Over the past few years, a few big housing developments riveted Westport’s attention. There’s 1177 Post Road East, opposite Greens Farms Elementary School, for example, and 3 others in various stages of construction: 157 units on Hiawatha Lane Extension, 68 on Lincoln Street, and 16 more being shoehorned onto Wilton Road opposite Fort Apache on Kings Highway North.
Sometimes, Westport is handcuffed by state legislation that trumps local boards and commissions (and traffic and safety concerns). The driving force: the need for each town in Connecticut to provide a share of “affordable housing.”
1177 Post Road East
But local officials have been proactive. They’ve searched for sites where a new development might work (like the state maintenance facility between Walgreens and West Parish Road), and enacted zoning regulations to encourage “cluster cottage” housing on town-owned land.
All of that construction — already done, and planned — has one thing in common: It’s south of the Merritt Parkway. That’s where zoning enables its construction.
Recently, however, a unique property came on the market. It offers a chance for a small new development, with a decent-sized affordable housing element.
Glendinning Place is the 16-acre site first developed as an office park in the 1960s by Ralph Glendinning. His eponymous company was the first marketing promotion firm in the world.
(The wooded land next to the Saugatuck River — much of which he preserved — had a long history with business. The Dorr-Oliver Company, which made chemicals and other products, was headquartered in a nearby former mill.)
One view of the Glendinning property …
Eventually, Bridgewater Associates became the office park’s tenant. The world’s largest hedge fund was famously secretive. Westporters barely noticed the firm, which departed over a year ago to consolidate all its operations at Nyala Farm, next to I-95 Exit 18.
Three partners — Westporter David Waldman, and New Haven-area Urbane Capital and Sachem Capital — purchased the property in September, for $10.6 million.
They’re leasing out the office space. But they saw a chance to use 3.7 acres to build 14 single-family, 2-story detached homes that they believe fill an unaddressed niche: 3-bedrooms, and just under 3,000 square feet.
Ten of those homes would be sold at market rates. The other 4 would be deed-restricted, as “affordable” (using state guidelines).
The developers need a text amendment. But they felt the timing and the site was right, for a small project including several affordable homes, on the only commercially zoned property north of the Merritt Parkway.
… and the office building.
Rick Redniss — whose Redniss & Mead land use and engineering firm is working on other local projects like Delamar Westport and The Clubhouse — is helping guide the project through the approval phase.
He calls it “an opportunity to add affordable housing in pretty innocuous ways. Generally, it’s very difficult to do that without an 8-30g proposal” — an often-adversarial process, pitting developers against the town.
However, he admits, “this is a balancing exercise. It always is, with housing in a Gold Coast town.”
Traffic concerns will be minimal, he says. Soil tests have been positive.
But feedback from neighbors — including concern about the septic threshold of 7,500 gallons a day — caused the partners to rethink the project.
They withdrew a planned text amendment application, as they reduce the number of homes. The goal remains to have 20% of them be affordable.
A new proposal and text amendment, and future meetings with neighbors, are in the works.
A previous rendering showed 14 homes built just below the top yellow line (underneath “Aspetuck Land Trust.” That number will be lower, in the next plan to be submitted.
Redniss remains convinced that Westporters want to do their share to provide affordable housing.
“I defended the town when it’s been attacked about housing,” he says. “Over the last 8 years, Westport has been proactive. It’s not ‘no’; it’s ‘let’s try to accomplish different ideas, and meet the diverse needs of the community.'”
Housing is a complex issue, he notes, involving everything from politics and zoning to history and tradition.
“Everyone has a responsibility to do their fair share,” he says. “This is a modest proposal. It’s not 150 units. It’s in a commercial zone.
“If we can’t do this here, where can we do it?”
Conceptual plans for the Glendinning homes.
(“06880” covers every aspect of Westport: real estate, business, politics, the environment, and more. Please click here to support hyper-local journalism. Thank you!)
Why do these developers seem exempt from zoning regulations as regards lot size?
Making Westport Norwalk as fast as possible… greed knows no limits
“Affordable” housing developments have already trashed the town, so what the hell, go for it, guys. Had one large apartment complex been built, subsidized by taxes, with all units affordable, we’d be spared this bullshit of huge buildings with a FEW “affordable” units included simply to avoid local zoning laws.
Oh, and BTW, the “affordable” units are not affordable to hourly workers….ANY hourly workers, at current minimum wages.
I wonder if the workers who build the units could afford the affordable housing?
Absolutely not, Richard, if they are “hourly” workers.
Hourly workers have never really been able to live in Westport… at least since WW2.
Notice that this property is surrounded on all sides by Aspetuck Land Trust open space, and fronts the river.
Looks like another good option would be for the town to acquire it and combine it with the adjacent Aspetuck property in order to create a semi-wild space by the river.
Without this parcel the Aspetuck space is not very usable as a place to take a walk – nor much of a wildlife refuge.
What a shame this would be. I don’t see how this development could happen without disturbing and running into the Aspetuck Land Trust, the wildlife and the beautiful trails that are right where this development is planned. This area is one of the few quiet, hidden gems in Westport where my family goes to hike and escape the town’s hustle and bustle. The bucolic setting would be completely eliminated by developing there. I don’t see how this could get approved and really hope it doesn’t.
The Aspectuck property is a gem; quiet, wild, lovely. I’ve seen deer, osprey, owls, and bobcats. It’s not large; in fact it’s quite small. But the trails are easy for all residents, kids to seniors, to use and the river is, of course, a great trout stream that’s well used. The addition of these homes, the risk to the water, and the smaller wooded area would be a sad loss to the town. Surely there is other property that can be used without losing this pristine woodland.
Of course they say that the traffic impact will be minimal -this of course is not true– that intersection is TERRIBLE every single afternoon now since there is no turning lane going south on Weston Rd. He either hasn’t traveled it or he is just spouting the nonsense that all developers say–that ‘there will be no impact on traffic’
The solution is really easy – the town of Westport needs to build 100% affordable housing on town-owned properties ripe for reuse, like Baron’s South. That will get us to our state-mandated goal much faster than the 80/20 affordable housing projects that private developers have almost unfettered ability to put up around town and use to shoehorn in oversized, inappropriate developments.
Of course, that’s not an easy solution in reality because residents will find reasons to oppose any affordable housing development – traffic, parking, environmental, aesthetics, a handful of people enjoy walking through the site, etc. That short-sighted opposition merely ensures that Westport’s future will remain left to the whims of private developers, who will build many more units wherever they want and irrespective of those concerns because they have the legal right to do so. (Literally, private developers will have to build at least 3-5x the number of total affordable and market-rate units to make a dent in our affordable housing goal. Is that good for traffic, parking, the environment, or town aesthetics?) It’s a real inability to see the forest for the trees.
Hi, I am the architect who designed the homes. The intent of the design is to create a residential community at a communal scale, finding a balance between much needed density and livability. I am afraid that in our evolving economy there is an increased need to deviate from 1960’s era zoning regulations that promote suburban sprawl. The development team elected this “village” style plan instead of pursuing increases to office space or large single family homes as a response to the community’s needs and respect for the site.
The affordable component is a necessary and wonderful inclusion. These are homes that working families can afford. These people include our first responders, our teachers, and our construction workers. I am proud to design homes that people will enjoy and families can flourish in.
“If we can’t do this here, where can we do it?”
-Somewhere where there’s sewer… & not a watershed… and not a flood zone… etc
Bingo . Common sense. Respectable. But we let these developers continue to destroy towns.
I agree with all of the environmental impact comments above.
But, further, just who are these being designed for? The ‘market’ rate homes will certainly be in the $2-3million range, no doubt. By Westport standards, these homes would be cramped with no rec room for kids. Seniors/downsizers? Elevators are nice but without a generator, they become sort of useless for seniors, so why not develop them with a first floor bedroom/full bath? WFH singles/couples? Well, I guess they could use the upstairs bedrooms as offices. The development plan echoes styles we saw built around here in the 1980’s and not what is called for in the 2020’s and beyond.
I’m all for a known and respected developer working with the Town to build this proposed project. Their most recent work to create Bankside House is first class in and out. Another developer (particularly with a 8-30g proposal) could come in and build something awful that doesn’t require town approval – e.g. the 16 apartments being shoehorned onto Wilton Road (at the corner of Kings Highway North).
Times have changed. Three en suite bathrooms is impressive. In my large childhood Westport home (1964), we had one bathroom for three bedrooms!
Geez always knocking Norwalk. Seems like they should do all the hard lifting when it comes to housing.
Here are some numbers about which few talk and fewer publish: Middle income “affordable” is $31,964 per yr, $2,663 per month; low income “affordable” is $19,977 per yr, $1,647 per month….that is based on CT median income of $166,000+ per yr for family of four…so far so good. BUT, the average hourly worker earns a hell of a lot closer to $45,000 per yr (if that) and 30% of $45,000 gives $1,125 for rent/mortgage…ie, most of them that need “affordable” housing can’t live in Westport and none could live in a new three to four bdrm house.
This plan is outrageous. It is a cynical ploy by the developer to juice his returns on an already profitable project, affecting the environmental health of the Saugatuck river and ruining one of the truly pastoral parts of our town.
They are talking about jamming 14 homes (FOURTEEN!!!) on a 3 acre plot next to a nature preserve and in the flood plain of the confluence of the Saugatuck and Aspetuck rivers. The fact they even consider this to be a possibility should be offensive to all of us.
Mr. Redniss’s crass dismissals of NIMBYism doesn’t hold either. This is a special property that is not commercial like a lot behind the car wash on Post Road. Furthermore, they are not only attempting to changing zoning from commercial to residential, because the residential zoning in the area would allow them to build just 1 home on that lot, not 14.
The developer should simply work on filling the Glendinning property with tenants and make a 2.5-3x cash in cash return. Westport residents should not have to bear the impact of this boatsnt cash grab.
What a puff piece! This is almost an advertisement for the project which is fatally flawed due to its encroaching on a beloved open space. C’mon Dan, you can do better than this.
This is a disappointingly one-sided article that allows the developers to pretend they’re doing something good for Westport and to cast neighbors as NiMBYers. The “here” the developers talk about is land nestled next to Aspetuck Land Trust’s well-used nature preserve and trails (their proposal had them building with only a 5 FOOT offset to the preserve and its main trail) right where the West Branch flows into to create the main Saugatuck River, with wetlands on two sides. It is an ecologically sensitive piece of land and IS NOT regular commercial zoning – it is part of a specially designated Design District that allows for the existing commercial building and residential development on two acre parcels.
Also, it’s not just neighbors that had concerns – the town Conservation Department and the Aspetuck Health District had a ton of concerns about 14 septic tanks being built just over a 100 ft upslope from where the West Branch and main branch of the Saugatuck River meet. This level of septic flow combined with the commercial building would require the State of CT to approve the septic — except that the developer was also going to seek to creatively subdivide the parcel and place a portion under a separate LLC so that they could avoid State of CT approvals. I’m all for affordable housing – even in my backyard – but with no town sewer and the river right down the slope, this is not a good place to sandwich in 14 houses, only a few of which will be “affordable” anyway. If the developer wants to create affordable housing “here,” why not seek to convert a portion of the existing commercial space to apartments or condos that might actually be affordable? Then they wouldn’t need to clearcut woods, drop 14 septic tanks in, and pave over a 3.7 acre parcel right next to the river and nature preserve for the sake of 4 “affordable” houses and 10 that they can charge whatever they want for while flouting zoning and conservation rules.
This article excludes all relevant facts and concerns. This is about a developer including token affordable housing in order to bypass all regulations Please see the link https://westportjournal.com/environment/glendinning-place-neighbors-weigh-in-against-housing-plan/
The town conservation department labeled this area as environmentally sensitive and its zoned DDD4. I understand the need for and agree with affordable housing- but why would the town even consider changing the zoning in an area they already labeled as sensitive, next to a land trust, wetlands, a pristine trout fishing stream, and the nationally recognized Leonard Schine Preserve and Children’s Natural Playground? It wont feel like a nature preserve next to 14 homes on <4 acres. The property's environmentally sensitive zoning restriction was put in place for a reason, why would anyone entertain undoing it??