P&Z Denies Berkley Insurance Co Proposed Large Office Building on Steamboat Road

The Greenwich P&Z commission voted this week to deny Berkley Insurance Co’s application to demolish several structures in the area of Steamboat Road and construct a new three-story office building.

The office building was proposed to total 38,300 sq ft across five lots to be merged in the GB and COZ zones – nearly four times the size of what is otherwise allowed in the GB zone in Greenwich, which is a maximum of 10,000 square feet per lot.

 

 

The five properties on Steamboat Rd and Davenport Ave have grandfathered uses, including Connecticut Iron Works offices. The properties also have non-conforming setbacks, floor area, and both building and lot coverage coverage.

Tuesday’s vote came after numerous public hearings and reviews by the commission.

A repeated concern of the commission concerned relocating and consolidating non-conformities to locations where they do not currently exist.

In a memorable comment back in March, commissioner Mary Jenkins said the non-conformities on the five parcels ran with the land and were not “coupons” to be moved around.

“What is protected is what exists. It’s not a coupon,” Jenkins said at the time.

Along the way, both the commission and applicant sought legal opinions.

The applicant then went before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and in October was granted variances for non-conformities for the new structures including lot coverage, building coverage, FAR, oversize office use and parking requirements.

The applicant had pointed out to P&Z the existence of other large office buildings on Steamboat Road.

But the motion – first presented as a motion to approve, then as a motion to deny – noted that large scale office construction took place before the creation of the GB zone and prior to the sweeping regulatory change in 1976 to prevent further commercial development of such size.

Prior to 1967, there were only two non-residential buildings along the west side of Steamboat Road. Between 1967 and 1972, five large office buildings were constructed on both sides of Steamboat Road.

Key whereas clauses in the motion refer to the 1976  restrictions that deprioritized large scale office development and encouraged residential uses wherever possible to create a greater number of housing opportunities for those employed or potentially employed in Greenwich.

WHEREAS, the 1976 Commission provided its rationale for its major amendment
of the business zone regulatory structure: public facilities and services could not
keep pace with the scale of development permitted under existing business zoning
regulations. “2,500,000 square feet of executive office have been constructed over
the last eight years [1968-1976]. Another 1,000,000 square feet are planned for the
immediate future.”

WHEREAS, data supporting the 1976 text amendment described stresses resulting
from intense commercial development: non-resident commuters into town, then 24,000, exceeded the full time population of Greenwich, overburdening the road
network, increasing traffic and air pollution, exacerbating problems with storm
water drainage, capacity issues with both sewage treatment and trunk lines, and the
possibility of inadequate water supply.

WHEREAS, the restrictions on commercial development adopted in 1976 were
designed to redirect the Comprehensive Plan of Development such that “[a]
primary objective should be to maintain the Town’s predominantly residential
character,” with business to be located and developed to be in harmony with that
residential character.

WHEREAS, the GB Zone was created with the most stringent limit on gross floor
area for offices, 10,000 square feet (where other office use groups adopted at the
same time permitted up to 20,000 square feet).

Residential Characteristics of the neighborhood

The motion also noted that in 1986, the Commission adopted BZR Section 6-102 (page 18) to reinforce the intent to control business development to be in harmony with Greenwich’s residential characteristics and prevent business land uses from encroaching upon or otherwise disturbing areas planned for residential use.

The motion questioned the consistency of a large office building with the location’s essentially residential characteristics.

“the Commission finds both the immediate properties and the wider area to be primarily residential;”

The motion noted that the parts of Steamboat Road that are not GB (general business) or WB (waterfront business) are zoned residential multi family R-MF and R-6, and not adversely affecting safety in the streets or increasing traffic congestion.

The motion said the presence of a large office building would interrupt residential continuity: “Offices are largely vacant not only in the evenings but also weekends, eliminating the typical pattern of residential areas that are quietest during the day and most active outside of work and school hours. The presence of nearby residents contributes to the security of property and persons, whereas vacant properties do not.”

The motion noted that office use also generates higher volumes of traffic at the busiest times of the workday when neighborhoods seek safe and uncongested access for activities of daily life such a school travel, shopping, and work related activities.

Other factors mentioned included that a large office building might negatively effect neighboring residential property values and add noise pollution.

The motion noted the location, less than 0.5 mile of the Greenwich train station, could alternately be redeveloped for Transit Oriented Housing, and that creating diverse housing opportunities reduces work-related vehicle miles traveled, lessens townwide traffic congestion and promotes environmental sustainability.

Lastly the motion noted that residential development opportunities are limited today by land and construction costs and availability, especially considering the Commission’s expressed priority over decades is to support and encourage residential uses and neighborhoods.

A motion to approve failed (4-1) with only commissioner Arn Welles voting in favor.

Next was a motion to deny.

Mr. Welles voted against the motion to deny, explaining, “…we are in the general business zone and are not encroaching or expanding into a residential neighborhood. This neighborhood is mixed.”

Second, he said, “The minutes cited were from 50 years ago when we did have a problem with large office buildings being built, but we are solving for a problem that doesn’t exist now. There’s not demand for large office buildings in the town. This is a satellite office of Berkely’s main office.”

Welles described the proposal as infill development that would “fix up a drab lot,” increase green space and, as an all electric building, would reduce pollution.

He said the vast majority of Greenwich was zoned residential and that would not change.

“Steamboat Road has always been commercial. Why is it called Steamboat Road. The steamboats started coming in 150 years ago bringing supplies, bringing passengers. There were probably warehouses along Steamboat Road.”

Welles cited objective 5 of the town’s POCD that refers to maintaining economic vitality and vibrant commercial areas. “This project would do that,” he said.

Ms Jenkins said the issue was the effect on the overall neighborhood, which would be to fill the location with an oversized office building at a time when there are vacant offices all over town and housing is scarce.

She said the POCD also refers to maintaining the town’s residential character. She noted again that Steamboat Road was not commercially developed until 1967-1976.

“Historically it was a residential neighborhood,” she said. “To the extent that the issues were raised in 1976, they continue to be raised now. We continue to have more people traveling into Greenwich and leaving Greenwich for work. And one of the reasons that happens is because of lack of housing.”

Peter Lowe agree there was a pronounced need in Greenwich for housing and that the application was not consistent with the POCD.

Mr. Welles said he was not persuaded the application failed to comply with special permit standards.

“I think it sends a very poor signal in terms of our support for economic vitality in the town, and I’m also concerned we’re going to be tied up in court for a long time on this one,” Welles said.

Alban said a limited amount of real estate becomes available in Greenwich.

“There is a question of what is highest and best use,” she said. “It is really the question of seeking highest and best use and that would be the comprehensive plan as we have been doing it since 1976.”

See also:

Lamont Signs Revised Housing Bill into Law, Following Months of Controversy Nov 27, 2025

Questions about Carrying over Non-Conformities Persist for Berkley Insurance Co’s Proposed Office Building Nov 3, 2024

P&Z Watch: Could Proposed Berkley Office Building Fit in Better on Steamboat Rd Streetscape? June 17, 2024

Berkley Insurance Co Seeks to Demo Several Buildings in Area of Steamboat Rd, Construct New Office Building May 13, 2024