After Sunday’s 7-inch “rain bomb,” a neighbor of the proposed redevelopment of 55 Greens Farms Road — which would replace 1 of 2 office buildings next to Assumption Cemetery with 250 apartments, 30% of them affordable under state formulas — writes:
During Wednesday’s Conservation Commission hearing, members prudently chose to continue the review until October rather than vote on the application, for which the surrounding community is grateful.
A proposal of this scale and sensitivity deserves a dedicated hearing. It is difficult for both the Commission and the public to adequately consider such a complex application after hours of reviewing important but perhaps less consequential matters.
Wednesday evening’s presentation by the applicant’s team of professionals was impressive, visually compelling, and optimistic.
However, it also appeared to lack details that warrant further examination.
Aerial view of Greens Farms Road office buildings. The southern one (bottom) would be demolished, for 250 apartment units.
Several aspects of the proposal were presented, including but not limited to green spaces, walkways, plantings, water management and maintenance plans.
But it failed to elaborate on the true scale of the proposal in more detail — for example, number of units, coverage comparison and parking, under the rationale that they fall outside the Conservation Commission’s purview.
While that may be technically correct, some of these issues have significant implications for stormwater management, impervious coverage, and environmental impacts, all of which are directly relevant to conservation concerns and fall under the Commission’s oversight, in addition to the Commission’s request for a side-by-side comparison.
During the presentation, a consulting engineer stated that the property did not experience what was characterized as complete flooding during the recent 200-year storm event, contrary to the image below with a vehicle partially submerged in floodwaters.
Respectfully, it begs the question of what standard is used to define complete flooding. By any reasonable measure, substantial portions of the property, both above and below grade, were underwater.
The parking garage appeared to have flooded, roadways providing access to and from the property were inundated, and adjacent wetlands overflowed significantly, breaching abutting properties.
This was one for the record books — but will it be the last one?
Last Sunday’s flood, at 55-57 Greens Farms Road.
Equally concerning are the effects on neighboring properties. At least one concerned resident bordering the wetlands observed water levels extending well beyond that area. One would argue that these conditions constitute extensive flooding, and should be acknowledged when evaluating future development impacts.
Although parking may not fall directly under the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction, impervious coverage and land disturbance certainly do. The proposal contemplates accommodating all required parking beneath the building footprint, rather than in traditional surface lots.
On paper, this is an attractive concept. However, can the required parking be fully accommodated under the building footprint as proposed? It doesn’t take long to understand the true scale of the proposal.
On the site plan provided by the developing team, as part of the meeting materials, you can see the existing back building that is planned to remain, at least for now, next to the new proposed larger building, shown in beige with pale green donut holes representing courtyards within the building. The 2 existing buildings are identical in size; the proposal is far from it.
The new building (bottom) would be substantially larger than the current one.
The question is not what’s under the Commission’s purview, but whether safeguards should be established now as the proposal is further detailed. Should the final site plan design deviate from the proposal as it moves through other agency approvals, no modifications should be granted without a comprehensive public review process, including notice and hearing requirements.
Too often, substantial project modifications occur later in the approval process when public scrutiny has diminished. If or when the development proceeds, all of Westport deserves assurance that future changes will not undermine the environmental commitments being presented today.
The broader environmental impacts of this development also deserve careful consideration. The proposal includes extensive native plantings, pollinator habitats, and attractive landscape features. While these elements are commendable, they do not eliminate the significant ecological disruption associated with large-scale construction.
Construction activity remains a major source of environmental disturbance through habitat fragmentation, waste generation, erosion, sedimentation, and impacts to surrounding ecosystems, particularly where wetlands are involved, even with protections in place.
Could the Sherwood Mill Pond watershed basin also be impacted, as it is connected through smaller waterways? Adaptive reuse rather than a redevelopment may not be appropriate here, but it provides many lessons not to be ignored.
Sherwood Mill Pond is not far from 55 Greens Farms Road.
The development team also referenced future maintenance plans intended to preserve the property’s environmental performance. Such plans are encouraging in theory, but they ultimately rely on consistent implementation and enforcement.
Who will ensure compliance years after approvals have been granted, construction has been completed, and the dust has settled?
Another voiced concern during the hearing: The town’s resources for monitoring private properties are limited. The site’s existing office park likely had maintenance obligations, yet residents have witnessed years of neglect, including recurring litter and debris entering the watershed from adjacent roadways and highways, using the roadway as a trash conveyor belt.
Another point articulated at the hearing: Many times, it is the residents who volunteer to go up and down this stretch of road and collect the garbage. A high-density development will only add to the problem.
A redevelopment could be inevitable; the owners have made a substantial financial investment and intend to seek a reasonable return, but at what expense?
The objective is not to prevent development (although it would be ideal), but to ensure that it receives even more rigorous scrutiny such a consequential project deserves.
We have not even touched on the traffic this will create on an already overwhelmed road, not to mention the everlasting debate about what will happen to the beloved Cribari Bridge once it’s further overwhelmed and likely becomes structurally inadequate.
This section of Westport may appear as the forgotten land, but it is home to families, many of whom have lived here for generations. They have repeatedly dealt with flooding due to poor upkeep of the waterways, never-ending traffic, and are bracing for additional impact. But they are hopeful for some reprieve.
Perhaps the new development will, in fact, improve the water management capability of the property and be a positive addition to the community.
But at the moment, the facts and scale are not feeding much confidence or conviction to those who will be impacted the most. Rest assured, the ripple effects of this not-so-small pebble in the pond will be felt far beyond the adjoining properties.
(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Send submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To make a tax-deductible contribution supporting our work, please click here. Thank you!
