Tuesday’s P&Z commission meeting was memorable for more than one reason. It was commissioner Peter Levy’s last meeting, and the commissioners each shared their perspective on his unique contributions.
Ms Jenkins said Mr. Levy, who was appointed to the commission in 2010, would be missed for being protective and sensitive to the community.
Certainly, Mr. Levy, a vice president at Kamber Management Co LLC, who own and operate commercial real estate, has always picked his words carefully and was valued by land use reporters for his quotable observations.
On the Berkley Insurance Company application, Mr. Levy acknowledge the applicant sought to improve the overall character of the difference pieces, acknowledging that over time some residential use had been converted to commercial, resulting in “a bit of a hodge-podge.”
However, he said while there was a compelling element to the application as far as “regularizing” the lots, he described the application as incomplete.
Specifically he said it was, “half baked and needs to be put back in the oven a bit.”
Berkley Insurance Co seeks to demolish existing structures on five lots to build a three story office building at 44-59 Davenport Ave and 537-545 Steamboat Rd in the GB zone.
The commissioners hammered away at the application’s alleged failure to cite specific legal authority for demolishing a legally non-conforming building and relocating it to a separate parcel.
Mary Jenkins said while there were constitutional protections of non-conformities, the “non conformity attaches to where it was when it was created.”
“I’m unable to find any legal authority to the fact that a non-conformity can be consolidated with other non-conformities simply because you have five parcels merging into a single parcel,” Jenkins said. “Each non conformity is a legal entity of its own, based upon what was legal when it was created.”
“The moment you demolish the building and use that property for something different than the non conformity attached to the property, it’s gone,” she said.
“We can’t get to the site plan until we’re sure the project itself will not increase non-conformities, because, as you know we are tasked to reduce them,” Jenkins added.
“There is no doubt that Berkley is entitled to continue to use its legally non-conforming buildings. However, Berkley loses its constitutionally protected property’s non-conformities as to size, height and location of these properties by reconfiguring them and locating them elsewhere on the property.”
Office building to be demolished at left.
Delamar Hotel at left; building to be demolished in background at right.
Commissioner Arn Welles focused in on office use, asking attorney Heagney about the current office use across the five lots.
Heagney replied it was approximately 38,000 sq ft.
Ms Alban said, “approximately” was “not the best way to submit an application to us.”
“You aren’t providing us, given us the extent to which the residential dwellings there are used for residential. Have they been converted to office? How much office do you have?” she asked. “There is data missing in the application as to setbacks and uses.”
Mr. Heagney said the proposed office use was 40,772 square feet.
Mr. Welles noted that within the central Greenwich there was a 10,000 sq ft limit on office use.
“How could what you propose not be an expansion of a non-conforming use? Just looking at office use,” Welles asked.
Mr. Heagney said he was looking “holistically” as to the number of non-conformities being reduced.
“Overall this plan is much more conforming,” Heagney said.
That did not sit well.
Commissioner Arn Welles said “holistically does not work legally.”
“I couldn’t have said it any better than Arn,” Jenkins said.
Mr. Yeskey said, “Not to pile on but, even though this is a GB zone and Arn (Welles) accurately talked about the 10,000 sq ft, the POCD is pretty clear that we’re trying to prevent the conversion of residential into commercial.”
“In this zone some of it is permitted, but not this much. Not that the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) along is the regulatory final say, but we’ve looked at other applications where people want to convert the zone to commercial from residential, but we have in many cases we’ve discouraged people from doing so,” Yeskey said.
Ms Alban noted Mr. Heagney had focused on uses as opposed to “dimensional” non-conformities.
“We are raising the issue of dimensional, or shall we say, structural non-conformities, on which you have not focused,” she said.
She said the commission’s interpretation of the law was that non-conformities could neither be expanded nor relocated.
She asked Heagney to break down the all the exisitng non-conformities.
Also, she said the commission did not believe the legal cases Mr. Heagney cited were pertinent, including Zachs v. Zoning Board of Appeals case, which she said was still pending.
“You need to give us more of a case,” Alban said.
Alban said the commission would prefer not to take up issues involved with the final site plan, and avoid both the applicant’s experts’ time and P&Z staff time to be spent in review, until the legal issues were worked out.
Mr. Heagney said he’d prefer to go ahead with the site plan issues including noise, traffic, landscaping and drainage.
“Sometimes a statute is so clear that you really don’t have much case law associated with it – because it is obvious as to what it enables a property owner to do. That may very well be the case here too.”
“This is not our first rodeo,” Alban said. “The commission is telling you that we are not seeing it as feasible from a legal point of view as proposed.”
There was no public comment, though there was some written support for the application from the Delamar.
There were also numerous letters from neighbors in opposition to the application including from Pamela Hoiles of 37 Davenport Ave, who wrote:
1. The height of the building is going to block the sunlight.
2. The traffic control is going to be extremely busy, even with underground parking.
3. It is going to turn a quiet residential street into a commercialized location.
4. It will look ugly and bring the value down to possible home owners looking to come here.
5. There are kids who run around and play, and will no longer be as safe due to traffic control.
6. The noise from the A/C units is going to be a huge disturbance.
Eric Tseng of 21 Davenport Ave wrote, “I believe that this development is incompatible with the existing residential character of the area. The proposed building’s size and offsets from Davenport Avenue will significantly alter the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and quality of life.”
He went on to express concern with the proposed building’s height and noise from mechanicals.
“Its height will render the current trees at as a privacy barrier useless. Office workers on floors 2 and 3 of the proposed building will have a direct view into my home. The height of the building will also mean that my home will be blocked from afternoon sunlight it currently enjoys. On top of floor 3 is the machinery for the HVAC system which without any sound barrier will be interfere will the tranquility of the street.”
Lastly, he wrote, “A huge steel and glass building, normally found on industrial office parks rather than a small leafy street in Greenwich being built without a significant offset to Davenport Avenue will negatively impact the property values of all the homes on Davenport Avenue.”
Joseph Benedetto wrote, “Amongst various visual reasons, Davenport Ave is a family street with children who enjoy the comfort of their front yard and street.”
In the end, the application was left open, with an extension granted.
See also:
Nov 3, 2024
P&Z Watch: Could Proposed Berkley Office Building Fit in Better on Steamboat Rd Streetscape?