Apartment Application Denied

In the 1st stop along what may be a long legal journey, the Planning and Zoning Commission last night unanimously denied an application to build a 6-story, 48-unit apartment complex on one of the busiest, most environmentally sensitive corners of Westport.

Concerns about safety and damage to wetlands adjacent to the 1.16-acre parcel at the corner of Wilton Road and Kings Highway North dominated last night’s proceedings in Town Hall.

P&Z commissioners questioned the developer — Garden Homes Management — about many aspects of the plan. They also appeared miffed that a consultant and lawyer for Garden Homes did not attend (due to illness and a conflict), and that Garden Homes submitted a raft of supporting materials at the meeting, but refused to request an extension so the P&Z could study that information.

P&Z members also refuted Garden Homes’ contentions that the commissioners’ minds were already made up — and that they were opposed to the plan because a portion of the apartments would be deemed “affordable” under state 8-30g regulations.

“We never said we’d fight 8-30g,” P&Z chair  Chip Stephens said. “We said we would fight inappropriate locations for 8-30g. Period.”

Garden Homes president Richard Freedman promised to appeal the decision.

122 Wilton Road -- site of the proposed 6-story, 48-unit apartment building -- sits at the corner of Kings Highway North. The property abuts the Taylortown Salt Marsh.

122 Wilton Road — site of the proposed 6-story, 48-unit apartment building — sits at the corner of Kings Highway North. The property abuts the Taylortown Salt Marsh.

4 responses to “Apartment Application Denied

  1. An environmental impact study by the EPA should be done. Those take a few years, the developer doesn’t mind waiting.does he?

  2. don l bergmann

    All should know: 1. Westport and the private citizen “intervention”, Michael Bolagna, Esq. has been retained by that citizen for the “intervention”, have very sound arguments under 8-30g for the Superior Court of CT to deny the Applicant’s appeal; 2. Litigation can be costly and sadly the Applicant views the litigation as simply a “cost of business”, an opportunity for a “pot of gold, a large profit from an Apartment Complex that should never be located where proposed, while the Town and the “intervention” seek only to prevent the construction of this edifice next to our wetlands, the Saugatuck River and a very dangerous and busy intersection; and 3. Our body politic need to strongly support our legal defense of the decision of the P&Z Commission and convey that support to our Bd. of Sel., Bd. of Fin., RTM and our State Senators and Representatives. A battle has begun. No one should be resigned to even the possibility that we may not win that battle.
    Don Bergmann

    • Elizabeth Thibault

      Don, besides letter writing and communicating our desire for rational building and siting to our elected officials, can you give us more details on how citizens can provide support the legal defense? Thanks in advance!

  3. Now that our State Senator Steinberg has a little more juice and some tenure in Hartford, maybe he can revisit some of the suggestions Catherine Walsh has outlined above. The urban entrenched lawmakers up in Hartford look at us a whiny entitled “gold coasters.” However, creative suggestions and common sense solutions may prove more persuasive. So, how about another crack at it Senator Steinberg?