Town Board Passes ‘Model’ Law for County Housing Settlement

The New Castle Town Board voted Tuesday night to adopt a local law in order to carry out terms of Westchester County’s 2009 federal housing settlement, which will bring significant changes to land use and zoning.

The local law is a tweaked variation of a “model ordinance” that municipalities being impacted by the settlement can use. Under the county’s federally mediated settlement with the Anti-Discrimination Center, at least 750 housing units must be built over a seven-year period. Thirty-one communities, including New Castle, are acceptable places for the construction because they have lower percentages of racial minority residents. Officially, the housing is called Affordable Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, or AFFH.

The purpose of the law is to recognize and codify what is called fair and affordable housing, including which income groups can qualify for rentals or sales, size-to-occupancy figures and turnover of units. The housing must also be aggressively marketed to people who are “least likely to apply,” which can mean non-white residents. However, any person who meets the income thresholds ( for details), regardless of race, can qualify.

Notable changes in land use include a mandate for developers of larger housing complexes to allot certain amount of their inventory for AFFH units. For subdisions, developers constructing 8-10 lots must set aside at least one for AFFH, while subdivisions more than 10 must have 10-percent AFFH. In multifamily complexes, the requirement is for one AFFH unit to be built in places with 5-10 regular units. If more than 10 multifamily units are being built, then the requirement is 10 percent.

Qualifying residents are based on a sliding scale. People who can seek rental AFFH units can have up to 60 percent of the area median income (AMI), while those who want to buy can have up to 80 percent AMI. The specific figures for AMI are determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is overseeing the settlement.

AFFH units must remain in their status for at least 50 years, based on covenants.

Resident Denounces Building Requirement As Unfair, Bad Economically

Chappaqua resident Gerry Ritterman, came out to oppose the subdivision requirement, as he would be affected by the development requirements.

A resident of 47 Lawrence Farms Crossway, Ritterman has an application pending before the Planning Board to construct a 10-lot subdivision on his 60-acre property. The units would be single-family homes ranging from $3.5 million to $7 million, he said.

Ritterman, argued that the law is unfair because it force him to sell housing for much less. He estimated that average AFFH sales prices could be between $150,000 to $300,000.

From a cost standpoint, Ritterman feels that he could lose money on the individual AFFH unit. He also noted that he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in relation to the Planning Board review.

About the law’s impact, Ritterman said, “I think we would be put out to a very unfair position.”

To mitigate the situation, Ritterman requested that the town consider an exemption for pending applications, including his. He also offered, as an alternative, to build affordable housing in another location in town to meet the requirement.

Rob Greenstein, who is running as an independent for a town board seat, concurred with Ritterman’s suggests. He also felt that the town board’s public hearing process was unfair, calling it a “sham.”

“They came in here to pass that law and they did it,” he said.

Leslie Snyder, who serves as Ritterman’s attorney, gave a series of criticisms over the local law’s legitimacy. She argued that it will constitute an unconstitutional “taking,” or a deprivation of her client’s economic use of the land. She also stated that the law amounted to “spot zoning,” arguing that it would specifically target Ritterman.

Additionally, Snyder described the board's process as not being open enough to the public, asking why some material was not made available. One example she cited was of an environmental assessment form, which the town used to determine whether or not an envivornmental review process for the legislation would be needed. In a vote, the board decided it was not.

“I don’t understand what the rush is for New Castle,” she said of the process.

Responding to criticism, Supervisor Barbara Gerrard stated that the public has had time to review the ordinance, and noted that the general model version has been on Westchester County’s website for several months.

“This is not something that is just coming out of nowhere,” she said.

Asked if he would pursue legal action against the town, Ritterman declined to comment.

Minor Changes From Draft

After from the Planning Board, as well as county planning officials, the Town Board made some slight changes to the law before adopting it. Most of the changes were technical in nature, although were some notable ones. They included:

The floor areas and occupancy limits are acceptable unless there is a requirement to meet state building codes.

Language declaring two-family homes, which would now be permitted for inclusion on subdivisions, as a permitted use. Previously, two-family homes were not permitted, with only grandfathered structures existing in town.

A PDF copy of the revised and adopted local law is attached to this story. For a general primer on the law, .