GREENWICH — Neighbors and town officials say they are worried that a proposed six-story affordable housing project could forever change the landscape of downtown Greenwich.
“Mason Street, in this scheme, will become a cavernous space with five- and six-story buildings that don’t exist anywhere else in town,” Planning and Zoning Commission member Peter Levy said at a Tuesday meeting.
The project, proposed by a New York-based development company owned by Greenwich resident Joshua Caspi, would convert a former Honda dealership into a 92-unit apartment complex consisting of two mixed-use buildings on either side of Mason Street. The project would divide the street, separating 40 rental apartments and 16 parking spaces in the western building from 52 for-sale apartments and 151 parking spaces in the eastern building.
Twenty-five of the rental units and three of the for-sale units would be state-designated affordable for people making less than 80% of the area median income, or $66,500 for a one-person household.
But over the last few months, town officials have struggled to reach a consensus on the project application as they trekked through unfamiliar territory. According to officials, this would be the town’s first affordable housing project to offer both rental and ownership opportunities, while separating the total number of affordable units and parking spaces by a busy street.
Since 30% of the total apartments would qualify as affordable, state statute 8-30g allows the developer to largely bypass local zoning law governing design elements like height, mass and setbacks. Though the town’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board negotiated a reduction from a seven-story proposal to six stories in exchange for a $100,000 construction loan from the board in November, members said at the recent Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that the buildings are still too large and would set an unfortunate precedent for downtown Greenwich.
While presenting the adjusted application to the officials, Sargent Gardiner, a partner with Robert A.M. Stern Architects, told commissioners that the project team listened to initial concerns by commissioners following a May meeting, and further reduced the height and mass of the 148,000- and 48,000-square-foot buildings.
Gardiner assured members that the site, which neighbors the Greenwich train station and Interstate 95, would add to the tax base, attract more foot traffic to the area and serve as a gateway to the retail district.
“This product has the potential for filling an important missing tooth in the fabric of downtown Greenwich,” he said.
However, commissioners like Levy and Nicholas Macri questioned the need for and consequences of the project.
“I’m not too sure what bolt of fabric you’re looking at, but I’m missing it completely because the fabric of this town is not tall, large-scale, massed buildings,” Macri said. “… It seems to me you’re replacing the missing tooth with a molar when it should be an incisor.”
Traveling north on the commercial street, the eight parcels slated for demolition — 275-289, 290-294, and 309-321 Mason Street — neighbor one-, two- and three-story buildings. With the proposed structures more than double the height of several surrounding businesses and houses, commissioners expressed concern that the project could inspire a string of city-like developments.
At an Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board meeting last month, Sam Romeo, chair of the town’s housing authority, similarly took issue with the size of the current proposal and split of the buildings.
“Those two buildings alongside each other? I don’t think there’s going to be an hour of sunlight each day the way those buildings are faced,” Romeo said.
Romeo, who is a staunch advocate for relying on the housing authority to build affordable housing, suggested that the buildings should be split into two applications, which would make the project ineligible under 8-30g. If separated, the affordable apartments would account for almost 63% of the western building, but just 6% of the eastern building.
Safety claims
Officials and residents also took issue with the looming environmental cleanup on the site and traffic report.
Before the site became a car dealership, it was home to an iron works factory in the 1920s, a gas station and stone grinding shop in the 1930s, and a machine stop in the 1940s. According to a report by Langan, an engineering and environmental consulting firm, the prior businesses left behind hazardous waste, underground pipes and a lingering gasoline smell.
At the Tuesday meeting, the project team assured commissioners that the contamination levels at the site are not unusual and would be removed in compliance with state and federal environmental regulations. But Commission Chair Margarita Alban urged the applicants, who are requesting a special permit and final site plan, to clearly outline their remediation plan.
Though Caspi explained that both sides of Mason Street are “equally contaminated,” Alban warned the developer that constructing the western building, which would hold the majority of the affordable units, on a contaminated site could implicate the town.
“The headline of it is, ‘Greenwich separates low-income people from market on contaminated site.’ That’s what the headline looks like,” Alban said. “Our responsibility to anybody who’s looking for below-market housing in Greenwich is, ‘No, we are giving you a clean site and we’re treating you fairly.’”
Under Caspi’s original proposal presented to the town last year, the western building would have offered 38 income-restricted rental apartments and the eastern building would have offered 56 market rate condominiums. The developer modified the proposal following conversations with the commission.
Alban acknowledged on Tuesday that Caspi made “a huge effort” and financial sacrifice to adjust the design, but that she still worries separating the rental and for-sale apartments sends a message that Greenwich is not inclusive.
Neighbors of the project, particularly those on residential Ridge Street, also attended the meeting to question how the construction phase and parking spaces disbursement would affect short-term and long-term traffic.
Adjacent to the one-way Greenwich Avenue, those commuting from the train station or highway often use Mason Street to travel to northern Greenwich. Residents in attendance criticized a traffic analysis by LaBella Associates, an engineering consulting firm hired by the developer, which concluded that the project would have a “minimal impact” on the busy area.
After reviewing traffic counts and crash data at the commercial Mason Street, Greenwich Avenue and Railroad Avenue, and residential Havemeyer Place, Millbank Avenue, Bruce Park Avenue and Davis Avenue, the consultants concluded that the apartments would generate just 22 new trips in the peak morning traffic and 19 new trips in peak evening traffic. They also estimated that the retail space, which would be housed on the first floor of both buildings, would generate 32 new trips in the morning and 88 new trips in the evening.
Traffic engineer Bernard Adler, a member of the project team, told commissioners that Mason Street is not an accident-prone location, and said few pedestrians currently cross the street. On average, he said, two pedestrians cross the street during the morning peak, and nine cross during the evening peak.
But Andrew Collins, who lives about 500 feet from the project site, said the traffic study “missed the boat,” noting that the majority of parking spaces will be across the street from the rental apartments.
“The affordable rental side is going to have to cross Mason Street to get to their cars with their children, with their groceries. There’s going to be a lot of foot traffic,” Collins said. “I’m not seeing anything for a pedestrian crossing between the buildings, and I think that needs to be taken into account.”
As for Adler’s pedestrian counts, Collins told the commission that people currently avoid crossing Mason Street as it is “terrifying.”
Numerous attendees, including Collins, requested that the developer better prepare for the influx of pedestrians and create a space for vehicles like delivery trucks and Uber drivers to pull over, as the current design would likely worsen traffic congestion.
The commission was scheduled to close the public hearing on the application on Tuesday, but members instead extended the deadline to September. The developer is scheduled to come before the commission on July 23.
Before the close of the meeting, Caspi assured attendees that he will continue to design the best project possible, taking Greenwich’s history and current real estate into account.
“I’ve hired Robert Stern. I paid them triple the amount that any developer is paying an architect of this town to do the right thing. I could have paid way less,” he said. “And I’m telling you that the reason that I brought these people in is because I respect their vision, and they respect the historical nature of what we’re doing here. And we will not fail you all.”