Affordable Housing Developer Accuses New Castle of Discrimination
The developer of the stalled Chappaqua affordable housing project has filed a discrimination complaint against New Castle alleging that the municipality is delaying the building’s development based on potential residents’ race or ethnicity.
Conifer Realty, LLC submitted its complaint to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on March 6, claiming that the town, through Building Inspector William Maskiell, has failed to move forward with building permits after intense community opposition has continued to swell against the 28-unit building slated for Hunts Place.
Maskiell and Westchester County have also been named respondents in the matter. In December, the Board of Legislators narrowly rejected a resolution that would have provided about $2.85 million for the project from county funds available under the affordable housing settlement with the federal government. A majority of the legislators agreed to wait to issue funding until the state Hudson Valley Regional Board of Review approves variances related to firefighting requirements.
The board of review has yet to make a decision, although a hearing was opened in December. It is scheduled to reconvene on Apr. 8 in Cortlandt. However, Conifer’s attorney, Randall McLaughlin, has asked for a change of venue to have the matter heard with the regional board in Albany, Maskiell said.
Conifer’s complaint stated that in September, at about the same time the previous town board approved the project in a split vote, Maskiell opposed the issuance of building permits based on state fire codes even though no permit or variances had been applied for yet. That came after Maskiell erroneously stated the project needed variances from local zoning codes, Conifer’s complaint alleged.
The respondents “have delayed and attempted to halt the development of affordable housing based on community leadership that opposes the proposed Conifer development because of the race and national origin of the development’s potential occupants,” the complaint concluded.
When reached at town hall last week, Maskiell said there are eight variances related to state fire or building codes that would be needed, a few of them quite serious. He maintained that there isn’t enough room on the one-third of an acre site to bring in equipment and fight a blaze properly.
One obstacle would be fighting a fire on the side closest to the Metro-North tracks, Maskiell said. Firefighting equipment would have to go on the tracks since there is virtually no setback from the property line. On the opposite side, there isn’t space to place a fire truck about 15 feet from the building, the proper distance to attack a fire on the upper reaches of the 30-foot structure.
Maskiell brushed off the claim of discrimination, contending a fire in the building would pose a danger for an occupant of any background.
“I don’t care who they are,” Maskiell said. “A fire doesn’t differentiate between races, so it’s simply ridiculous to say something like that.”
At last week’s town board meeting, a statement read on behalf of Bill Spade, a member of Chappaqua for Responsible Affordable Housing and one of the leading opponents of the Hunts Place project, strongly refuted the accusation of discrimination made by Conifer and McLaughlin.
Spade said the discrimination claims “are part of a new campaign to try to rescue Conifer’s poorly conceived and planned proposal by drawing HUD into the process under the guise of accusing community members who oppose the project of discriminatory intent.
Instead, Chappaqua for Responsible Affordable Housing has pressed town officials to explore municipal property on Washington Avenue near town hall as a possible alternative.
“Our opposition to the Conifer proposal is purely and simply a matter of opposing the construction of affordable housing on a terrible site that is unsuitable for residential use, and standing up to a developer that shows no concern for the quality of the housing that it is providing and whose sole interest is to earn its $2 million development fee,” Spade’s statement read.
The respondents had 10 calendar days to answer the complaint. Under the law, HUD is required to complete an investigation within 100 days of the complaint’s official filing.
Martin has more than 30 years experience covering local news in Westchester and Putnam counties, including a frequent focus on zoning and planning issues. He has been editor-in-chief of The Examiner since its inception in 2007. Read more from Martin’s editor-author bio here. Read Martin’s archived work here: https://www.theexaminernews.com/author/martin-wilbur2007/
