In recent days, Westport camethisclose to moving forward on a new affordable housing project.
Just a few yards from the Post Road, its 32 units would have provided apartments for teachers, police officers, firefighters and other town employees.
Estimates are that 242 town employees could qualify, at less than 60% of the area media income (about $82,000, for a family of 2).
Of those, 144 are teachers. The high cost of housing — and long commutes from communities where homes are less expensive — is one reason educators leave the Westport district.
And — because every one of those units would be considered affordable under state guidelines — it would have marked an enormous step forward in Westport’s efforts toward a moratorium from Connecticut’s onerous 8-30g mandate.
But the plan to convert the current hair salon and adjacent multifamily home at 6 Maple Avenue South — just behind the Exxon station — was scuttled right near the end of real estate negotiations. Owner Ken Kronberg (who also owns the gas station) decided not to sell.
6 Maple Avenue South. The Exxon gas station (not shown) is on the right.
Architect Joseph Vallone and Rick Redniss of the civil engineering and land use firm Redniss & Mead had worked on the plan since last fall.
Redniss tells “06880” that, with 4% low-income housing tax credit financing, the 32 units might have yielded 40.5 points — almost 20% of those needed for Westport’s next 8-30g moratorium.
A traditional 8-30g development, with only 10 affordable units, would yield only 23 points.
Vallone and Redniss were all set to move forward with a text amendment, called “Deed Restricted Housing Development.”
But after speaking with several neighbors, Kronberg declined to sell. Those plans are now off the table.
Joe Vallone’s sketch of the proposed 32-unit affordable housing apartment building at 6 Maple Avenue South.
Kronberg — who has owned the property for 36 owned the gas station for 36 years, and 6 Maple Avenue South since May 1 last yea r— tells “06880” tha after hearing from several neighbors, and seeing a sketch of the proposed apartments, “I didn’t want to be the bad guy that created a large commercial look at the top of Maple South.”
He is unsure what comes next for the property. The 3 bedrooms and studio apartment are rented, but the salon has been empty since Juljen moved to Southport.
“In a perfect world, I’d like to fix it up,” he says. “Make it super-nice, maybe like an old-fashioned barber shop, maybe with apartments or a quaint house.”
Redness rues the lost opportunity.”Westport has missed an opportunity to meet the needs and goals outlined in the Plan of Conservation and Development and Affordable Housing Plan,” he wrote on Tuesday to Planning & Zoning director Michelle Perillie.
“A well-known, long-term, local Westport resident with a proven track record in town was preparing to leverage his expertise to help provide true workforce housing. Joe Vallone was days away from our pre-app meeting with the Planning & Zoning Commission when the property owner reneged on selling the property.”
(“06880” is your hyper-local source for real estate, political and business news — and much more. Please click here to support our work. Thank you!)
The Exxon station, Post Road East at the Maple Avenue South corner.
Can’t blame the neighbors for not wanting the housing if the pictured elevation shown is the best the architects could do…it’s awful looking…why not a clapboard structure with shutters, etc less inner city, urban look…I’ll bet that would’ve been far more acceptable… Kronberg should be complimented for honoring his neighbors revulsion and pulling out.
If you read my comment, that building had at least one apartment rented 60 years ago! Couldn’t that be used to justify building more apartments? Like I mentioned, the guy’s name was Hans. That building was used as an apartment rental already! Jack Backiel
Thank you, Mr. Kronberg, for your sensitivity.
Mr. Redniss and Mr. Vallone: Norwalk called.
They would love to talk you.
Love the comment, Morley.
Thank you, Mr. Kronberg.
Thank you Mr. Kronberg!
Let’s save the town from ugly, dirty, “urban” apartments, but keep the gorgeous gas station 🙄
🎯This^🎯
You’re right Carly. Ken’s a good guy and keeps his station looking clean and gorgeous ‼️
I used to get my haircut at 6 Maple Ave South. Mario was the best! Only 5 people have ever given me a haircut in my 77 years.
For those of you who remember, that Exxon station before 1957 was Backiel’s Roadside Stand.
One correction to be noted; Ken purchased the site exactly one year ago yesterday, 5.1.24, not 36 years ago, for $1.4M and was willing to sell it to me for $2.4M today.
The structure I designed was smaller than many of the new homes under construction in Town.
It’s always comical to read the ignorant responses from the normal crackpots who still live in Town.
The site is a great location for a multifamily housing project, in fact, it directly abuts a multi-family housing project 1480 PRE, but that’s OK with neighbors because they received an economic benefit (a payoff) from that developer and units in that project lease for over $4,250/month.
People’s lack of understanding the importance of providing economically attainable housing for the folks who service community needs ie; school teachers, police, fire fighters, Town employees etc, illustrates a severe level of narrow-mindedness with respect to how vibrant communities function and thrive.
Thanks for the correction, Joe. It’s been changed in the story.
100%. It’s sickening to see a lack of empathy like this especially when no one is immune to economic challenges (if it feels like they are). All this hullabaloo for what to preserve a neighbor eyesore like a gas station?
The gas station itself, was not part of the proposal to build affordable housing.
But why not make it look more attractive? for everyone’s sake?
The need is real, but it would not have added any curb appeal to make people less put off by it??
I just remembered something about the building. There was a guy from Germany that rented an apartment towards the back of the building. His name was Hans and drank at Purcell’s 7 nights a week. How could someone be allowed to live there? Of course this was 1960s or early 1970s. Of course back then, nobody paid much attention. Jack Backiel