P&Z Watch: Is 92-Unit 8-30g “The Missing Tooth” in the Fabric of Downtown Greenwich?

Tuesday’s marathon Planing & Zoning Commission meeting on Zoom ran from 4:00pm to almost midnight.

It included lengthy discussion and public comment on a proposed 8-30g affordable housing development at the bottom of Mason Street at the former Honda dealership.

The applicant wants to construct multi-story buildings on each side of Mason Street that would be mixed use with retail and residential.

The application is submitted as assisted housing under the state’s affordable housing statute, 8-30g.

There are 92 units in total, and 28 units (30.4%) would be deed restricted below market for 40 years.

That breaks down to 3 affordable units in the 52 unit, 6-story East building”.

And 25 out of 40 units in the 5-story West building would be deed restricted below market for 40 years and would be rental units.

The West building is proposed to have 16 parking spaces and 7,265 sq ft of retail space.

The East building would have 52 residential units and 7,909 sq ft of retail space, plus 151 parking spaces.

With only 16 spaces at the West building, those residents would have to cross Mason Street and park at the East building with its 151 spaces.

Greenwich resident Josh Caspi, the developer, was present with his attorney, architect, traffic expert and an expert on environmental remediation.

Even though the East building had been reduced one story since originally proposed, the commission’s concerns included the massing of the buildings and resulting urban, cavernous effect.

They also discussed existing contamination, setbacks, and traffic and pedestrian safety given the location at a busy intersection.

Other outstanding zoning issues including a question about including retail spaces on ground floors of both buildings given commercial use is not mentioned in the language of 8-30g, and whether existing non-conformities would carry over once the original parcels are merged.

“Missing Tooth in the Fabric of Downtown Greenwich”

Sargent Gardiner from Robert A.M. Stern Architects presented the application, suggesting the project would reinforce retail vitality and healthy pedestrian circulation along Bruce Park Ave and Mason Street.

“As you know this project has the potential for filling an important missing tooth in the fabric of downtown Greenwich,” he said.

“It should serve as a gateway for pedestrians in Greenwich as they both move north from the train station and I95, but also as they circulate south on Greenwich Avenue, turning back up onto Mason Street.”

Commissioner Nick Macri acknowledged he had referred to the bottom of Mason Street as a “gateway” to Greenwich.

He said the proposed massing disregarded context.

“These two buildings are significantly taller than anything around it for a very long distance,” he said. “As for adding to the fabric of the town. I’m not sure what bolt of fabric you’re looking, because the fabric of this town is not tall, large scale massing of buildings. We did that once before and we don’t do that any more. That was many, many years ago.”

“And you talk about a missing tooth. It seems you’re replacing the missing tooth with a molar when it should be an incisor.”

The architect acknowledged that Greenwich was a town, not a city. “Density in this type of location immediately adjacent to I95 and the train station is frankly, a sustainable and responsible way of developing, in our point of view. Our client, Josh, has given us full license to mass this building so that the density visually is mitigated.”

Commissioner Peter Levy also pushed back, noting that the existing multi-story buildings in downtown dated back to a time prior to zoning regulations, and were legally non-conforming.

“It is not in keeping with the kind of downtown that we’re trying to preserve,” he said.

Mr. Levy said the heights and massing of the buildings could be problematic.

“The idea that you’re next to the train station and therefore you can build larger projects –  the impact on the downtown could be overwhelming,” he said, adding that the bottom of Mason Street was already congested.

Existing Non-Conformities

After the architects presented their plans, P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban steered the conversation to unresolved zoning issues.

“I felt a little frustrated with the presentation because we’re spending a lot of time on making sure the buildings are beautiful.”

“We need to first find out if the footprint is okay legally, because we have held tight to retail having to be conforming, since 8-30g does not apply to retail,” Alban said.

She said the existing, legal non-conformities might cease to exist after the 9 parcels are combined.

“I believe that once the lot stops existing you don’t get to keep the non-conformity any more because you’ve given it up,” Alban said.

As for the contamination question, Alban said she wanted an expert opinion. “I’m worried about the olfactory evidence.”

She mentioned an underground stream underneath properties in the area of Mason Street that Mr. Macri had noticed on a map.

“Wet contamination is the worst kind of contamination you can have because it’s moving,” she said.

Mr. Caspi said the map Mr. Macri references was for a different property, not his.

“It may not even be from your site,” Alban said.

But, she asked, “Why can you smell it there?”

“I want somebody to say, ‘Here’s what it is, here’s the action plan, and here is how long it’s going to take, and that it’s going to be safe for residential use.”

Contamination and Remediation

Alban said she had “huge concern” about below-market rate housing being built on a contaminated site.

Jamie Barr, a licensed environmental professional from Langan Engineering who has experience in contaminated site redevelopment in Connecticut, said, “Everything is contaminated.”

“That does not reassure me,” Alban said, noting that only a few contaminated sites in Greenwich had been approved for redevelopment by P&Z, and of those few, some had been capped.

“It makes us nervous,” she said.

“The site is entirely subject to the Connecticut Transfer Act, so it is required to follow all rules and regulations in Connecticut of the environmental remediation standard regulations,” Mr. Barr said.

“Are you also considering the affordable housing component?” Alban asked.

“It must be protected for whatever the use is going to be,” Barr said. “There are very specific standards that have to be followed, and we have to prove that.”

Ms Alban talked about the optics of building affordable housing on a contaminated site.

In addition to having been home to different various dealerships, there was previously a service station and repair shop on site.

“We cannot have anything that implicates Greenwich as putting below market housing on anything that could be contaminated,” she said.

Mr. Caspi said the East building had equal contamination.

“I’m just saying, the headline is that Greenwich segregates low income people from market on contaminated site,” Alban said.

Alban, who had a previous career working for an oil company with numerous gas stations, said that informed her concerns.

“We trust you, and we know there are several professionals at several firms who do a great job on this,” Alban continued. “You guys are blasé about it. I don’t get blasé about this. Having watched service station operators pouring antifreeze into the storm drain…”

Mr. Caspi said his team was moving ahead in good faith. “Our goal is to make everyone comfortable with all of these issues, and we will. Our feeling is that as far as health and safety concerns go, we are largely there. We feel extremely confident about that.”

“Good, because environmental, you heard the anxiety in my voice,” Alban said.

Mr. Caspi said the bigger issue, from his point of view, was the split of market rate and below-market units across the two buildings.

“We need to understand if the town is in sync on the unit-count program because it is a major dictator of the whole architecture design and whether we continue with the Housing Trust-approved project for a set aside project,” Caspi said.

(In Nov 2023 the Affordable Housing Trust board approved a conditional commitment for $100,000 bond to Caspi Development for the multi-family development, subject to the application.)

Alban replied, “You’re still jumping ahead of a major issue. You have non-conforming ground floor on the west side, and we don’t approve non-conforming commercial in an 8-30g.”

“We can adjust the retail,” Caspi said. “We need to understand if we’re ‘in the zone’ on the program.”

“We can’t tell you how we would vote,” Alban said. “We can’t give you any indication.”

Alban did offer the other the commissioners a chance to direct questions to the applicant about the split of affordable and market rate units across the two buildings.

Mr. Macri said he declined to comment and  Mr. Levy repeated that he had issues with the massing of the buildings.

Commissioner Arn Wells said he did not have a major issue with the split.

“The applicant has been responsive to our concerns about having all the affordable on the west and all the market rate units on the east,” Wells said.

Traffic & Pedestrian Safety Concerns at Intersection

The applicant’s traffic consultant Bernie Adler said not many pedestrians crossed the street at the intersection of Mason Street and Bruce Park Ave.

He mentioned possible curb extensions on Mason Street for traffic calming.

Adler said crash data indicated that in the past 3-1/2 years there had only been six collisions at the intersection.

Mr. Macri questioned the time frame for that data, noting it included the pandemic.

Commissioner Peter Lowe suggested that the addition of new residents in the development would increase traffic and pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Adler said compared to when Honda was operating, the increase in trips would be minimal.

“We’re not adding hundreds of people,” he said. “Especially comparing it to a Honda dealership that’s been there for eons.”

Commissioner Peter Levy noted that traffic often backed up at the bottom of Mason Street during rush hour.

“Is there something we can do to make this intersection better?” he asked. “This is not New York City where everything is flat.”

Mr. Adler said a signalized intersection at Mason and Bruce Park was not warranted, and that traffic coming down the hill from Bruce Park Ave traveled at an average of just 24 miles per hour.

“They’re not really speeding through this intersection,” he said, adding that the intersection of Mason and Bruce Park Ave was working “well above the acceptable experience.”

Mr. Heagney said a Dept of Public Works traffic engineer had suggested the applicant remove the ledge rock at the top of the hill to improve sight lines.

“That’s something we are willing to do,” Heagney said.

Ms Alban responded quickly, noting that regulations emphasize preserving natural topography.

Public Comment

Deborah Herrington from Ridge Street disagreed with Mr. Adler’s data that 6 people cross the intersection at Bruce Park Ave per hour. She also disagreed with the assessment that cars don’t speed.

“Perhaps he’s referring to 24 miles per hour as an average. We all know that means that cars go faster and slower than the average,” she said.

As for parking, Herrington noted that on adjacent Ridge Street, three houses were under construction, with workers taking up 40 to 60% of on street parking. She said she was worried about workers for the Mason St project would park, as well as where the tenants on the west side would park given that building was planned to be built first and is proposed to have just 16 parking spots.

Carin Ohnell testified that while the applicant said there had been few crashes at Bruce Park and Mason Street, there had been crashes just to the north at the traffic circle by Fawcett Place, Milbank and Mason.

She expressed concern that people in the West building, and retail shoppers, would have to cross Mason Street to park, resulting traffic and pedestrian safety challenges.

Ken Wheeler requested that no final decision be made until environmental reports were completed and a remediation action plan established.

Also, he said the applicant was providing “the bare minimum” per 8-30g requirements.

“It seems as though the town gets nothing here – picking up only 28 affordable units while giving up 64 units in the non-affordable count. If every 8-30g applicant only provides the minimum requirements the town will never catch up with the 10% affordable that the state of CT is looking to achieve,” Wheeler said. “It seems to be about maximum financial gain.”

Andrew Collins from Ridge Street urged the commission to reject the application.

“I think they’ve missed the boat here. The affordable rental side is going to have to cross Mason Street to get to their cars, with their children, with their groceries. There will be a lot of foot traffic and I’m not seeing anything for pedestrian crossing between the two buildings.”

He also noted that with people working from home more often, there are frequent FedEx, UPS and other deliveries.

“They’re just going to pull up onto the curb and block Mason Street,” he said. “It’s going to be quite messy.”

He said drivers accelerated on Bruce Park Ave where there is a steep hill that might not be reflected in the applicant’s traffic expert’s claim of an average 24mph speed.

Diana Dowling said the renderings looked beautiful, but were misleading in terms of scale.

“These two buildings are oversized and out of proportion,” Dowling said.  “I think we can achieve affordable housing with smaller buildings.”

Dowling said there were more than FedEx and UPS delivery trucks who would add traffic and parking, mentioning Uber and Amazon specifically, as well as visitor parking which she said was “sorely lacking.”

Mr. Caspi wrapped up the conversation by saying, “I have a track record of developing very high-end designed thoughtful projects in many places – landmarks and whatnot…I’ve hired Robert Stern and paid them triple the amount that any developer is paying any architect of this town to do the right thing.  I could have paid way less.”

The application was a must close, but with many outstanding issues, the applicant agreed to an extension.

 

Previous coverage of this application:

P&Z Watch: 8-30g Application on Mason St – “A Cavernous Effect on the Street” June 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 November 2023