P&Z Watch: Oak Ridge 8-30g for 31-Unit Building Approved with Numerous Conditions

On Tuesday the P&Z commission took up a vote on the application from Newfield Properties LLC’s proposal for a 3-story, 31 unit “government assisted” 8-30g development on Oak Ridge Street where 22% of the units – equal to 7 units – offered to people making up to 80% of AMI for 40 years.

Greenwich P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban noted that as proposed, the green area is 18% whereas zoning requires 35%, so it is roughly half the green area that our regulations require, but as you know for 35 years the state has overridden our zoning regulations, and there still is  still a need for affordable housing.

“Setbacks are the issue,” Alban said.

 

Applicant’s rendering of proposed 31 unit, 3-story apartment building proposed to replace two multi-family houses on Oak Ridge Street.

Alban noted there were 31 properties on the street in the tax assessment. Of those, four are single family homes, and in the remaining 27 properties 10 have three or more units, and two of them are listed as being 5-10 units.

Per the Assessor’s office at Greenwich Town Hall, 25 Oak Ridge Street sold from Sutton Real Estate LLC to Newfield Properties LLC on May 4, 2023 for $1,100,000.

27 Oak Ridge Street sold in February of 2020 from Dragon 27 Oak Ridge LLC to Newfield Properties LLC for $1,062,888.

25 Oak Ridge Street. Per the Assessor’s office at Greenwich Town Hall, 25 Oak Ridge Street sold from Sutton Real Estate LLC to Newfield Properties LLC on May 4, 2023 for $1,100,000. Also, 27 Oak Ridge Street sold in February of 2020 from Dragon 27 Oak Ridge LLC to Newfield Properties LLC for $1,062,888.

In response, Peter Levy said, “The problem with not following our zoning is the threat of urbanization. Urbanization in a residential neighborhood is what we’re here to navigate, and there’s really no nice way to look at this situation. It’s a real problem.”

“It’s an imperfect, bull-in-a-china shop approach for a problem that has not been well defined,” Levy added.

Alban apologized in advance for the length of her motion. She noted that the commission had concerns about the traffic impacts to Oak Ridge but neither the applicant’s nor the town’s traffic consultant thought it rose to a “life-safety” risk.

During the past five years there have been 24 motor vehicle collision on Oak Ridge, and trips are anticipated to rise by 68 trips based on ITE data.

The structure, with parking below for 45 cars, while per regs 62 would be required.

The building will total 32,340 sq ft and an FAR of 1.48, height of 35 ft.

She said the commission regretted the ow availability of green area and recreation spaces.

Of the proposed 31 units, 22.5% (7 units) would be rent restricted at 80% of AMI for 40 years.

All 7 below market units are proposed to be one bedrooms, whereas 23 of 24 market rate units have two bedrooms.

DPW noted removal of trees in town’s right of way must be approved by the tree warden.

The building will discharge into the  sewer system that is part of the Horseneck sewer, which has existing capacity concerns, and has been classified as “severely capacity constrained.”

She noted that the town’s sewer division had commented that potential improvements to the system might be required of the developer.

On February 13, Conservation expressed concern about the amount of impervious surface,rock removal, tree loss, placement of the solar panels, and the need for strong soil and erosion controls.

The housing specialist noted on March 15 that several items remained outstanding in the affordability plan.

Alban noted that 5 existing trees are to be removed.

There is a tree on the property line that appears to be partially on the abutting property at 62 Prospect. The applicant must secure owner’s permission to remove the tree if it does cross the property line.

Whereas the commission finds that the health and public safety needs that have been identified for the community do NOT outweigh the need for affordable housing. However, the commission finds the overall below-market rate proportion of 22.5% of the project and the proposed bedroom mix of the units of solely one bedroom units where the predominant unit type in the project is 2-bedroom, does NOT meet the town’s affordability and inclusion goals.

Specifically, the proposal fails to address the below market needs of families.the commission further notes that discussions with CT DOH indicate the bedroom mix appears to be inconsistent with that department’s policies. Therefore, be it resolved that  the application is approved with the following modification.

The applicant shall return to the affordable housing trust to request an endorsement for a proposal that includes at least two to three two-bedrooms in the below market units, for a minimum of 20% below market. The revised plans may seek additional height up to 45 feet, with an increase of units of up to 35 in total, where at least 7 units are opportunity units. The total floor area of the building shall not exceed 40,000 gross sq ft and stories shall not exceed 3-1/2.

Should the applicant fail to obtain such endorsement, the application shall be revised to be a statutorily compliant 8-30g set aside, with 30% of the units below market –  half of those at 60% of State Median Income SMI and half at 80% SMI. Plans for the revised structure shall be submitted for all relevant department reviews.

In addition, as conditions of approval DPW sewer and engineering are to sign off on all the revised plans.

Approval of Parking Services must be obtained for removal of on-street parking, and this must be completed prior to zoning permit.

Sewer improvements shall be in place prior to any outflow from the facility.

Soil and erosion controls are be in place prior to construction start and pursuant to comments from conservation department.

The application shall obtain permission for the tree removal and address all other staff or departmental comments.

The applicant is also requested to consider extending the 40-year affordability period.

Mary Jenkins and Nick Macri were recused.

The motion passed 4-1 with Arn Welles, Dennis Yeskey, Anne Jones and Margarita Alban voting yes, and Peter Levy voting no.