A new 8-30g housing proposal has been filed with town officials.
This one — for 18 units in 9 duplexes, all “affordable” based on state statutes — is planned for 96 Compo Road North.
The homes would be built by Eagle River. They produce manufactured and modular homes in Pennsylvania, for delivery anywhere.
96 Compo Road North is now vacant land, between Brookside Drive and the Town Farm tennis courts and Little League fields.
96 Compo Road North (Photo courtesy of Google Maps)
On the other side of the street, the site is between Tamarac Road and Gorham Avenue.
The 9 duplexes would be built on land (white) inside the pink area. The Town Farm tennis courts and baseball fields are at top.
The developer is familiar. Garden Homes Fund — the philanthropic arm of Stamford-based Garden Homes Management — engaged in a lengthy court battle to develop 122 Wilton Road.
Those 19 units of affordable housing, on the corner of Kings Highway North, are managed by Homes with Hope. The Westport non-profit is not affiliated with the Compo Road North project.
In its application, Garden Homes says that the new housing would consist entirely of 2-bedroom units. It would “provide housing in Westport for low and moderate income families with school-aged children.”
Rendering of 1 of the 9 proposed duplexes.
The application adds, “While the need for affordable housing is dire in Connecticut, it is most needed in neighborhoods of high opportunity. Neighborhoods play a central role in upward mobility and are where children experience socioeconomic development, form social ties, and access resources and life opportunities.”
The Fund would develop the property, then sell it to “an area housing non-profit at below cost on completion.” The project would generate 14 points, toward an 8-30g moratorium.
There would be 24 parking spaces. Residents would be limited to 1 car per unit, “strictly enforced as a condition of the lease.”
No date has yet been set for hearings by the Planning & Zoning Commission, or other town bodies.
Site plan. Compo Road North is at left.
(“06880” reports often on local real estate, and politics. We’ll continue to follow this story closely. Please click here, to help us do this work. Thank you!)
our leaders of CT doing a great job ruining westport…. the road where people bike and run and risk their lives as cars fly by with no sidewalk…. lets add a bunch more traffic. next stop lets put another one by 1 wilton road. basically lets get a map of the worst traffic and driving areas in town and add a bunch of cars and housing…. better yet, if we cant get lights on our fields, maybe we just build 8-30G buildings next to the fields, and we will get lights by default!
I agree so much with you Adam. I am an avid cyclist and I always told my friends that riding or running on North Compo is the most dangerous thing you can do in Westport.
Has there been a traffic study?
Not yet. There will be. It’s not safe.
Make sure the police are involved in Westport’s own traffic study. Predatory builders tend to minimize the problem. I fought against one next-door to my house. And the builders traffic study was done during a snow day at 11 o’clock for an hour. Data should be collected for a week to get the averages properly. The police department traffic study approved. There was a huge safety issue due to the curve on my street.
… The police department traffic study proved there was a huge safety issue…
is this ever going to end- lets build on every green space and add more cars, people, utility use and refuse to an already over burdened system. Our quality of life deteriorates so that others can be uplifted- sounds like communism/socialism and any other ism other than capitalism-
Poor man.
I love these stories. They always bring out the ‘best’ of Westport. The empathy, the open mindedness. Just classic.
(whistle in background), ‘Here Spot…come back now…’
“Hate Has No Home Here”, but neither do you.
Most people seem to agree affordable housing is an issue in Westport. However it needs to be built “somewhere else” because it is inappropriate wherever it’s happens to be proposed. Folks just don’t want it anywhere near them. And will find every reason in the world to explain why it is a bad idea. Like 122 Wilton Rd, usually it turns out not so bad.
This one is 100% affordable. What’s not to like about that? Aside from NIMBYs of course.
Steven, how would you feel if this was being proposed next door to you?
What exactly is your issue Dave? What are you afraid of? The clientele? The ‘infrastructure’ stress? Traffic?
C’mon,Dave we’re all ears. Show everyone your true colors.
Give people an opportunity. That’s how I feel.
Steven, there are no “true colors” to reveal, and I don’t want to get into a battle with you. I support affordable housing and giving people the opportunity to live in Westport.
My wife and I bought this house from my mother with plans to develop the property ourselves. Instead, we fell in love with it and decided to make it our home. That surprised me, because I grew up here. My parents brought me home from Norwalk Hospital to this very house. I thought I knew everything this place could mean to me until I chose it again with my wife.
You asked what concerns me. It’s the road and whether this proposal is right for this location. We have a community where neighbors look out for each other, but I worry about safety on Compo Road North. Those concerns matter for the families who would move here, too.
I believe there are other places in Westport that could better accommodate this housing. I’m willing to listen and discuss the plans. I’d appreciate the same opportunity to explain my concerns without having my motives decided for me.
The fighting above is silly and stupid. Westport is all about welcoming others. We have a very philanthropical town. This is about traffic, safety, and overbuilding in an already terrible flooding zone. Compo North is fast cars, no sidewalks and traffic heavy many times a day. Why not build massive housing on the sherwood island connector, or all those acres by the park! Why are we allowing more building on the busiest streets. Whoever u are above picking fights that woe is me westport is saying we are too good for helping affordable housing, that is not right. Traffic on main throughways is not safe. Bicycles keep hitting cars in traffic and people are nearly getting hit. Compo north adding a multi complex unit is stupid and unsafe for kids and anybody exercising, and add in traffic and water drainage a disaster. There is property not on main roads, its simple.
Exactly why Winslow Park would be a perfect place for town controlled affordable housing but, nope, gotta keep that for the dogs.
I am a longtime supporter of affordable housing in Westport. We need housing that allows police officers, firefighters, teachers, young people, seniors and Staples graduates who want to remain in this community to actually afford to live here.
But 96 Compo Road North is the wrong location for this kind of development. Putting 18 high-density units in the middle of a residential neighborhood with no sidewalks and no public transit makes absolutely no sense.
Compo Road North is already a dangerous place to walk or bike. Residents have been advocating for more than a decade for safe pedestrian and bicycle access along this stretch of road — a road that leads to parks, ballfields and other community resources. This isn’t a theoretical problem. People are already forced to walk and bike along a road that was never designed to safely accommodate them.
And there is a bigger issue here. Westport’s failure over the years to meet its affordable-housing obligations under 8-30g has consequences. When we don’t plan for affordable housing, we lose much of our ability to determine where it goes. That means proposals like this can — and eventually will — appear in neighborhoods throughout Westport.
That doesn’t mean we should oppose affordable housing. It means we should be smart about where we put it.
There are locations along the Post Road where higher-density affordable housing makes far more sense — places with existing sidewalks, public transportation, commercial services and infrastructure. P&Z should be encouraging 8-30g development in those locations, not accepting inappropriate proposals simply because we failed to plan ahead.
And the Town needs to put real money behind affordable housing. We cannot continue to spend millions on overbuilt schools and develop expensive plans that ultimately sit on shelves while telling residents that we don’t have the resources to address our housing shortage.
Wake up, Westport. This isn’t just about 96 Compo Road North. It’s about whether we are going to plan for the future or continue to let developers and 8-30g determine the future for us.
We can — and should — have affordable housing in Westport. But location matters. Infrastructure matters. Safety matters. And 96 Compo Road North fails on all three.
Ms. Johnson, I agree with most of what you wrote. However when I worked for the town many of us bought/built REAL homes in Newtown, Trumbull, Stratford and raised our families. It’s what we could afford. I mean I would love to live in Carmel or Aspen or the north shore of Long Island, but I can’t swing it. Oh well.
I grew up in Trumbull and worked in Westport for many years. I would love to be able to move to Westport, but I likely make too much to qualify for this affordable housing, and too little to buy a house or condo. Even my hometown has become unaffordable, so what are people like me supposed to do?
Well said Jennifer. I echo her thoughts! I live just off Compo Road North. Even supervised, I won’t let my kids walk or bike on this road. I can’t imagine putting 18 (!!!) families, which are specifically called out in this proposal, onto this property. Plus, if they are only allowed one car each (can you imagine 18+ parking spots in this tiny space?), public transportation will of course be necessary. This means residents and children will have to walk to the nearest bus stop, on the road, all the way to the post road. This is not safe.
Jennifer Johnson preach on, perfectly said!
96 Compo North is a 1 acre lot with a home on it according to the tax assessor. Does this mean they can tear down any and every house in town and insert 18 units? What variances are required?
96 Compo Road North: https://gis.vgsi.com/westportct/Parcel.aspx?Pid=6725
Same group did 1-acre 122 Wilton Road – check the photo: https://gis.vgsi.com/westportct/Parcel.aspx?Pid=2339
It’s already been torn down.
It’s irresponsible to propose a development of this scale on land zoned for single-family homes. Eighteen units on roughly one acre of land is completely out of character with the existing zoning and surrounding neighborhood. Under standard zoning regulations, a project of this density would never be permitted. Allowing developers to bypass those restrictions through these types of loopholes undermines the entire purpose of local zoning.
Living right behind this property, we see the environmental risks firsthand. Our soil is already saturated, and recent storms sent rivers of water straight through our yards and into neighboring wetlands. Adding heavy development will aggravate local flooding, damage delicate wetlands, and bring dangerous traffic increases to a road where our kids walk and play.
96 Compo Road North may or may not be an appropriate place for 18 affordable housing units but the supposed lack of public transportation is a red herring. Wheels2U already serves all of Compo Road North (and all the rest of Westport for that matter) with its on-demand, door-to-door service taking people to the Post Road shopping area, the library, Jesup Green, the Senior Center, Farmers Market and the two train stations. And all for just $2.00 a ride. It provided over 32,000 rides in the last fiscal year ending June 30 and is on track to provide close to 35,000 rides this fiscal year. For more information about Wheels2U, including hours of operation, links to download the Wheels2U app, and information about how to get fve free rides, just go to its website at http://www.wheels2u.org/westport.
The proposed 18-unit purpose-built development at 96 Compo Road North, being pursued under Connecticut’s 8-30g affordable-housing statute, is wrong on many levels, but perhaps nowhere more so than from the standpoint of public safety. A development of this size would bring a substantial increase in daily activity to a site located on one of Westport’s busiest and most challenging stretches of road. More than 50 vehicle trips a day could reasonably be generated by residents, visitors, service personnel, deliveries, and other activity associated with 18 units. Every one of those trips would require vehicles to enter or exit directly onto Compo Road North, where traffic frequently travels at excessive speeds. Adding this volume of traffic to an already dangerous roadway is an unnecessary and foreseeable safety risk.
The problem is made substantially worse by the lack of adequate sight lines at the proposed entrance. For vehicles traveling south on Compo Road North toward the Post Road, the steep hill immediately before 96 Compo Road North severely limits a driver’s ability to see approaching traffic. Traveling north presents a different but equally serious problem: the bend in the roadway before reaching the property obstructs the necessary line of sight. Drivers entering or exiting the development could therefore find themselves confronted by rapidly approaching vehicles with very little warning. This is precisely the type of roadway condition where additional traffic should be avoided rather than deliberately introduced. No development proposal should ignore the basic realities of how vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists actually interact with this road.
I have lived at 105 Compo Road North from 1963 through 1980 and again from 2012 to the present. In all those decades, I have witnessed firsthand the reality of traffic on Compo Road North. For all intents and purposes, there is little meaningful speed enforcement, and the result is predictable: no enforcement translates into little compliance, both day and night. I have personally witnessed injuries resulting from crashes, and I have seen hundreds of drivers fail to stop properly for school buses, come dangerously close to mothers pushing baby carriages, and force joggers and bicyclists toward the edge of the roadway. The number of fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles traveling at extremely high speeds along Compo Road North seems almost constant. These are not theoretical concerns based on a map or engineering drawing; they are conditions that residents experience every day.
The surrounding intersections further demonstrate the existing danger. Accidents and hazardous traffic situations occur with regularity near Evergreen Avenue, Tamarac Road, Gorham Avenue, and Country Lane. Adding an 18-unit residential development and its associated traffic to this already problematic stretch of Compo Road North will only increase the number of vehicles entering, exiting, turning, stopping, and slowing along the roadway. Even if each individual trip appears insignificant on paper, the cumulative effect of dozens of additional daily movements is significant. When those movements occur at a location with limited sight distance and a demonstrated history of dangerous driving, the town should be asking whether the location is appropriate for this intensity of development—not simply whether the development can technically be placed on the property.
There is another critical consideration that cannot be reduced to a simple traffic count: Compo Road North serves as a pedestrian route to some of Westport’s most heavily used recreational facilities. The town itself has recognized the enormous seasonal use of the Compo North ball fields, tennis courts, and pickleball courts, which bring thousands of children and adults to the area. The level of activity can be comparable to that generated around a school. Children walk along Compo Road North every day, yet there are no sidewalks and no convenient crosswalks in the vicinity of the proposed development. Pedestrians, including children, parents, joggers, and bicyclists, are frequently left with no practical option other than walking or riding in the roadway. Increasing residential density at this particular location, rather than providing safer infrastructure first, puts even more people in conflict with fast-moving traffic.
The fundamental question should therefore be whether placing an 18-unit development—and potentially 35 to 50 or more residents—on approximately one acre at 96 Compo Road North is responsible planning for this particular location. Affordable housing is an important community objective, but the pursuit of that objective should not require the town to disregard roadway safety, pedestrian conditions, sight-distance limitations, existing traffic behavior, and the extraordinary recreational activity already concentrated in this area. The fact that a project may qualify under 8-30g does not make every location appropriate for high-density development. Westport has an obligation to consider the real-world consequences for residents, children, pedestrians, bicyclists, emergency responders, and drivers. At 96 Compo Road North, those consequences are too serious to dismiss. Adding substantially more people and traffic to a road that already presents these dangers is not responsible development—it is an avoidable safety problem waiting to happen.
Public Safety is one, perhaps the only, trump card the town holds in regard to town control over 830/g developments. Affordable housing is desperately needed, but not at any cost.
The thought and logic behind all the above cautionary comments are exactly the essentials that 830-g was designed to allow developers to ignore, and to make local zoning authorities, neighborhood considerations and architectural compatibility impotent.
At the risk of turning this political…. uh oh, here I go. These developments are very difficult to reject because of the 830(g) laws. I have no idea if this one’s a good idea or bad idea, but local control is radically eroded by 830(g) – plain and simple. And even if this one IS good, there are plenty that were not good, but essentially had to be approved because of this law. If you want more control, you should vote this year (and every year until it gets done) for those candidates who vow to fight to repeal 830(g). Voting has consequences that you CAN impact.
For what it is worth, the owner of the property as declared in the public filing material on Planning and Zoning’s website, is Richard Freedman, an affordable housing developer. He is also a long- time elected member of the Stamford Board of Finance, and apparently has served as its past chair. He knows the ropes in land use. Buckle up.
I see empty commerical real estate all over town – on the Post Road and Riverside Avenue. Why aren’t those locations/buildings being considered by the town or developers for affordable housing? Seem much closer to public transportation. Compo Rd North is a terrible location between no sidewalks, bad corners and terrible speeding with little enforcement, not to mention environmental concerns with destroying green space and causing more flooding.
Jan Carpenter 100% correct! Elections have consequences. Dan Katz, correct all our local zoning authority is basically impotent against Democratic State Housing Legislation.
Parking, safety, traffic, density, residential neighborhood, local zoning etc…means ZERO.
This small proposed affordable housing development is a small bump compared to what we will see being proposed in the next 24 plus months.
The lack of Legislative balance in Hartford over the past 30 plus years has allowed aggressive housing bills to be passed because the Democrats in control of our state can do whatever they want.
If we had “legislative balance” in Hartford, the arrogance and “take it or leave it” attitude of the Democrats would change. There would be more compromise and better housing legislation to benefit everyone.
Land is a huge issue. How do you create more housing land? It’s simple, the DOT and State become our partners – instead of saying NO to state land in our community, it should be mandated by the Legislature to free up this land to help us comply with affordable housing needs.
Again elections have consequences, and who we send to Hartford, and who we back in Hartford does matter.
Kind of, sort of, almost partially agree with you. I wish your very own Republican Town Committee would run viable candidates in state elections. Instead, we get spectral presences and abstract-noun spouters with hilarious backstories. We can’t elect new Republicans to go to Hartford if new Republicans are completely unelectable.
Growth and development are inevitable but overdevelopment is a choice.
In a coastal community where roughly 50% of the land is wetlands, every development decision has consequences. Wetlands, floodplains, drainage systems, tidal areas, and already-saturated soils don’t care what a zoning map says. Water has to go somewhere.
When we continually increase density and impervious surfaces without fully accounting for stormwater capacity, flooding, infrastructure, traffic, and the cumulative impact of development, we risk creating problems that taxpayers and future generations will be left to solve.
This isn’t about stopping development or opposing housing. It’s about responsible development that recognizes the physical limitations of a coastal community.
We should be asking a simple question before approving more density: Can our land and infrastructure actually support it?
Being a stones throw from deadman’s brook, no.
Protecting wetlands, improving drainage, investing in infrastructure, and preserving the anesthetic and resiliency of our community should not be obstacles to progress. They should be part of the definition of progress.
Build smart. Plan long-term. Respect the land and the water, after all, land is not made.
Isn’t this project on the town sewer line?
Yes, but being on the town sewer line doesn’t eliminate the concerns I’m raising. Sewer handles wastewater; it doesn’t solve stormwater runoff, increased impervious coverage, drainage capacity, flooding, wetland impacts, or traffic.
My point is that development needs to be evaluated cumulatively—not simply on whether a property
is connected to sewer.
One question worth clarifying is CTDOT’s role. Compo Road North is state Route 136, so access to this development involves state highway requirements as well as local zoning review.
Connecticut General Statutes §13a-143a requires a permit for a new or relocated driveway onto a state highway. In deciding whether to issue it, CTDOT must consider highway safety, drainage, road width and character, and traffic density and character. State regulation §13b-17-15(3) also requires written permission to change the dimensions of an entrance constructed under permit within the state right-of-way. Section 13b-17-15(5)(i) requires adequate sight distance in both directions under CTDOT’s design standards.
An existing single-family driveway does not, by itself, demonstrate safe access for 18 households. The comments describing a hill and bend limiting visibility raise specific questions that should be answered by measurements and engineering analysis.
That does not mean CTDOT is automatically obligated to conduct its own full traffic study. The separate OSTA major-traffic-generator review generally applies at 200 parking spaces or 100,000 square feet of gross floor area—thresholds this proposal apparently would not meet. But where a driveway permit is required, CTDOT must still evaluate the statutory safety and traffic considerations.
Has CTDOT determined what permits this proposal requires? Will the applicant provide a traffic and access study addressing sight distance, actual vehicle speeds, turning movements, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and emergency access—and will CTDOT’s written findings be included in the public hearing record?
Affordable housing and safe access are both important. Establishing the facts would help everyone assess this proposal.
There is a practical role here for First Selectman Kevin Christie and the Board of Selectmen: the board serves as Westport’s Local Traffic Authority.
Compo Road North is State Route 136. Under Connecticut General Statutes §14-297, the Office of the State Traffic Administration is the traffic authority for state highways. That means Westport cannot independently dictate traffic controls on this road, but its Local Traffic Authority is an established channel for requesting state investigation and action.
In this instance, the First Selectman could bring the proposal before the board, coordinate Police and Public Works input, and seek a formal CTDOT review of the proposed access and surrounding road conditions. That request should address actual vehicle speeds, driveway sight distances, turning movements, pedestrian and bicycle safety, access to the nearby playing fields, and emergency access. The board could also request appropriate state-approved crossings, signs, speed changes or other safety measures, supported by the findings.
CTDOT’s published guidance says that requests supported by the Local Traffic Authority are forwarded to the department for investigation. The town can therefore initiate a documented review and contribute evidence to it.
A useful next step would be a public Local Traffic Authority agenda item, a formal request to CTDOT, and publication of the findings and recommended safety measures. Those findings should help protect existing neighbors and the families who would live here.
The RTM might find it useful to encourage Town Government to accelerate right now.
This may be a traffic issue but it seriously pales in comparison to the 250 units that are being proposed to be built at 55-57 greens farms road. That is the size of the halstead apartments on the Norwalk line. In a much smaller space. On wetlands. On greens farms road which already backs up to go over the cribari bridge routinely.
I continue to be amazed at how developers stretch the envelope. This specific site is no more suitable for this type of development than locating by the entrance or exit ramp on I95. The other perplexing issue is who pays for the infrastructure expansion as we add more residential units in town. Can the sewer system handle the load? Do we have sufficient space in our schools? There are places where a developer is required to help fund these expansions.