sale to people at AMI in each building. Overall, the 24 affordable condos would comprise 32% of the total unit mix.
He explained the building exteriors would be unchanged. There would be fewer units overall, but the bedroom count would increase with more 2- and 3-bedroom units. They would all be condos, and no rentals.
Trust co-chair Bill Finger noted the applicant had submitted the project as a set aside with the different mix of units, and was revising it to seek assisted status.
Mr. Caspi said the unit count was lower but the parking spaces would be unchanged. (155 on the east and 17 on the west).
Town Planner Patrick LaRow said that under the 8-30g appeal process, rather than go straight to Court, an applicant can return to the commission within a limited time period and resubmit a revised application addressing the outstanding issues P&Z had cited in their denial.
“The applicant is making use of that process right now,” LaRow said.
Brooks Harris, who asked numerous questions, asked about the rationale for switching to all condos for sale.
“There are issues around condominiums we need to discuss,” Harris said. “That’s a bigger lift in my mind than the original proposal that was primarily rental.”
Mr. Heagney said the first iteration had proposed all condos on one side and all rentals on the other side. Next, they proposed to put one affordable condo in the condo building, and then later increased it to three, in perpetuity, and the remainder of affordable units as rentals in the rental building, with a 40 year deed restriction.
He said the commission at one point referred to the mix as ‘tokenism.’
“Now it’s 12 in one and 12 in the other, so they are equally spread out in the two buildings,” Mr. Heagney added.
Mr. Harris questioned whether the commission’s motion to deny had included the mix of affordables in the two buildings.
“I believe that was one of the reasons, yes,” Heagney said. “They had that in the resolution that was part of the decision.”
(The P&Z decision letter on the application has not yet been released.)
Town Planner Patrick LaRow said “the mix” was “an issue, not the issue.”
Anthony Cicchetti asked about the placement of the affordable units within the buildings.
Mr. Caspi said they would be scattered throughout, rather than clustered in the building.
He said the affordables would have a smaller square footage, consistent with what is acceptable under 8-30g, but that every amenity would match the amenities in the market rate units.
Trust co-chair Mary Jenkins asked how much smaller the affordable condos were proposed to be.
Mr. Caspi said the affordables would be about 70% of the size of the standard market rate units. He gave the example of a 1700 sq ft market rate 2 bedroom unit versus a 1200-1300 sq ft affordable unit 2 bedroom.
He added that amenities would be available to all residents, on both sides of the street, and that there would be one condo association.
There was discussion about how condo association charges would work.
Mr. Larow said fees are attributed to a mortgage, which does impact affordability and does disqualify some people who would otherwise qualify for a below-market unit by income alone.
Crystal Berry, the town’s housing specialist, said prospective applicants are required to provide a pre-approval letter of their ability to pay and have to be income qualified.
Mr. LaRow said in an affordable rental, if a person’s circumstances change, they can “qualify out.”
“If you have a windfall, you get married, win the lottery and you’re in a qualified unit, you don’t get evicted, but once the lease term ends, you would be paying market rate,” he said.
However, Mr. LaRow explained that in a condo situation where a unit is purchased, compliance continues because the sale is always capped.
Mr. Harris asked how a person who suffers from “lessness” could qualify for financing? “In this case we’re talking about $100,000 to hundreds of thousands of equity put down.”
“My initial ignorant view is these will all go to the sons and daughters of wealthy people who just graduated from college,” he said. “I’m trying to get the facts to disabuse myself of that preconception.”
Mr. Caspi said there would be a lottery.
Romulo Samaniego said that in New York City there are similar arrangements for affordable co-ops.
“You have people who make $50,000 a year, but mom and dad give a check for $200,000 to $300,000, and they buy the co-op,” he said. “This will happen, but you have other people who have savings, but don’t have the salary.”
Ms Jenkins pointed out that these arrangements were more well established in New York than Connecticut.
Mr. Harris asked if the condos would be expensive.
“Go look for a 1400 or 1600 sq ft 3-bedroom in Greenwich for $450,000 to $500,000,” Mr. Caspi suggested, adding that prospective owners of the affordable condos would be “laser focused” on the opportunity.
“I have done these lotteries before in New York City, in Brooklyn, and I’ve seen very laser focused people who need the housing and roll up their sleeves and get on the list and get it done – pull money from family, borrow, whatever to get it done.”
Ms Jenkins since the proposal was new with respect to affordability and there would be opinions from the P&Z commission. She noted there were already 2 trust fund commitment letters for Mr. Caspi’s prior proposals.
“I think it would make sense at least to wait and see the preliminary response of P&Z, to see whether there are concerns we need to address,” she said.
Mr. Samaniego said home ownership gives equity and lifts people above the poverty line.
Mr. Harris disagreed. “It’s not really home ownership because you’re capped and growth of the AMI (area median income), modified by the interest rate.”
He suggested there be a fulsome debate as to whether the condos would offer an advantage. “I would argue it’s not the same as owning a home where you keep all the upside.”
“I want to fast track this to P&Z. That’s why I want you behind it,” Mr. Caspi said.
Mr. Caspi said he would be willing to provide a deed restriction for the affordable condos in perpetuity.
“That would be a big plus,” Finger said.
Mr. Finger made a motion to approve a conditional commitment letter of $100,000 from the trust for what he called “alternative b,” the all condominium concept, but no one seconded it. He said “alternative a,” the previous proposal, was still alive.
The board declined to vote on a funding commitment letter on the all for-sale condo proposal.
Ms Berry, the town housing specialist, was asked for a list of names of all the affordable for sale properties with deed restrictions on affordability and the number of units that she administers in order to help them better understand the condo process.
Honda business straddling Mason Street. March 3, 2021 Photo: Leslie Yager
See also:
Greenwich Planning & Zoning Unanimously Denies 8-30g at Former Honda Dealer
Sept 18, 2024
Aug 11, 2024
P&Z Watch: Is 92-Unit 8-30g “The Missing Tooth” in the Fabric of Downtown Greenwich? July 11, 2024
Neighbors Weigh in on Proposed Residential Development at Former Honda Site Dec 2023
Multi-Story Buildings Proposed at Former Honda Dealership on Both Sides of Mason Street Nov 20, 2023
Residential Development on Mason Street Could Serve as Secondary Gateway to Greenwich March 2021