Longtime Bridge Street resident Werner Liepolt has watched the Cribari Bridge debate closely.
In the other direction from his home, another story is unfolding. A proposal to demolish the one of the 2 office buildings at 55-57 Greens Farms Road — and replace it with a 250-unit apartment structure — 30 percent of them “affordable” under state statute — is working its way through town bodies.
The Conservation Commission will discuss the plan at a public hearing on Wednesday (September 16, 7 p.m., Town Hall auditorium and livestream).
Liepolt — a recognized consulting party for the Cribari Bridge project — wrote to 1st Selectman Kevin Christie, Representative Town Meeting members and other officials:
TC Greens Farms LLC has proposed demolishing the approximately 60,000-square foot office building at 57 Greens Farms Road and replacing it with a 250-unit multi-family residential building, with 30 percent of the units designated as affordable housing.
The reported development cost is approximately $100 million, and the proposal has now entered Westport’s municipal review process.
55 Greens Farms Road — the building closest to the street — would be demolished, and replaced with a new apartment structure.
This location is directly relevant to Cribari Bridge Project 158-214. Greens Farms Road is part of the residential corridor connecting I-95 exits 18 and 17 by way of Bridge Street, the Cribari Bridge and Riverside Avenue.
Traffic generated or redistributed at 55–57 Greens Farms Road therefore has the potential to affect the traffic baseline, route choices and cumulative conditions surrounding the bridge and the Bridge Street Historic District.
I am not suggesting that all traffic generated by 250 apartments should simply be treated as new traffic. A responsible analysis must compare the proposed residential use with the actual or reasonably anticipated occupancy and traffic generation of the office building being removed. Nor is this an objection to the affordable housing component of the proposal.
Bridge Street traffic. (Photo/Werner Liepolt)
However, a development of this magnitude on a road feeding the bridge corridor cannot reasonably be ignored while the Federal Highway Administration and Connecticut Department of Transportation prepare a revised Environmental Assessment. The traffic analysis should examine:
- Existing and projected daily and peak-hour traffic from the property
- The assumptions used for the office building being demolished
- Anticipated distribution of residential traffic toward I-95 exits 17 and 18 and toward the Cribari Bridge
- The interaction between this development and each bridge alternative under consideration
- I-95 diversion and navigation-app routing through Greens Farms Road, Bridge Street and Riverside Avenue
- Construction traffic, emergency access and pedestrian and bicycle safety
- The combined effects of foreseeable development and changes in the bridge’s weight, geometry and accessibility to larger vehicles.
This is particularly important because altering the Cribari Bridge could itself change driver behavior and route selection. A development analysis that assumes the present bridge, and a bridge analysis that omits the proposed development, could leave the public with 2 incomplete studies and no examination of their combined consequences.
Those consequences could include additional congestion and cut-through traffic, changes in the volume and composition of vehicles, increased noise and air pollution, pedestrian and cyclist hazards, and effects on the residential character, setting and integrity of the National Register-listed Bridge Street Historic District.
Aerial view of 55-57 Greens Farms Road. The street is at the bottom. It feeds into Bridge Street and the Cribari Bridge (left, off the image).
These matters are relevant to the revised environmental review and, where historic properties may be affected, to the continuing Section 106 consultation.
I respectfully request that:
- This development proposal and this correspondence be entered into the Project 158-214 administrative and consultation records
- FHWA and CTDOT obtain and review the developer’s traffic-impact study and underlying assumptions
- The revised Environmental Assessment disclose whether and how this development is incorporated into its traffic baseline and indirect and cumulative-effects analysis
- Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office consider whether resulting traffic conditions associated with the bridge alternatives could affect the character and setting of the Bridge Street Historic District
- Consulting parties receive a written response explaining how this new information will be addressed before the revised Environmental Assessment is completed.
No single agency should review only its isolated portion of these projects while overlooking the corridor-wide consequences created by their interaction. The public deserves a current, coordinated analysis before decisions become effectively irreversible.
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Submissions may be sent to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support this hyperlocal blog with a tax-deductible contribution, please click here.)
I cannot imagine that much additional traffic at evening rush hour. As it is Greens Farm Road could also be name Alt I95 at evening rush hour. Just this week it took me 20 minutes to drive from the commuter parking lot to JoAnne Circle a mere 4.5 miles.
Make it open space- it could be a beautiful park or garden.
I agree with Susan because if you don’t , Greens Farms Road will be renamed “Pigeon Walk Lane” due to bumper-to-bumper at 2 mph which is basically pigeon speed. You can use open space, not more cars!
While open space would be a lovely option, it doesn’t provide any tax base and it also doesn’t help anyone who owns the land make any money. Therefore, I’m sure that’s not a realistic option unless the owners don’t care about making a profit on the land they already own.
The property was built when I lived in Westport around 1981. Ashley LLC purchased the properties for $32.6 million in 2018 and lost 7 million dollars when they sold it recently. The decline was about a 1 million dollars per year decline- which confirms my statements recently that prices in Westport are falling and will continue to decline!
Werner is right. While as an 8-30g project the traffic generated would not be weighed (but should be of course) as it relates to the oversized apartment building, its impact as it relates to the bridge now must be taken into account by the State Feds. Sadly this will play into that bigger is better because the future is greater density. It is for this exact reason the bridge must remain large truck free to ensure the safety, wellbeing and character of our community.
I wonder if anyone took photos of the property after yesterday’s rain?
I see that the building they hope to demolish is 60,000 sq ft. I am curious how large the replacement building would be. May I guess? 3X to 4X as large.
I like housing, but am concerned about the traffic on Greens Farms Rd and in Saugatuck.
Look at the bright side: The tenants of the low rent housing will have quiet neighbors. (but that’s an Assumption on my part).
Maybe it’s time to start to work with property owners and developers rather than just saying no. It is clear that town, communities and cities all need more housing. The just saying no hasn’t worked—-the town will loose in court.
To clarify, my opinion piece does not say “no” to this development, nor does it or I oppose affordable housing. It asks that a foreseeable 250-unit project on a road feeding the Cribari Bridge corridor be included in the bridge project’s updated traffic and environmental analysis.
The town will review the housing proposal under the laws that apply to it. FHWA and CTDOT have a separate responsibility to ensure that the revised Environmental Assessment for the bridge is based on current conditions and reasonably foreseeable development—not an outdated or incomplete traffic picture. 8-30g does not obviate a complete traffic study for the Cribari Bridge… Town officials must ensure these steps are taken.
Nor should anticipated development be used automatically to justify a larger bridge. The analysis must examine how each bridge alternative would affect route selection, cut-through traffic, larger-vehicle access, pedestrian safety and the Bridge Street Historic District. This is a request for coordinated, fact-based review before either project makes assumptions that predetermine the other.
You know when you buy a new car and drive it off the dealership property how you immediately lose 10% of your money? Well that’s what happens when you now buy property in Westport; be prepared to lose money. Westport is now like a new car dealership.
Did someone not open the little box with the “M” on it this morning?
I live directly down stream of the proposed reduction in wetlands where do they expect the water to go? it will flood into the wetlands in my neighborhood! let alone the traffic problems that would happen on Greensfarm road!
The area doesnt support it from a road and infrastructure standpoint. Developers keep trashing towns left and right.
In addition ,it is critical that any traffic study include the increase in number of cars from new Spinnaker proposal as well as newly completed Hiawatha development. All will use Cribari Bridge and Saugatuck area roads as well. The area is already often impassable. We are creating a disaster- piece by piece, with no attention to the combined effect.
Once again the majority of responses to the writer’s reasonable requests are knee jerk reaction to kick the can down the road for affordable housing. Like it or not Westport needs to bite the bullet and get ahead of the minimum so a moratorium is again possible for town-controlled smart growth. Just for the record I am NOT a fan of mandated affordable housing but let’s be real. Any new development will have to address any current potential flooding, infrastructure issues the office building may be lacking due to age. Anyone that travels this area knows full well anyone who wishes to access I95 is going to go east to the connector, NOT west on Greens Farms Rd. Anyone wanting to access downtown will turn off before the Cribari or the busiest section of Bridge. Any discussion of traffic needs to take into consideration the amount of traffic currently being generated by the office building as in “net new”, although certainly at different times of the day and weekends as well. This spot, on the periphery of town along I95 is a reasonably perfect place for this type of development. Before I get trolled for that statement understand that I live off Post Road west and will suffer tremendous traffic increase from the massive apartment complex now renting near Kings Highway School, making the already insane traffic on Post Road heading east absolutely impossible. No property anywhere is perfect but face facts, we have to comply. The only question is do we keep control or not.
Help me with the math here. The current occupancy limit of the 60,000-sq-ft 55 Greens Farms Road office building is in the hundreds of workers, most presumably following a 9 to 5ish weekday work schedule and most commuting to that site. The developers propose a 250-unit apartment building for people to work, shop and dine, mostly locally. Why wouldn’t traffic conditions be basically a wash, if not an improvement at rush hour? I live just a few hundred yards from the site, so have a dog in this fight. I’d welcome new neighbors and think the 30-percent affordable target is a plus in place of an ugly, outmoded office building.
A few perspectives, if I may.
The company I own is headquartered at 57GFR – the building they propose to demolish to replace with the apartments. While the capacity of the building is large, the actual usage is VERY low. Seemingly everyone is remote – including my company. We used to have six offices and a conference room. We have released the offices entirely in the wake of the pandemic and retained only the conference space. In my opinion, the building is under utilized and Westport clearly needs more housing. But whatever traffic the proposed housing brings, the vast majority of it will be incremental traffic, not replacement traffic.
As is, we already have a serious traffic issue on GFR, Bridge Street and feeder roads such as Imperial Avenue, Compo Road and Riverside Avenue. We have significant redevelopment being proposed in Saugatuck at the railroad station. We have a DOT seemingly intent on replacing the bridge – fully opening the gates to more Route 95 feeder traffic, inclusive of large trucks.
Apparently, no one wants to consider a comprehensive solution. Mr. Liepolt is absolutely correct to raise this issue and I appreciate his efforts to keep these issues top of mind for all of us who will be affected.
One question that needs to be asked is where is the leadership from our elected officials on these critical issues? Why have we heard nothing more about the bridge issue since the public meeting (and outcry) months and months ago?
I’ll give the floor to our First Selectman….
According to the AI Overlords, Westport has 420 affordable housing units, which is 3.97% of the housing inventory. It might be wrong. It might also kill us all soon.
Unit you hit 10%, you’re at the mercy of predatory developers, although you get a stay of execution with a temporary moratorium which the town continue to makes decent strides towards.
This project is a no brainer. 75 affordable units is significant, in a neighborhood that’s already mostly commercial except for the cemetery (no one got Eric’s joke).
You can’t keep saying no. You eventually lose and then you wind up with a real mess.
I agree that 75 affordable units would be significant. But my column did not say “no” to this project or oppose its affordable component. It asked that its traffic consequences be evaluated together with the proposed changes to the Cribari Bridge.
It is also misleading to describe this as simply a residential project in an already “mostly commercial” neighborhood. The property is a specially designated Design Development District, created for the two office buildings now there; one approximately 60,000-square-foot office building would be replaced by 250 apartments. The surrounding Greens Farms corridor includes substantial residential areas, and Greens Farms Road continues directly toward Bridge Street and the Cribari Bridge.
The developer may ultimately demonstrate that the apartments would generate no more traffic than the existing office use. But that conclusion should come from the complete traffic study—not from assumption. With FHWA and CTDOT revising the bridge Environmental Assessment, asking them to consider this known development and its cumulative effect is not “saying no.” It is responsible planning.
One point may be getting lost in the discussion over whether 250 apartments — including 75 affordable units — are desirable in themselves.
Mr. Loffredo’s observations prompted me to look into the history of the Greens Farms DDD site. What I found is fascinating and reinforces my request for comprehensive studies:
The history of this particular property ishould be understood before we simply describe the area as “mostly commercial.”
The 21-acre 55-57 Greens Farms Road property was originally zoned residential. When P&Z approved the Design Development District there in 1969, the decision was challenged all the way to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Court’s decision records that, in approving the DDD, P&Z considered its compatibility with the surrounding residential area, storm drainage and, significantly, “the capacity of highways to handle traffic.”
Development of the property was subsequently governed by a 1978 stipulated court judgment imposing additional restrictions.
And as recently as 2024, P&Z changed this property from DDD #4 to DDD #3 while ELIMINATING the provision that had allowed inclusionary multifamily housing in DDD #3.
That raises a question I think deserves an answer: What were the planning, traffic and development assumptions underlying the original DDD and the later stipulated judgment, and how does a 250-unit residential development compare with them?
This isn’t an argument against affordable housing. Seventy-five affordable units are significant. It is an argument for looking at the cumulative planning consequences of putting 250 residences on this particular site.
That is especially important now because Greens Farms Road and Hillspoint Road are part of the road network leading toward the Cribari Bridge. CTDOT and FHWA are simultaneously evaluating a bridge project whose potential effects on traffic patterns — including induced or redistributed traffic — remain very much at issue.
The relevant question therefore isn’t simply whether Westport needs affordable housing. It does.
The question is whether 250 units at this particular location, together with other reasonably foreseeable development, changes the traffic assumptions being used in the Cribari Bridge environmental review.
The property’s own zoning history suggests that traffic capacity has been a legitimate planning concern here since 1969. It should still be one in 2026.
200 cars max for office workers
500 cars max for apartments
office workers rush hours
apartments all day