The application for a 92-unit 8-30g affordable housing development at the bottom of Mason St at the former Honda dealership went before the P&Z commission again last week.
At the end of a very long discussion, the commission closed the application, but did not vote.
That means they cannot take additional public comment beyond the comments Tuesday night, which were from residents opposed to the project.
Residents also submitted a new petition in writing with 99 signatures against the project.
The applicant proposes to tear down the buildings on both sides of Mason Street – most of which were part of the former Honda dealership, but also include a residential multi family house – and replace them with two multi-story residential buildings straddling Mason Street.
The east side building would have six stories, the west would have five.
They also propose first floor retail space in both buildings.
Present for the applicant was attorney Tom Heagney and engineer Tony D’Andrea.
One of the attendees on Zoom for the applicant was Tim Hollister of Hartford-based Hinckley Allen & Snyder LLP, land-use lawyer who helped draft the state affordable housing statute 8-30g.
The AHTF has worked with the applicant who negotiated support and $100,000 in funding.
Non-Conformities
As she had previously, P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban pressed the applicant about whether existing non-conformities including retail could carry over.
Other non-conformities relate to setbacks and both site and building coverage.
Alban said her recollection was that the commission previously consulted with Mr. Hollister about 8-30g being limited to residential developments, not commercial spaces.
(The properties owned by the applicant include 275, 290 and 294 Mason Street and 405 Greenwich Ave, plus paved areas – 289 (paving), 309 (paving), 315 (paving), and 321 (paving) Mason Street. The properties also include 279 Mason Street, currently a three-family home.)
“If you are going to do a merger you don’t retain non-conformities,” Alban said. “I have some research behind me on this.”
“When you file a land record, which you are about to do for this property, you will make that property disappear,” Alban said. “We’ve been through this with our counsel….The property ceases to exist because you now have a new property. That’s basic land use law.”
Alban suggested Mr. Heagney write a brief arguing otherwise.
“You can tell us why you think your retail can be non-conforming,” Alban said.
Affordability
Per 8-30g, the state’s affordable housing law, when Connecticut towns that fail to meet a standard where 10% of all housing stock qualify as “affordable” per a state definition, developers may appeal local P&Z denials to the state, effectively skirting local zoning regulations.
The statute dates back to 1989, though it has only recently been utilized frequently in Greenwich.
Per the staff report, Greenwich has just 5.73% of its housing units deemed affordable, and therefore is not exempt from the 8-30g statute.
P&Z denials must meet a threshold of substantial health and safety concerns and the bar is high.
Thirty percent of the 92 units are proposed to be offered at below market rate.
Three of the below market units would be for-sale units in perpetuity.
The applicant, Mason Street Partners, LLC, (registered to Joshua Caspi) has appeared before the commission several times, and while the commission voted to close the application on Tuesday night, outstanding issues remain.
Contamination/Remediation and Environmental Justice
The state requires an environmental cleanup of contamination on the site, which was previously used by for automotive sales and repair, as well as a gas station.
Mr. Heagney said Langan Engineering was handling the site remediation and Fuss & O’Neil had been retained for a peer review.
“In citing the July 17 memo from Langan engineering, the peer review concludes that the commitments made are appropriate to allow for a successful redevelopment project that will result in an outcome that is protective of human health under a residential reuse scenario,” Heagney said.
“I’m bringing this up now because this is a health and safety issue,” Heagney said.
Ms Alban brought up0 the issue of environmental justice and the possible negative optics of Greenwich approving affordable housing on a site with a history of contamination.
Noting the presence of Mr. Hollister, Ms Alban said, “As you know I have been concerned all along that I don’t want Greenwich to look like we are putting affordable housing on a site that would not be used otherwise for residential.”
“It had an industrial use on it, but was never zoned industrial. That has been making me uncomfortable all along,” Alban said, adding that was her greatest health and safety issue.
Equity
Commissioner Dennis Yeskey shared concern about having two buildings – one with mostly the affordable units and one with mostly luxury condos – but noted there was no regulatory or legal support to deny the application on those grounds.
“You have these token couple units thrown between the buildings, but there’s basically an affordable housing rental building and a high end luxury condo building,” Yeskey said.
“We’re still on a slippery slope with 8-30g’s,” Yeskey said, giving some examples including a recent application that proposes all luxury units and a payment in lieu to Greenwich’s housing authority.
“The next one might be remote – ‘We’re going to build this building here but put the affordable units in Port Chester.”
He said it was an issue of equity.
Commissioner Mary Jenkins, who is recused on the application because she is a member of the town’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund board, said the trust had negotiated with the applicant to put three affordable units in the condo building.
“At least the effort has been made to have an affordability provision in both buildings – to the extent that it is financially feasible.”
“I understand your lack of comfort,” Jenkins continued. “But we’re going to be on the cutting edge of this, as we are with so many of these proposals, because there is nothing directly applicable.”
Ms Alban noted the trust fund board was separated from P&Z by law.
“What they decide is not our jurisdiction,” she said.
“I don’t think that a couple units addresses it,” Yeskey said. “It’s nice there was some affordable thrown in the condo building and vice versa, but it wasn’t much.”
The applicant has argued that while there are two buildings, they are connected by shared parking making them one project.
Commissioner Peter Lowe said Mr. Yeskey’s concern was worthy.
“Does it pass the smell test?” he asked. “Is paying lip service through a cross-over units satisfy the spirit of the 8-30g regulation? That is worthy of consideration.”
“The appearance of this is there is a tokenism and potential for a slippery slope. I’ve felt this from the beginning as well.”
Intersection of Bruce Park Ave and Mason St
Mr. Heagney said the town traffic engineer asked for an analysis of whether traffic signals were warranted and their consultant determined there was not enough traffic or accident data to warrant a new traffic light.
“We don’t believe there is any evidence that this is an unsafe intersection to begin with, but what he is proposing is something we are happy to implement,” Heagney said.
“He did note that the plan my client has to remove rock to improve the sight lines coming west on Bruce Park Ave was an improvement to the intersection as well,” Heagney said.
The plan is to remove ledge rock and narrow the two travel lanes headed west on Bruce Park Ave to one.
Drainage
Juan Paredes, a civil engineer for the town, made comments about the 50- and 100- year storm drainage and had not approved the drainage plan.
“They have begun to reference the 100-year storm a lot lately and I have a feeling this summer is making everyone nervous,” Ms Alban said.
Engineer Tony D’Andrea said many of the recommendations and preferences of Greenwich DPW had already been incorporated.
“We have designed our system to take the water that falls on the site, treat it for detention and water quality in our longitudinal rain garden with deep sand and a large pipe at the bottom for detention,” he said. “When you recognize that we’re at the end of a major watershed that discharges through an 84-inch pipe you have to agree that it’s important for us to discharge our water, no matter how much it is, faster and sooner than the peak from the watershed.”
He said there would be no problem discharging water prior to the peak given water moves through a 84-inch pipe.
“Just picture that diameter – it is 7 feet inside. Also, today there is absolutely no detention. There is no water quality treatment on either side (of Mason Street).”
Mr. Macri said despite the plans to remediate existing contamination on site, drainage would flow to Greenwich Harbor, just a block away.
“That is a concern of ours – to make sure water quality is done correctly and that any contaminants left over on the site are accounted for because we don’t want that in Greenwich Harbor,” Macri said.
Heagney said whatever the town DPW engineer Mr. Paredes suggested for drainage would be done.
“None of what we’ve been discussing with drainage is a health and safety issue,” Heagney said.
“From what I understand, (drainage) is not zoning. You have to conform to the town’s drainage manual,” Alban said. “Health and safety applies to the zoning considerations.”
Location of Crosswalk
The residents on the west side building will only have 17 parking spots, but will be able to park on the east side where there are 155 spots.
The commissioners questioned why the proposed crosswalk for those residents (in the mostly below market building) was positioned so far north.
Their concern was jaywalking on a very busy street.
Mr. D’Andrea said the crosswalk was designed for residents to access cars on the other side of Mason.
Intersection Redesign at Bruce Park Ave Mason
The proposed changes for the intersection include re-striping to narrow the lane coming down the hill from Bruce Park Ave (headed west) and add curb extensions at the intersection.
“Looking at the plan, Bruce Park Ave and Mason is going to have a significant redesign – maybe not the travel lanes themselves, but it is going to be very different from the wide open space we see there today?” Mr. Macri asked.
“Yes,” Mr. D’Andrea said, adding the applicant also planned to work very carefully on the turning radius for vehicles moving south on Mason and turning east on Bruce Park Ave and up the hill.
“Don’t forget the Byram intersection, okay,” Ms Alban said, referring to the curb extension on Delavan Ave that has been repeatedly hit by trucks.
Mr. Lowe asked if there was discussion of stop signs to stop all traffic at the intersection.
“No,” Heagney said, but that the large rock outcropping would be removed.
“We agreed to remove that to improve the sight distance as you go west onto Bruce Park Ave,” Heagney said.
Also, per the recommendation of DPW the two travel lanes headed west (down the hill) on Bruce Park Ave would be narrowed to one, with the theory that traffic would slow.
“I’ve seen this similar concept of DPW’s fail at another intersection because it’s hard to predict what drivers end up doing, especially the way driving has changed,” Alban said.
Applicant’s rendering of the two proposed buildings at the intersection of Bruce Park Ave and Mason Street.
Public Comment
Ivana Sabar said she supported affordable housing, but questioned the traffic data and whether it was predictive of the future.
She said the actual lived experiences of residents should be considered, and that she was nearly hit by a car twice when she was crossing at the intersection of Mason and Bruce Park Ave.
Ms Sabar said she was concerned the removal of one lane headed west on Bruce Park Ave would make the intersection more dangerous.
She also commented on the sheer building size, and the increased density in downtown, noting that Greenwich now had a 30-40 unit building nearly completed, a 120 unit building approved, and now the proposed 92 unit building on Mason St – all within .1 to.5 miles of each other.
Ken Wheeler said he believed it was very unsafe for the families residing in the west building to cross Mason Street to access their parking spots in the east building.
“Think of people heading off to school or work, or carrying groceries from their car to their home,” Wheeler said.
Also, he said the traffic calming measures discussed would increase bottlenecks, and result in more cut through traffic on Havemeyer Place and Ridge St.
Andrew Collins mentioned optics.
“The people from the subsidized building are going to need to go back and forth. The optics are that, God forbid, as soon as there is one traffic accident, the press will make hay out of it.”‘
He said that having to park across the busy street was a burden.
He said not only was the intersection of Bruce Park Ave and Mason St a gateway to Greenwich, but also an exit.
“During heavy traffic times it already backs up on Mason St, and now the cars are doing that little dance where they pull out a little more and see who can get in front of who, and for the pedestrians on foot and often on a bicycle – it’s scary. I think the traffic studies missed this point.”
The application was closed, but questions remained. The commission will vote at a later meeting, mostly likely in September.
See also:
P&Z Watch: Is 92-Unit 8-30g “The Missing Tooth” in the Fabric of Downtown Greenwich? July 11, 2024
Neighbors Weigh in on Proposed Residential Development at Former Honda Site Dec 2023
Multi-Story Buildings Proposed at Former Honda Dealership on Both Sides of Mason Street Nov 20, 2023
Residential Development on Mason Street Could Serve as Secondary Gateway to Greenwich March 2021