LETTER: Responding to objections raised about 51 S. Main Street proposal

Oct. 19, 2022

To the Community: 

Todd Volitis's recent post on Front Porch Forum and the associated letter posted on Waterbury Roundabout contain some factual inaccuracies that should be highlighted. This letter has been adapted from my original Front Porch Forum post and edited, primarily with respect to some assertions made in Mr. Volitis’s revised letter published in the Roundabout.

RE EFUD not advertising the vote: The information meetings and vote have been published numerous times in numerous forums (Front Porch Forum, the Roundabout and the Reader, in public locations as required by open meeting law). Stating that they have not informed the public is not correct.

RE voter suppression: See above – this vote is not being suppressed. Everyone who is registered in the EFUD area is welcome to attend and has been encouraged to do so.

RE EFUD paying for Downstreet's design: EFUD did not pay for design work –  Downstreet has shouldered all costs for the project thus far. Saying otherwise is not true.

RE the 'Business District': The project is located in the Downtown District which allows for a high-density mix of commercial and residential uses as adopted and approved in 2021 by the Select Board (as Interim Zoning Bylaws while the full Unified Development Bylaws are finalized). As such, this use is 100% conforming. There is nothing stipulating that buildings in the Downtown District are required to contain commercial operations.

Also, there is an assertion later in the letter published in the Roundabout that states that “Downstreet’s design is full of flaws. For example, why is there no green space in the Downstreet design?” The Downtown district allows for 100% of a parcel to be covered by developed surfaces – building footprints, parking spaces, or other impervious surfaces (essentially anything other than greenspaces like lawns). This is intentional in that it allows for dense development in the center of the village area. This use is conforming with zoning bylaws. So it’s inaccurate to characterize this as a “flaw.” 

And, as has been pointed out, the new development on this lot, whatever it is, will need to undergo design review by the Design Review Board just like any other project. This is an important part of the process in that it provides abutters a chance to comment on the project. 

RE Downstreet not paying taxes on the parcel: This is not correct – they would pay full taxes as would any other developer. They are also not receiving tax breaks. As a reminder, EFUD does not collect taxes as a utility district. Village taxes disappeared when the Village became EFUD. The utility district levies fees for the use of water and sewer. There aren't taxes associated with their activities specifically. Taxes are collected by the Town of Waterbury.

RE home ownership and equity creation/generational wealth: Yes, it's true that ownership can create equity and generational wealth which are pathways to financial stability for many. However, there often need to be stepping stones to achieve that level of stability. Rental housing is one of those stepping stones, allowing workers to become established in a community and a career. 

In a case where rental rates are based on income, this can then allow renters to save enough to put money down on a house. Only having home purchase options is not always the only answer. Creating pathways to home ownership is one of Downstreet's stated goals. Mr. Volitis's statement is misleading at best.

RE big government: Downstreet is a non-governmental organization that does, when needed, use government-based grant funding to accomplish projects which then allows them to accommodate a wider array of renters than a purely market-based developer. It's not clear where big government fits in.

RE addressing the housing crisis in your proposal: I appreciate your effort on this and think it's great that you want to help address it through home ownership. But the Downstreet proposal is for nearly 30 units – more than the 6 ownership units and 2 rental units you're proposing. Additionally, income-sensitive rental units will help those who are working locally but can't afford to put down a down payment and service a mortgage (or who may not even want to, preferring to rent versus own) establish themselves, potentially sooner than a market-rate housing proposal. 

As for commercial development – Downstreet has said that their development could accommodate commercial development, though it's hard to believe that with a worker shortage and a demonstrated lack of interest in commercial space in the last year or so, that our community would be best served with another commercial rental space. It has been said that they are “lying” about the commercial space. That's not correct. The grant they need doesn't allow for it – that's true. But were they to pursue construction of that space, they would fund that with another source and rent it at market rate.

I really do hope that Mr. Volitis pursues his idea in Waterbury – we need more housing and his vision could be an important part of how we fill that need. It's not clear to me that 51 S. Main is the right spot for it nor that it's the right proposal right now. There are available lots in town that could accommodate the mixed owner/rental residential/commercial development, however.

Dana Allen

Waterbury 

Dana Allen is an EFUD resident, small business owner, and member of the Waterbury Planning Commission.