To the Editor,.
I am concerned about attempts by outside forces to compel Woodbridge to allow “affordable” housing in a hilly, rocky, residential, rural neighborhood devoid of water mains, sewer lines, gas lines, and public transportation. Why did the plaintiffs purchase the property first, then apply to change the zoning, in such an impractical location for such changes?
I agree with other residents at the January 4 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, that zoning changes should be “Woodbridge driven.” Woodbridge already provides affordable housing for those over 65 in our community, although more would be even better.
Plaintiffs should consider the vacant fields near the intersection of Route 63 and Route 69, north of the Merritt Parkway. For example, the property at Litchfield Turnpike and Bradley Road already has bus service and a variety of other amenities, including stores. The land is on level grade, and is generally free of rocky ledge, making construction easier, and less costly, than building up in the hills. The recently reconfigured road net can sustain the traffic. If this area is already being considered by developers, let competitive bidders compete for that chance and pay a fair market price for these desirable properties.
Waiting for a judicial mandate may bring more severe consequences than if we proactively navigate our own zoning changes. Woodbridge, as a community, can handle its own accountability. Thus, I suggest we move forward with a pro-active solution.
It is wrong to suggest, as the Yale Law School has, that Woodbridge has intentionally neglected affordable housing, when their data ignores that which already exists.