It took nearly three hours Tuesday for the Greenwich Planning & Zoning commission to vote on the 8-30g affordable housing application at properties on Mason Street including the ones that made up the the former Honda dealership, as well as 405 Greenwich Ave, which today is home to Samuel Owen Gallery.

The properties include 275, 290 and 294 Mason Street, as well as 405 Greenwich Ave, plus paved areas – 289 (paving), 309 (paving), 315 (paving), and 321 (paving) Mason Street. They all sold from Orchard Place Associates LLC to Mason Street Partners LLC on Oct 12, 2023 for $16,590,000. The properties also include 279 Mason Street which sold from John and Lisa Loprinzo to Mason Street Partners LLC back on Aug 7, 2023 for $1,050,000 The purchase price for all properties totaled about $21 million. Photo: Leslie Yager
The commission went back and forth with attorneys Tim Hollister and Tom Heagney representing the developer, Josh Caspi, on his plans to build two residential buildings comprised of condos for sale (no rentals) straddling Mason St.
Earlier versions of the application had one building with most of the market rentals and the other with most of the affordable units.
In September, the commission unanimously denied the application (5-0) proposing 92 residential rental units of which 28 (30% of the total unit count) would be below market, deed restricted for 40-years.
The applicant then filed a revised plan, proposing 75 units, with 12 below market condos in each building.
One building as proposed to be 6 stories and the other proposed to be 5 stories high.
One of the key disagreements on Tuesday concerned the comparability of size of the market rate condos versus the below market rate ones.
The applicant talked about the below market condos being 71% of the size of the market rate ones.

Rendering from applicant’s presentation materials.View from Mason Street looking South.
Comparability: Median vs Average and “Mumbo Jumbo”
Commissioner Arn Welles asked attorney Hollister about the applicant’s math – specifically why the applicant used “median” versus “average.”
“People don’t live in average size units,” Hollister said. “The spread of numbers can skew to the median. By using median it mitigates the impact of the outliers on the analysis.”
“I’m not sure that people live in median size units either,” said P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban.
Mr. Hollister said the 71% resulted from eliminating the “outliers” like the penthouse from his math.
He said the outliers were not used “to pump up the square footage” of the affordable units or the small units of the building.
“Where did you get this language about what’s allowed to be in a for-sale building,” Ms Alban asked. “This is unfamiliar to me.”
“It’s a concept we’ve already introduced,” Hollister said.
“You’re saying it’s allowed, but it’s not in the statute,” Alban said.
“That’s correct,” Hollister said.
“That’s mumbo-jumbo,” said commissioner Arn Welles. “The mathematical term for median means the same numbers in the data set are above the median as below, and you’re not doing that. So I cannot rely on your numbers.”
“We’ve all taken statistics courses,” Alban said. “Perhaps attorneys don’t take stats. The bottom line is there is only one way to calculate a median, and it’s exactly just what Mr. Welles just said.”
Commissioner Dennis Yeskey asked, “Are you telling us that at 71% that this is comparable?”
Mr. Hollister said size was one factor in determining comparability, but other factors included restricting units in perpetuity, having the minimum quality finishes, distributing below market units throughout the building and providing equal access to amenities.
“These are very large units. Even the smallest unit in these buildings is at the top of the market in terms of size of a condominium unit,” he added.
Mr. Hollister said he did study statistics in college.
“I am giving you an alternative way to arrive at a median when there are variable data points.”
He said a CT Supreme Court case said comparability was not a reason for denial, but rather a matter of opinion that can be dealt with by reasonable changes and conditions.
Retail Use
Attorney Tom Heagney brought up the retail use proposed for ground floors of both residential condo buildings, and said it should not be required to meet the setbacks of the underlying CGB zone.
“It provides the retail continuity the town is looking for in this part of the Avenue and Mason Street,” he said.
“If I came in and had 1,000 or even 100 sq ft of retail space, taking the commission’s position to its absurd conclusion…” Heagney said.
“Excuse me,” Alban replied. “Our conclusions aren’t absurd. This is not a way to start a conversation that should be productive.”
“What we have argued and been saying is 8-30g is silent on commercial uses,” Alban said.
Under the statute 8-30g, a commission is allowed to modify an application as long as it does not significantly impact the economics of the development.
The applicant insisted they needed the ground floor retail in both buildings to make the project’s financial plan workable.
The argument continued about setbacks for the proposed retail use.
Commissioner Nick Macri said, “Your dimensioning setbacks to an interior wall, to a use – not to the exterior wall, which to me seems contrary to the way everyone else in the world, in this country, state and this town measures a setback to a property line.”
“This is absurd,” he said.
The commissioners continued to argue that 8-30g makes no mention of commercial use.
Mr. Hollister said that while 8-30g did not mention retail use, it did not explicitly prohibit it either.
“Our read is you don’t have the right under 8-30g to override the zoning as it applies to commercial uses,” Ms Alban said.
“If you have a retail use that is so small that it is subordinate to the residential use, you use the residential setbacks,” Hollister said.
Ms Alban asked, “Does 8-30g enable a zoning override of non-residential uses?”
“Yes,” Hollister said.
“Oh really? Where does it say you can override non residential uses?” Alban asked.
“In exactly the same situation we’re dealing with here.”
“It does not say that,” Alban said. “The law is completely silent on commercial uses.”
“There is the statute. Then there is case law. And it has evolved over 30 years. You can’t talk about one without the other,” Hollister said. “You can’t say retail doesn’t appear in 8-30g. End of story.”
Further Mr. Hollister said the retail use setbacks the commission was seeking did not rise to public health and safety issues.
“We believe we are in the right, and we believe a court would uphold our position,” he said.
Mr. Hollister said the retail was proposed to be just 4.4% of the overall development, making it “accessory.”
Mr. Macri asked if the retail use was necessary given it was such a small part of the proposal.
“The short answer is yes,” attorney Tom Heagney said. “It is important to add the income and revenue to the ability to have this as an affordable housing project…”
Alban noted that an 8-30g application the commission approved at Benedict Place, in May 2024 – with 120 units where 40% of units are below market – had no retail component.
Still, Mr. Hollister said they needed the retail to make the economics of having condominiums work, and by requiring dimensional compliance for the retail the commission was intervening directly in development’s financial model.
“The revenue from the retail space, plus the sale from the prices of the 51 market rate units – especially the largest units we were referring to as ‘the outliers’ – that the revenue that will allow the applicant to sell 24 affordable units at discounts to market price that my client has estimated at more than $2 million per unit. That’s a $48 million subsidy at minimum.”
“There is a point at which you will threaten if not undermine the affordable unit plan as a financial matter.” – Tim Hollister
He added a designation of rental units as affordable was temporary, whereas the for sale condo designation was permanent.
“The unit sizes need to be in a much tighter range in a rental development than for a for-sale development,” he added, citing the ‘next available unit rule.’
He said Ms Alban’s reference to Benedict Place was not a proper comparison because those were all rental units.
Instead, he said the approval of condominiums at 62 Mason Street was a proper comparison, and that 62 Mason Street’s below market floor size for affordable units was at 71% of market rate units.
Ms Alban said she found nothing to confirm the that because units would be for sale rather than for rent that the units sizes could be less comparable.
“I know you’re laying that out as a hypothesis and you’re potentially hoping to establish some type of precedent that we should look at them differently when they’re for sale and we should reduce the comparability,” she said.
Mr. Hollister said the implication that the applicant was trying to “hoodwink or take advantage of the affordable situation” was not the case.
Town Planner Patrick LaRowe pointed out that 62 Mason St was approved under the town’s 6-110 workforce housing regulation, not 8-30g. Under 6-110, there are much less zoning incentives, and the economics are entirely different.
Mr. Hollister said that in an affordable rental, when a person’s income rises and disqualifies them, the affordable unit disappears and it is the landlord’s obligation to make the next available market rate unit available to them. However, he said with the below market rate condos, if someone no longer qualifies by their income, they can stay.
Ms Alban was not buying it. She noted there was nothing obligating the developer to make the below market condos affordable in perpetuity.
“Perpetuity refers to the length of the restriction,” Hollister said.
“Yes I know that. It’s amazing. I speak English as a second language, but that I understood,” Alban said.
“Madame chair, I am being respectful,” Hollister said.
“I did not feel that you were,” Alban said.
Hollister said in a for sale situation, where people make modifications and have an equity investment “we don’t want to ask them to move out if their income exceeds the original qualifying income. They can stay there for years sometimes if their income is over the limit.”
“It’s standard practice in the industry,” Hollister said
“It’s standard practice in the industry, but it’s not a statute and it’s not a federal law,” Alban said. “I see the rationale, but we are not the ones asking for condominium. You have chosen to commit them in perpetuity but we have not asked you for that.”
Ms Alban said the application was not complete. For example she said the floor plans did not show where the windows would go.
Also, commissioner Nick Macri said the fire marshal had asked for a generator, but the applicant revised the plan to include a box labeled generator.
“I’d like to know, is the generator gas or diesel? Is it vented to the outside? Where does the muffler go to? That’s a health and safety issue because you’re putting a generator in an interior building under residences.”
In summarizing key concerns, Ms Alban said that while the application was incomplete, that itself might not be a health and safety issue.
“Above all we’re tying to have something that is equitable, has comparability, doesn’t have a ‘rich door and poor door,’ and doesn’t have the affordable units in less desirable locations,” she said.
“We’re seeking comparability. We have not been the ones to press on the condominium issue,” she added. “Nor are we requiring the units be in perpetuity. If the applicant would prefer to go back to 40 years, we’re fine with that.”
Also she said, “We’ve never articulated to the applicant that we have a high priority for retail continuity on these blocks – we’ve never said that.”
“We’ve mentioned Mr. Hollister is making an inferral from case law because an 8-30g can’t be used to bootstrap the commercial use that therefore an accessory commercial use is acceptable. We still question that.”
She noted the project’s affordable condos were intended for people earning 80% of Area Median Income, which is high at $144,000 per year, versus State Median Income, which is $85,000.
That’s the benefit the applicant has,” she said.
“What you’re essentially doing is killing the goose that laid the golden egg…A building of this size is going to destroy the value of the properties on Ridge St. The $5, $6, $7 million houses directly behind it are now going to have to face a six story building when looking out their back windows, rather than have a view of the skyline and sunsets.” – Gwen Briggs, Ridge Street resident
Public Comment
During public comment, more than one neighbor of the development repeated Mr. Heagney’s use of the word absurd.
Ivana Sabar said using 8-30g to build high density buildings in Greenwich was “absurd.”
“This feels like madness. All these high density projects put up for approval that are size appropriate for cities and not towns,” she said.
Dineen Forest used the word “absurd” to describe the development in her neighborhood that she said would drastically impact quality of life, and the already significant traffic congestion and driver and pedestrian safety.
“I ask you reject this proposal and refocus on sustainable growth that respects the unique fabric of the community,” Ms Forest said.
Andrew Collins of Ridge Street questioned questioned the traffic study and the proposed pedestrian island on Bruce Park Ave.
“People are coming off of I-95. They’re going onto I-95. They’re in a hurry. They are trying to get into parking lots and onto the trains. Metro-North is also a player after the pandemic interlude,” he added. “This is the kind of behavior that causes pedestrian deaths all over New York City.”
“The sixth floor is also going to be looking into the back yards of my neighbors,” he added. “Setbacks are for introducing light and air, and creating high quality housing.”
He urged that the parking be inside each building rather than requiring residents from the west side cross to their cars on the east side.
“Let’s put a bridge between the two buildings so people don’t have to get run over, get wet, run over, or snowed on,” he suggested. “Or a nice tunnel from one parking lot to another.”
Ms Alban noted that in a previous iteration of the proposal the commission had asked the applicant to split the parking into the two buildings more evenly.
“The applicant has not wanted to and the state statute allows them to do this,” she said.
Ken Wheeler said the commission previously denied the application in order to protect substantial interests in public health and safety.
“Nothing has changed since that denial,” he said. “If this application is approved, Riverside, Cos cob and Byram and Old Greenwich will be next.”
John Duge, who owns 20-22 Bruce Park Ave, where he operates a family business and rents apartments, said his driveway was opposite the proposed pedestrian refuge island.
“My shop doors are actually still an active driveway. Those doors open up – they are carriage house doors – I bring my truck in and out of there. That raised pedestrian refuge island – I don’t see how that would work with my driveway. That would block my driveway.”
Ms Aban said that concern can be raised with DPW Traffic Division.
He also worried about retail customers wanting to park on the street rather than under ground.
“That’s going to overload the little parking we do have at the bottom of Greenwich Ave,” Mr. Duge said. “And they’re removing spaces, roughly 10 spaces, and adding demand from their retail customers, and additional demand from residential tenants…with multiple adults with cars.”
He said he feared people will start circling the block, driving on Ridge Street and over the hill on Bruce Park Ave to look for on street parking.
Duge said his tenants and neighbors relied on-street parking, as do Greenwich Ave apartment tenants and business employees.
“I know it doesn’t count toward 8-30g, but most of the people who live down here meet those affordability guidelines,” he said. “We may end up losing the affordable apartments we have now.”
Ms Alban said she understood the point.
“We call it ‘naturally occurring affordable housing.’ We can’t mandate the parking on this type of application. It’s done by state law.”
Gwen Briggs from Ridge Street said she was doubtful about the safety of the proposed crosswalk on Mason Street.
She said numerous trucks already make deliveries on Mason Street, including garbage trucks, and trucks delivering linens, food and liquor, not to mention Amazon and Fed Ex.
She relayed the story of two CTtransit buses getting stuck trying to pass each other on the corner of Bruce Park Ave and Mason.
“One bus backed up, took out a utility pole and 470 residents and commercial properties were without power for a few hours,” she said.
Briggs also described the houses on Ridge Street as being part of a fragile real estate ecosystem, some of them selling for many millions of dollars in recent years, and yielding significant property taxes.
“What you’re essentially doing is killing the goose that laid the golden egg,” she warned.
“A building of this size is going to destroy the value of the properties on Ridge St. The $5, $6, $7million houses directly behind it are now going to have to face a six story building when looking out their back windows, rather than have a view of the skyline and sunsets.”
Vote to Approve with Conditions: 4-1
In the end, the commission voted in favor of the application, 4-1 with Commissioner Macri voting no. Voting yes were Alban, Yeskey, Welles, Lowe.
The motion to approve included modifications:
“Affordable units with the same number of bedrooms as market rate units shall have not less than 90% of the average usable square footage of the market rate units.”
“The penthouse market rate units may be excluded from
the calculation of average size of market rate units.”
Also, “The locations of the affordable units within each of the two buildings shall be distributed on a pro rata basis so as to be equally desirable relative to the market rate units. As an example, the rear of the eastern building which faces the rock wall may not contain a disproportionate number of affordable units.”
“The bedroom distribution in the affordable versus market rate units shall be the same. That is, if 10% of the market rate units are 3 bedroom, then 10% of the affordable units shall also be 3 bedroom.”
“Prior to permit application, site plans shall be modified to eliminate all commercial uses, except those pre-existing on 405 Greenwich Avenue.”
Lastly, “The common charges shall be agreed with the P&Z Housing Analyst.”
See also:
Greenwich Planning & Zoning Unanimously Denies 8-30g at Former Honda Dealer September 2024
Six Story, 120-Unit 8-30g approved behind St Mary Church in Downtown May 20, 2024
P&Z Watch: Is 92-Unit 8-30g “The Missing Tooth” in the Fabric of Downtown Greenwich? July 11, 2024
P&Z Watch: 8-30g Application on Mason St – “A Cavernous Effect on the Street” June 1, 2024
Multi-Story Buildings Proposed at Former Honda Dealership on Both Sides of Mason Street November 2023