Greenwich RTM Approves GFD Plan Review Fees After Lengthy Debate

GREENWICH, CT — A plan that supporters said would bolster the town's lacking Affordable Housing Trust Fund was defeated by the Representative Town Meeting on Monday night by a vote of 75 in favor of the proposal, 117 against with seven abstentions.

The RTM was considering a plan review ordinance for the Greenwich Fire Department.

Under the ordinance, which was ultimately approved Monday night by the RTM as originally proposed, the fire marshal will charge $5 per each $1,000 of the total cost of construction of a project to review compliance with the CT state fire prevention code and regulations.

The fee schedule will go into effect July 1, and will only be assessed for commercial buildings and residential dwellings that include three or more dwelling units. Fee money will be filtered into the town's general fund.

During the RTM meeting on Monday, an amendment was put forward by the Legislative and Rules Committee which called for the $5 fee to be split in half, with $2.50 made payable to the town, and $2.50 made payable to the town's Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Created in 2021, the trust fund is used to allocate privately raised money to private developers to develop or purchase additional affordable units, renovate existing units, and potentially enhance the affordability of existing units.

Officials have argued that it helps maintain local zoning control and allows Greenwich to increase its affordable housing stock under the 8-30g mandate.

But the trust fund has struggled to raise money, proponents of Monday night's amendment said, and more money is needed in order to work with developers.

Opponents of the amendment argued that putting GFD fee money in the pot for affordable housing set a bad precedent because it would give public money to private developers and create budget uncertainties.

"The Greenwich Affordable Housing Trust Fund is the only tool in our toolbox that we can use to negotiate with developers looking to skirt local zoning regulations through 8-30g," said Cheryl Moss, RTM member and principal proponent of the amendment. "We need more capital to continue the good work the trust has been doing on behalf of the town."

Moss acknowledged that the amendment was "probably not" the best solution to fully fund the Affordable Housing Trust, but she called it "a step in the right direction."

"I ask all who want to protect our town from overdevelopment while moving the needle forward to increase affordable housing to vote 'yes' on this amendment," Moss said.

State Rep. Stephen Meskers (D-150) agreed with Moss.

"We can't claim to care about our kids, to care about our seniors and to care about our affordable housing without some level of financial commitment," he said. "This fee is a small step in the right direction, and it directs fees to our trust fund and that helps to control local development and moderate any housing proposals that come our way."

State Rep. Rachel Khanna (D-149) said more legislative mandates regarding affordable housing will come down from Hartford, and the ability to resist these mandates is "severely weakened if we fail to show local progress on the housing front."

RTM District 1 member Ed Dadakis urged the town's legislative body to reject the amendment.

He said when the Affordable Housing Trust Fund was created, it was made clear that town money would not be used and that the trust would raise money independently.

"The proposed process is strange and cumbersome. We are demanding that people who need to avail themselves of fire marshal review services are also required to pay into a trust fund, a trust fund that is not overseen by the Board of Estimate and Taxation or our town financial leaders, so there is no town supervision. That is wrong," Dadakis said. "I know people want to get the trust fund funded, but this is not the way. The proper way is for those who are proponents of this amendment to make a contribution directly to the housing trust fund and encourage their friends to do the same."

First Selectman Fred Camillo, who also acts as the town's fire commissioner, spoke against the amendment. He commended Moss for trying to find solutions to better Greenwich's affordable housing stock.

"I think the intent is right on. We're all looking for the same thing here, and that should not be discouraged," Camillo said. "But I think this sets a terrible precedent — a bad precedent because it takes public money and gives it to private developers; a bad precedent because it circumvents the BET, which is charged with managing the financial affairs for this town; and a bad precedent because it's going to create budget uncertainties in years to come."

Camillo said the amendment would "really create chaos going forward."

"I ask you all tonight to respect the original intent of this proposal, and deposit all of this money into the general fund and allow our fire department, which puts a lot of time on these fees, to recoup their operating costs," Camillo added.

Under the 8-30g statute, municipalities must have 10 percent of their housing stock designated as affordable. Greenwich has yet to meet the mark, but Camillo said things are improving.

"We were at 5.3 percent a year ago, we're at 5.8 percent of that 10 percent now, and when Greenwich Communities (formerly Housing Authority of Greenwich) is done rehabbing the [projects] we have on tap in the next two to three years, we hope we will be up to 6.7 percent with more planned after that," Camillo said.

GFD Chief Joseph McHugh spoke briefly and said he hoped RTM members would not lose sight of the original ordinance. He said Greenwich was the only town in Fairfield County not to implement a plan review fee schedule.

"We're trying to find ways to generate money for the town... When we started to work on this... I didn't think I'd be speaking here on a night about this ordinance. I thought it was going to be a slam dunk," McHugh said. "Our fire marshals and our firefighters work very hard for this town, and this is one way for us to kind of have checks and balances for our work, and hopefully you see that and realize what a great fire department you have. Hopefully this doesn't get forgotten when you vote."

After an hour of debate and after the amendment was voted down, the ordinance passed by a vote of 175 in favor, 13 opposed, with five abstentions. There was no debate.