Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have been embraced by many Westporters.
But in neighborhoods with dense housing — like Compo Beach — there can be unintended consequences.
David Johnson and Holly Jaffe live near the beach. They sent this letter — signed by 17 neighbors — to “06880.”
On Monday (October 27), the Planning & Zoning Commission needs to review a zoning permit issued last Friday by the Zoning Board of Appeals. It allows for an ADU on a postage stamp lot in the Compo Beach area.
[NOTE FROM “06880”: This item is not on Monday’s P&Z agenda. The November 3 meeting has been canceled. The Building Department may soon issue a building permit, for work to begin.]
It claims to adhere to the new regulation that an ADU be set back 10 feet from the primary dwelling.
According to Westport regulations, there should be no obstruction in the setback. Stairs and other means of egress are allowed.
However, they may only be 20% of the setback. The stairs and compressor platforms intrude over 5 feet into the 10-foot setback.
That is over 50% of the setback.
The Norwalk Avenue home (top, 2nd from left), showing where the ADU would be situated. (Drone photo/John Videler)
Were this to be allowed it would set a disturbing precedent for the entire town, not only the densely populated Compo Beach area.
Setbacks in our town are there for reasons: To ensure public safety.
To preserve health and welfare
To maintain neighborhood character, by creating open space between buildings and property lines
These regulations help provide adequate light and air, prevent overcrowding, facilitate public services, and protect against fire and other dangers.
This particular 26-foot high ADU “tower” affects at least 7 houses on Norwalk Avenue. And 7 houses on Westport Avenue.
Stairs and air conditioning compressors in the setback. The ADU would be built in the grassy area. (Photo/David Johnson)
Eighteen neighbors have signed petitions against this zoning permit. More are coming.
We wholeheartedly believe in the intent of the new ADU legislation, to provide alternative housing options for a myriad of folks in town here.
Please don’t misunderstand. But it can’t be the Wild West. It’s got to be soberly and appropriately reviewed, using common sense.
We hope that in their last meeting prior to the election, the Planning & Zoning Commission will consider the unexpected impact of this regulation.
Is this what the commission intended?
Thank you.
- KEVIN RAKIN, 25 Norwalk Avenue
- ALISON HOFFMAN, 25 Norwalk Avenue
- JACKIE DUVOISIN, 6 Roosevelt Road
- EILEEN WINNICK, 36 Treadwell Avenue
- JEFF GILL, 6 Westport Avenue
- HOLLY JAFFE, 15 Bradley Street, Direct Abutter
- STAN CROUCH, 12 Murvon Court
- BOB LIPIRA, 19 Norwalk Ave, Direct Abutter
- TINA CROUCH, 12 Murvon Court
- DAVID JOHNSON, 15 Bradley St, Direct Abutter
- JOHN VIDELER, 138 Compo Road South
- EILEEN BELMONT, 41 Regents Park
- MARY ANNE LIPIRA, 19 Norwalk Ave, Direct Abutter
- BRIAN APPEL, 311 Wilton Road
- DANIELLA LIPIRA, 19 Norwalk Ave, Direct Abutter
- and 3 others
Hi,
To the writers of this letter, I whole heartedly understand and sympathize with your concerns.
However, among the most important lessons I learned in the business world (and life in general) is => if you raise an objection, at the same time offer a solution which would address BOTH your concerns AND the concerns of those who made the proposal to which you object. (In other words propose a reasonable solution which should satisfy the concerns of BOTH sides.)
I am sure Westport would greatly appreciate your thoughtful recommendations on how to progress together.
Thank you for considering my well-intended thoughts.
Tom Jendrock
Q:
If the air compressors were moved to the right side of the building (aerial view), or to the front of the building facing the road, or to the roof of the building — would any of these 3 options meet regulations? (If so, then there is a solution to address BOTH sides’ concerns.)
Or would the stairs in back still violate regulations? If so, could the stairs also be removed from the back of the building and relocated to the right side and be in compliance with regulations?
I am sure there are several other possibilities I have not thought of which might be in compliance with regulations. I am only suggesting the most obvious.
Thanks for considering my well-intentioned suggestions.
The ZBA has a consistent record of stupidity when it comes to the Compo Beach area. 🇺🇸
Furthermore, a properly granted variance is granted when there is a problem that “runs with the land.” No problem exists with this piece of land; the problem lies in a stupid, ill thought through regulation that, in the name of expanded, “affordable” housing allows land to be used without thought to the neighborhood in which it lies. Therefore, the “hardship was created by the town, not the land.
Hard to believe that adu won’t exceed the ground coverage limit in an area already suffering from inadequate drainage
According to the October 14 ZBA meeting (link below), the decision re 21 Norwalk Ave was postponed to November 18.
https://play.champds.com/westportct/event/945
Was the appeal approved after the October 14 meeting?
The aerial view of the neighborhood provided illustrates the lack of privacy between the homes (side view) thus the ability to maintain privacy behind these homes is critical. Density is another issue. Where will the people occupying the ADU park?
The new construction at 16 Westport Ave, an abutter to 21 Norwalk, has destroyed several beautiful trees that provided a canopy and privacy buffer between that property and 17 Bradley. Perhaps these trees were diseased, etc and had to be removed. That said, in an area that is known to flood, trees are vital and should be preserved at all costs.
This increasing density, loss of privacy and destruction of trees in the Compo Beach area are issues that affect all of Westport.
I am writing these comments to oppose the proposed ADU dwelling at 21 Norwalk Avenue in Westport, CT.
1. Protecting Neighborhood Character and Aesthetics:
A separation between ADUs and primary dwellings is essential to maintaining the visual harmony and established rhythm of our neighborhoods. Without such a buffer, the risk of overcrowding and excessive building mass on single-family lots increases, potentially undermining the very qualities that make our community attractive and cohesive.
2. Supporting Property Value Stability:
Homeowners make significant investments based on the existing character and zoning of their neighborhoods. Allowing ADUs to be constructed too close to primary homes on “postage stamp” lots could introduce uncertainty and negatively, and impact property values, especially if the resulting density changes the look and feel of the area. Town zoning and building department officials need to reassure current and future homeowners that their investments are protected.
3. Promoting Safety and Livability:
Separation between structures is a basic safety measure that facilitates emergency access, reduces fire risk, and allows for proper light, air, and drainage between buildings. These factors are crucial for the long-term health and safety of residents and first responders alike.
4. Environmental and Green Space Considerations:
Maintaining open space between buildings helps preserve green areas for landscaping, stormwater absorption, and wildlife movement. This is particularly important as we strive to balance increased housing options with environmental stewardship and sustainable land use.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that the Westport Planning & Zoning Commission and Westport Building Department deny the issuance of a building permit to any individual or company that has not already received one. Upholding this standard will help ensure that new development respects the intent of the zoning regulations, preserves neighborhood character, and serves the broader public interest.
Robert Lipira