Are Large Homes A Golden Goose And Will P&Z Kill It?

Since large homes boost property values and town revenues, what exactly is wrong with them? That question was asked at the second public hearing on proposed regulations that would limit the sizes of homes for the sake of benefiting the environment.

"No one approached me and said the houses are too big and you're lowering the value of my property," said Gerald Romano, a builder turned Realtor. Large homes, he argued, boost the value of surrounding properties, and then they can be valued at a higher price, yielding more taxes for the town.

"Just protect our safety and enforce the rules you have in place," he said to the Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday. "Too many rules is chaos. Less is harmony."

Amendment 621 has been proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a way to reduce lot coverage and limit storm water runoff, which has an adverse affect on water quality. While large homes are targeted, owners of small homes say these regulations would lower their property values and tie their hands.

The proposed regulations call for a number of changes to existing coverage regulations. The total coverage of a home has to be under a certain percentage of the size of the lot, and that percentage remains the same in the proposed regulations. What does change, however, is how that coverage is calculated. For example, patios are proposed to be included in total coverage calculations. In existing regulations, patios are not included in the calculations. Pools would also count towards total coverage rather than building coverage.

If a home is becomes too big for a lot under the proposed regulations, a variance – which is hard to come by – would have to be obtained to change the building since the home would be nonconforming.

In the last two hearings, most people who spoke opposed the changes. On Thursday, there was a balance.

Michelle Lamothe, who lives in a 1,700 foot home on Juniper Road, said that the main cause of pollution in waterways is storm water runoff from residential lots.

"Like any regulation in place, for the greater good, it will necessarily impact some more than others, but we have to start somewhere," Lamothe said.

One other person strongly supported the regulations.

"I'm thrilled to see it," said Michele Knapp, a builder. "I'm thrilled to see the work everyone has done."

One problem with the regulations she noted was that there's no limit on the height of the home, so homes might become taller rather than larger.

 "The more you restrict these things, the more you're encouraging people to build the highest home closest to the road [to limit coverage by a driveway], said Bill Green, of Bluewater Hill.

Figures calculated by Planning in Zoning demonstrate that as time goes on, Westport's homes are becoming larger and larger. Currently, there is 52.6 million square feet of coverage in Westport. The total amount allowed under existing regulations is 99.9 million. If the amendment was adopted, the total coverage could only total 89 million square feet, a 9 percent reduction.

Another reason for the change in coverage regulations was a telephone survey conducted in 2007. A large number of the those questioned said that oversized homes was a key quality of life issue. Now, three years later, some are questioning the validity of that survey.

 "I think a more valid result would be if you mailed a simple questionnaire to each and every household in Westport and ask that they be returned," said June Getraer, of Greens Farms Road.

She added, "What would our tax base be [if there were fewer large homes]? We are in competition with other towns in Fairfield County and on the Sound."

There will be a third public hearing on Oct. 14 in Town Hall. Discussions will likely be closed after that hearing.