Greenwich Planning & Zoning Unanimously Denies 8-30g at Former Honda Dealer

The town collectively held its breath Tuesday night in anticipation of Greenwich’s Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision on an 8-30g affordable housing proposal on Mason Street.

Mason Street Partners LLC sought to redevelop a slew of properties at the foot of both sides of Mason Street.

The application closed on August 6, but the applicant did not consent to an extension despite outstanding issues. That meant there was no further public hearing and the applicant could not submit additional materials.

After having reviewed the application on five previous occasions over the past year, all that remained on Tuesday was for the 5 seated commissioners to take a decision.

At the August 6 meeting via Zoom, the applicant brought along the land use lawyer, Tim Hollister of Hartford-based Hinckley Allen & Snyder LLP. Mr. Hollister had helped draft the state affordable housing statute 8-30g.

CGS 8-30g is intended to incentivize inclusion of affordable units in residential developments.

Towns cannot deny an affordable housing proposal unless it is necessary to protect substantial public interests in health, safety, or other matters the municipality may legally consider.

That is a high bar.

And the burden of proof is on the municipality.

The applicant was Greenwich resident, Josh Caspi of Caspi Development, whose proposal was for two multi-story buildings – one on each side of Mason Street by the intersection of Bruce Park Ave.

In total there would be 92 residential units of which 28 (30% of the total unit count) would be below market, deed restricted for 40-years.

The west side building was proposed to be 5 stories and contain 40 units for rent and the east would have 52 condos available for sale in a six story building.

P&Z chair Margarita Alban read aloud a very lengthy, 9-page motion to approve.

Socioeconomic Inclusion

The motion referred to promoting socioeconomic inclusion, noting the disparate allocation of below market units, with most of the them in one building.

Also it said project amenities would not be available to all prospective residents and were skewed in favor of the east side building.

And, it said with most of the market rate units in the east side building and that parcel providing 90% of the parking for both buildings, that failed to further the Town’s goals of housing inclusion and equality.

The motion noted Greenwich does indeed want affordable housing options and the POCD identified it as a top need, and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund had worked with the applicant who negotiated support and $100,000 in funding.

The motion listed several 8-30g applications that the commission had approved, including 120 units at Benedict Court and Benedict Place (behind St. Mary Church on Greenwich Avenue) and the housing authority’s 52-unit development with 100% affordable senior housing on Vinci Place, “Vinci Gardens.”

It noted Greenwich had added 100 affordable housing units since 2020, raising its percentage of the required 10% affordable housing from 5.35% to 5.73%.

The motion noted that previously there had been a machine shop, a stone cutting shop, auto repair, gas stations, a blacksmith and auto sales on the properties, and the applicant would be required to fully remediate to the most stringent state residential standards, saying that was essential to health and safety.

But, the motion noted some details on remediation were incomplete and additional investigations were needed.

It also noted DPW Traffic Division found the mid-block crosswalk on Mason Street to be acceptable, but only with numerous additions to the design of the project for pedestrian safety, including curb extensions, flashing beacons and signage.

And, as for possible traffic signals at the intersection with Bruce Park Ave, the motion noted there had been 6 angle crashes in the last 3.5 years, requiring further evaluation.

The motion noted there would be a loss of 11 on-street parking spaces to meet driveway sight line criteria, and the applicant would have to discuss this with Parking Services, and clarify if any of the development’s parking would be available to the public.

As for drainage, the motion noted that while the applicant had stated that stormwater management and drainage did not constitute health or safety issues, 8-30g did not supersede the requirements of the Town’s Engineering Dept or its Drainage Manual.

Also, P&Z Housing Specialist had commented on the Affordable Housing Plan in July, noting several that several items remained outstanding when the public hearing was closed, including the location of affordable units within the two buildings.

And while the applicant had previously agreed to remove the proposed retail uses or modify the buildings to achieve compliance with building zone regulations, the motion noted they had not subsequently demonstrated, prior to the close of the application how they would do that.

Each commissioner was allowed to comment prior to voting.

Commissioner Nick Macri said he was uncomfortable with unresolved issues starting with the scale of the building.

“We would be doing a clear disservice to the town without actually discussing the scale,” he said. “We need further consideration of what the proposal does to the very fabric of the town.”

He said especially given the project is bifurcated by Mason Street, there were concerns that the phasing plan did not spell out in great detail issues including staging and material storage, parking for onside labor and street encroachments that would directly effect pedestrian safety of that intersection.

Further talked about concerns for pedestrian safety given the plan relied on a crosswalk requiring upper story residents and retail patrons to travel quite a distance to safely cross Mason Street to get to parking.

Mr. Macri also talked about safety of the configuration of Mason/Bruce Park Ave intersection for pedestrians, saying that had not been vetted.

Also, he said town infrastructure was a significant matter related to off-site residents’ health and safety. “There’s a lot of people who live downhill from this, and a lot of this water actually drains into Greenwich Harbor.”

Macri said there were questions on the plans for first floor retail given 8-30g doesn’t address uses other than residential.

He said there was unclear information on remediation of contamination given deep garages would be created, and a lot of material coming out of the ground.

“Basic caveat,” Macri said. “There is something going on in the soils beneath these buildings. We would be doing a disservice to the town if we didn’t know exactly what was going on and how they were going to take care of this – a full plan in place.”

Macri said the inequity of the units would set an “uncomfortable precedent.”

“The socioeconomic bifurcation feels like an unfortunate return to days gone by and a real slap in the face to all the effort we’ve been making here – trying to make sure we have appropriate affordable housing spread throughout the town,” Macri said.

Dennis Yeskey said he believed the application was incomplete.

“We’ve made tremendous efforts starting with the POCD, where it is one of the top two priorities of the town, through the affordable housing trust fund and into the affordable housing plan,” he said, adding that there were even more approved projects than those listed in the motion.

“There were a number of projects we were on a flight path to approve and they changed,” he said. “I think we’ve shown tremendous progress in the town. This is not the right project for the town.”

Arn Welles shared environmental concerns.

“We have a toxic waste site we’re trying to deal with. There’s no telling that the waste is not infiltrating the pipe that goes through it and ending up going in Long Island Sound,” Welles said. “People fish in Long Island Sound, so they may be ingesting PFAS. Are we going to have to wait another 10 years to address the environmental issue.”

Welles added that he hoped “Hartford” understood the town was serious about affordable housing and hoped a denial would not work against Greenwich.

Commissioner Peter Levy did not comment.

Ms Alban said she had anguished over drafting the motion.

“I feel there are so many things that are open, and they are health and safety related, and could be significant and we don’t know their impact,” she said. “Why isn’t this buttoned down?”

She said the Benedict Place application the commission approved had been “buttoned down.”

“But here we have so many open issues,” Alban said.

A vote on the motion to approve failed 4-1.

Macri: No
Levy: No
Yeskey: No
Welles: Yes
Alban No.

Alban added an amendment to convert the motion to a denial by removing 13 conditions required for approval and replacing it with:

Whereas the Commission finds many of the issues which remain outstanding in this application, as summarized herein, constitute public interests in health and safety which clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing.

Whereas the Commission finds that primary among the significant public health and safety interests noted above are protection from environmental hazards, fire, traffic and flooding

Whereas the Commission finds there is not sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate these public interests can be sufficiently protected by modifications to the current application

Whereas the Commission also finds the applicant has failed to provide evidence of zoning compliance for structures containing retail uses and that such compliance is required by the Town zoning regulations as enabled by state statutes and supported by case law

Therefore, be it hereby resolved that this application is denied

The vote to deny passed unanimously, 5-0.