Tag Archives: Planning and Zoning Commission

Partying With The CWP

Posted on May 14, 2013 | 11 comments

Over 40 Westporters are planning Westport’s next party.

Before you get too excited, though: It’s a political party, not a kegger.

The group — including Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters — has filed papers in Hartford for official recognition. The name of the party is Coalition for Westport.

Michael Nayor

Michael Nayor

Former Planning and Zoning Commission member David Press, and former P&Z alternate and RTM member Michael Nayor, lead the process.

They believe that town government — particularly the P&Z — is “more focused on preservation than looking forward,” says Nayor, an attorney and Westport resident since 1977.

Though the coalition “values the past, and all the wonderful things about Westport, we can’t ignore enhancing and improving what we have,” he adds.

Despite several studies, and ongoing work by the Downtown 2020 committee, Nayor says “no one is taking the ball and running with it. The town has to be proactive, not just reactive, when something comes before the P&Z.”

Asked for specific examples of projects the CWP supports or opposes, such as an eldercare facility on Baron’s South, Nayor says, “We don’t have an agenda. We don’t have a stand yet.”

The entrance to the Baron's South property -- one of many Westport planning issues.

The Baron’s South property: one of many Westport planning issues.

Will the new party address issues beyond planning? What about budgets?

“Save Westport Now” — another Westport party — “focuses solely on planning and zoning,” Nayor counters. “We will focus on that too. But I think we have a more positive view of improving and enhancing the facilities here. I’m aware of what Save Westport Now opposes. I don’t really know what they favor.”

So what does the CWP favor?

“Give us time,” Nayor asks. “We’re a fledgling organization. Save Westport Now has been around for 30 years. Our primary focus is to support real public dialogue of issues, and make residents more aware of what’s going on.”

An aerial view of downtown Westport. It occupies a small section of town, but looms large in planning debates.

An aerial view of downtown Westport. It occupies a small section of town, but looms large in planning debates.

This fall, the party will run 1 or 2 candidates for the P&Z. If any one receives more than 1% of the vote, the CWP will be allowed to cross-endorse candidates in the next election.

“We’re very excited,” says Nayor. “We hope to be very influential. Town government can’t just react to applications that come in. It has to guide, through planning, where Westport will be 10, 20 years from now. No more kicking the can down the road.”

(For more information on the Coalition for Westport, click here.)

11 Comments

Posted in Local politics, Organizations, People

Tagged , , , , ,

Important Info — Floodplain Damage

Posted on November 2, 2012 | 6 comments

The following information — from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection — was sent to all municipal officials. It was forwarded to “06880” by Cathy Walsh, chair of the Westport Planning & Zoning Commission, on behalf of the entire P&Z.  She says:

The highlights are the 100-year flood plain, 3-foot substantial damage clause and the $30,000 grant.  The key for homeowners is “document everything.  Photos of high water/high water marks are invaluable. So are photos of pre-existing sea walls.”

The P&Z staff are discussing the options internally as to how to stream line the process for homeowners to rebuild.  I’ve asked them to come up with recommendations as to how best streamline the process for homeowners. We will put this on the agenda for the November 8 P&Z meeting.

The other important issue concerns seawalls.  Larry Bradley is working with the DEEP commissioner to streamline that process also.  We want the public to know what’s going on but at the same time please allow us to do our leg work.

The DEEP memo follow:

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, many structures have been damaged by coastal flooding, high winds, fire from downed electrical wires, or fallen trees.

All Connecticut municipalities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Under the NFIP, structures located in the mapped 100-year floodplain that have sustained substantial damage must be brought into compliance with your community’s floodplain management regulations or ordinance as if it is new construction when they are repaired or reconstructed, including the requirement that lowest floor be elevated to or above the base flood elevation.

The NFIP defines substantial damage as damage from ANY origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Work on structures that are determined to be substantially damaged is considered to be a substantial improvement, regardless of the actual repair work performed. The definition of market value is included in your local floodplain management zoning regulations or flood ordinance. Usually, market value is defined as the appraised value of the structure, excluding land value.

Before issuing permits for repairs, local permit officials must determine whether damage to a structure located in the 100-year floodplain qualifies as “substantial damage”. Community officials often have difficulty determining whether buildings are substantially damaged. This difficulty is magnified after a disaster where a large number of buildings have been damaged and there is a need to provide timely substantial damage determinations and issuance of permits so that reconstruction can begin.

In coastal areas that experience tidal surge, a general rule of thumb is that if 3 feet or more of flood water has entered the first floor living space (not the basement), the structure has likely hit the substantial damage threshold. The Substantial Damage Estimator Manual listed below contains helpful damage category spreadsheets in Appendix E. While doing field inspections, it may be helpful to do a preliminary assessment using spreadsheets using a “stoplight” screening for each structure (green – not substantially damaged, yellow – borderline, red-substantially damaged). More detailed calculations can be done in the future before the structure is repaired.

There are many Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publications that can assist local officials with the topic of substantial damage. Below is a list of these resources and link to website.

Substantial Damage Estimator (FEMA P-784 CD) and User’s Manual and Workbook http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4166

Answers to Questions About Substantially Damaged Buildings (FEMA 213) http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1636

Substantial Improvement/Substantial Damage Desk Reference (FEMA P-758) http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4160

Managing Floodplain Development through the NFIP, Unit 8 (IS-9) http://www.fema.gov/pdf/floodplain/is_9_complete.pdf#nameddest=sub-damage

When buildings undergo repair following a substantial damage determination, it is an opportunity for the community to reduce future damage to these vulnerable structures through compliance with community floodplain management regulations.

If a local official determines a structure is substantially damaged, Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage is part of most standard flood insurance policies. If eligible, ICC provides for up to $30,000 to help property owners who have been substantially damaged bring the home or business into compliance with community floodplain regulations or ordinances. This can include elevation, demolition or relocation of a residential structure, or flood-proofing a non-residential structure. Claims for ICC benefits are filed separately from your claim for contents or building loss. Below is a link to FEMA’s website with more information in ICC. http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/ICC.shtm

6 Comments

Posted in Environment, Local politics, People, Weather

Tagged , , ,

Baron’s South Committee: A Follow-Up Report

Posted on October 6, 2012 | 73 comments

Alert “06880” reader Tom Leyden and his wife Rita have been busy. They attended yesterday morning’s Baron’s South Committee meeting. They were also at the September 21 meeting, and this week’s RTM and Board of Finance sessions. Tom sent along this report:

We’re interested in the prime subject (affordable housing), the utilization of public town owned property, and the process.

I was impressed tremendously by how this committee worked yesterday morning (2 members were absent: Jo Fuchs-Luscombe and Ken Bernhard). There was meeting management, give and take, obvious caring and expertise shown. Many opinions were aired.

Several members were defensive, but restrained in response to how they were characterized in the public sphere. However, this took little time.

Given the result of Wednesday’s Board of Finance meeting, everyone present agreed to staying on the committee to conclusion.

Selectmen Gordon Joseloff and Shelly Kassen offered whatever resources necessary, and open minds. They supported redoing, if that’s the final result.

Janis Collins (BOF) offered insightful suggestions on how to proceed forward. This is too complicated for me to accurately explain, but was well taken by the committee. Many of her points led to the “next steps.”

A point that Paul VanOrden made that I agree with is that the committee came up with a recommendation based on the limitations of the scope of the Request For Proposal for good and well-considered reasons, and should not be forced to change but rather explain why, etc. It’s up to the approval process to accept or reject their recommendation.

John Thompson suggested that there was confusion in the public’s interpretation of the numbers, and that the committee should set out to correct that confusion. Who could disagree with that?

Most of the balance of the meeting was taken determining the intermediate steps towards the already scheduled RTM meeting of October 29. “Sub-meetings” (my words, not theirs) will be scheduled between and among the Board of Finance, RTM, Planning and Zoning and other interested parties (again my words) to insure an effective meeting on the 29th.

Shelly Kassen served in a very effective fashion to guide the committee through the vagaries of the “approval” process. She was very informative to me, a “public” listener. She did not strike me at any time as having anything but the best interests of affordable housing and the town’s fiscal interests at heart.

Part of the Baron’s South property.

Toward the end of the meeting I was asked to comment. I made the following points:

1. The committee was impressive.

2. The committee suffered from a communication problem, meaning that their reasons for choosing the proposal they chose should have been articulated more clearly and effectively quickly, making sure the restrains of the RFP were thoroughly understood by the public.

3. I believed their conclusion was the only one that could be chosen under the RFP.

4.  Whether they liked it or not this was a political process, and the lack of intermediate communication as to what was going on let the public decide any way they wanted what they were up to or not. The public has opinions, good or bad, and with the marvel of modern media, instant and widespread capability will fill the vacuum with “noise.”  The committee should have found a way to provide intermediate communication.

5.  I was happy with the “next steps.”

All in all I witnessed a good, effective committee meeting with a process road forward to achieve the best result for a serious and genuine need for affordable housing with fiscal viability for the town.

Let’s keep our powder dry, and let the process work.

73 Comments

Posted in Local politics, People

Tagged , , , , ,

Positano’s Patio

Posted on June 10, 2012 | 62 comments

As someone’s Italian/Scottish grandmother might say, Positano’s is in a bit of a kerfuffle.

On Thursday the restaurant asked the Planning and Zoning Commission for permission to put tables on its outdoor patio.

The terrace — sitting serenely on the Sound — has been there since 2000. The restaurant — catty-corner from Elvira’s, in the Old Mill section of town — has been there far longer.  Old-timers remember it as Cafe de la Plage.

A no-brainer, right?

Wrong.

The patio is illegal. The owners never sought town approval. Outdoor dining is prohibited in residential areas.

And, oh yeah: Part of it was built on town land. Well, sand. Anyway: We own the beach.

The terrace at Positano’s juts into town-owned land.

Dozens of nearby residents oppose the request to place 4 tables on the patio, adding 10 seats to the restaurant for a total of 62. They cite “noise, commotion and congestion,” according to the Westport News, along with inadequate and illegal parking.

Yet at least one resident — 89-year-old Allen Raymond — thinks the proposal is fine.

A view of Positano’s from Hillspoint Road.

Positano’s land-use consultant, Mel Barr, claims that because the economy has driven business down 30 percent from a few years ago, the move to outdoor dining is a necessary “shot in the arm.”

Neighbors might respond it’s a kick in the teeth.

The P&Z did not vote on the application — officially, a lease of town property to the restaurant to allow use of the patio — and public comments are officially closed.

But that doesn’t mean “06880” readers can’t weigh in. Click on your preference in the poll below.  Mangia — or not?

62 Comments

Posted in Beach, Local politics, People, Restaurants

Tagged , , ,

Oops! (Heh Heh)

Posted on March 11, 2012 | 10 comments

What would you or I think if we saw building plans for a new home with a 3-car garage, but no driveway?

Unbelievable oversight, right?

But here in Westport, architects and homeowners think differently.

They think: Gotcha!

Apparently, zoning regulations do not always require a driveway. And without a driveway, builders can gain hundreds of extra square feet of coverage.

Of course, no one builds a 3-car garage without planning to use it.

So the next step, after the home is built, is an appeal to the ZBA for a waiver. To build the driveway that was needed all along.

This is a true story. But now we’re on to the ruse.

Gotcha!

Dude, where's my driveway?!

10 Comments

Posted in Real estate, Totally random, Westport life

Tagged ,

Worship And A B&B

Posted on February 27, 2012 | 30 comments

If you’re one of the 99 percent (the Westporters who left town for the schools’ winter break last week — haha, the weather was gorgeous!), or simply haven’t read the local papers in a month or so, there are a couple of stories you may have missed.

Both involve Westport’s most contentious subject: dogs bad drivers zoning.

The first is in the planning stages. Jarvis and Coke Anne Wilcox own an 1813 home on 25 Turkey Hill South that they hope to convert to a 3-room B&B. They’ve owned it since 1986, and rent it out — they live in another home not far away — but in a “dismal” real estate market, the couple believe a small B&B makes more sense.

The Wilcoxes owned a Hamptons inn (as opposed to a Hampton Inn) from 1992 to 2008.

The potential B&B at 25 Turkey Hill South.

A text amendment is needed to permit a B&B in a residential zone. The last such establishment like it here  was the Cotswold Inn, at 76 Myrtle Avenue. Surrounded by residences, as well as medical and law offices in converted homes — not far from Town Hall and the Westport Historical Society — the Cotswold Inn was such a low key presence, many Westporters had no idea it was here.

On the other hand, it was so quiet many others don’t realize it closed years ago.

The Wilcoxes hope their B&B will be similar to the Cotswold Inn: a low-key, low-impact spot that will nevertheless provide work for a few folks, and bring tourist dollars to town.

Meanwhile, across the river, another zoning battle looms. Beit Chaverim Synagogue hopes to move from its rented quarters on 85 Post Road West — in a small house just down from Lincoln Street — across the street and up the hill, to property it owns at 24 Ludlow Road. They would raze the structure — built in 1868 — and build a new synagogue.

The potential Beit Chaverim synagogue at 24 Ludlow Road.

The issue here is not zoning. All places of worship are located in residential zones, says attorney Lawrence Weisman. (I thought I had him on the Saugatuck Congregational Church, but he pointed out that the back part of the property extends into a residential area.)

The issue here is parking. Beit Chaverim has a “positive traffic study,” Weisman says, and offered to request that “No Parking” signs be posted on the street. They’ll also request a “Left Turn Only” sign at the exit, forcing traffic to the Post Road and not north to King’s Highway, and will arrange for off-site parking during peak holiday and event times.

Neighbors are skeptical. They worry about overflow parking on the narrow street. A related issue involves current parking regulations for houses of worship, new ones proposed by Weisman, and what power the fire marshal should have in determining parking standards for churches and synagogues.

As with all things zoning, both the B&B and Beit Chaverim are a long way from opening the doors to their new homes. Chances are good, though, that you’ll read much more about both issues in the months ahead.

30 Comments

Posted in Downtown, Local business, Looking back, People, Places, Real estate

Tagged , , , ,

Sign Here?

Posted on January 25, 2012 | 31 comments

Most of the time, the Planning and Zoning Commission deals with big issues: the heights of buildings. Setbacks. Wetlands. Those are important, very visible tasks; it’s not easy balancing the economic interests of landowners with the quality-of- life interests of residents (who may or may not be the same people).

Some times though, the P&Z deals with lesser issues that — in the end — are just as important.

Like signs.

Right now, elected officials are discussing regulations regarding free-standing business signs. You know — the ones advertising Michele’s pie tastings, or 20% off a pedicure in honor of Martin Luther King Day. (I’m making that up. I think).

Signs like these may be legalized -- though in smaller, more "homemade" form -- by the P&Z.

Rules — they must be small, hand-written on erasable boards or chalkboards, placed in an unobstructing spot or hung on the building, stuff like that — go into effect February 17.

For Saugatuck and the downtown area only.

Talks are underway to extend the regulations to the entire commercial district of Westport — up and down the Post Road.

Right now, those signs are illegal. The P&Z wants to bring order to the process — allowing merchants to advertise in a friendly, local way, without letting large, garish signs sprout willy-nilly.

But what about businesses outside the zone? Christie’s needs signs to draw attention to its Sunday farmers’ market. Daybreak Nursery announces items like firewood and holiday wreaths that way. Positano could highlight daily specials.

And what about Wakeman Town Farm, which could use signs to publicize upcoming workshops and its Community Supported Agriculture program?

What, then, about lawyers, chiropractors, marketing consultants — anyone who operates a home business outside of current business zones? Could they set up small, hand-written, free-standing signs too?

Right now the P&Z has no formal requests from any of those businesses. If there are, they will be addressed.

Signs are not a big deal like office buildings or movie theaters. But we do notice them; they do affect our quality of life. Just think of all the political signs we see for months leading up to elections, or the ones announcing upcoming concerts, road races and charity events that cover the little gardens at road intersections.

“06880” invites comments on this sign issue. Please be civil — and try to stay on topic.

31 Comments

Posted in Downtown, Local business, Politics, Restaurants, Saugatuck

Tagged , , ,

An Open Letter, From New P&Z Members

Posted on November 9, 2011 | 6 comments

To The Citizens of Westport

As the newly elected members of the Planning and Zoning Board — Chip Stephens,  Cathy Walsh, Jack Whittle and Al Gratrix — we all want to thank you for your support, trust and faith in our campaign promise to you that we will do our very best to PRESERVE WESTPORT for you and generations to come.

We hope to deliver a more transparent and interactive board that will listen to you, the citizens of Westport, and your  concerns and suggestions.  We want your voices to be heard, and we will abide by the plans, rules and Town Plans that have served us so well in maintaining the charm and vision of Westport.

Thank you Save Westport Now for your endorsement.  Thank you Republican Town Committee for your endorsement.  Thank you to all who came out and voted, and thank you to all who are leaving their positions on the P and Z for your service and dedication.

We 4 will do our best to uphold our pledge to Preserve Westport.  We promise to listen and consider all proposals brought to us over the next 4 years, and to judge each application with an open mind and fair hand.

We will do our best to understand the wishes of those that elected us and will welcome any and all suggestions .   Please join us at the meetings live or on cable. Please keep us real and on track with your opinions via email or in person.

We will do our best to make your decision one you will never regret

Thank you from all 4:
Chip Stephens
Cathy Walsh
Jack Whittle
Al Gratrix

Ahead for the new P&Z: many decisions about Westport's future.

6 Comments

Posted in Local politics, People

Tagged , , , , ,

The Day After

Posted on November 9, 2011 | 29 comments

The voters have spoken.  At least, the 1 in 3 Westporters who turned out to cast ballots have.

The Planning and Zoning Commission has been overturned.  An unlikely cross-endorsement of 4 Republicans by Save Westport Now — which, according to Republican Town Committee chairman Bob Zappi is “99% Democratic”– resulted in the election of all 4 candidates:  Catherine Walsh, Chip Stephens, Al Gratrix and Jack Whittle.

The Board of Finance swings to Republican control too, with the addition of Mike Rea and John Pincavage, plus incumbent Tom Lasersohn.  Democrat Janis Collins is in, but incumbent Ken Wirfel is out.

The Board of Education remains in Democratic hands.  Democrat Michael Gordon joins incumbent Mark Mathias.  Also elected is Republican Jennifer Tooker; missing the cut is Jeanie Smith.

What does this all mean for Westport?  Click “Comments.”  Please keep all insights civil.  Try to stay on-topic, and avoid personal attacks.

We’re all still Westporters — and all in this together!

(Graphic courtesy of League of Women Voters)

29 Comments

Posted in Categories, Local politics, People

Tagged , ,

Downtown Redevelopment: The Drama Heats Up

Posted on October 16, 2011 | 85 comments

David Waldman — a Westport native, and president of David Adam Realty — sent this email to “friends and colleagues.”

The subject line read:  “HELP – Please forward to anyone and eveyone you think supports our proposed zone chnage and future development and would be willing to participate – THANK YOU”

In it, Waldman outlines his proposals for a zoning change for 35 Church Lane (next to the Y); his vision for other nearby properties, and his thoughts on current and potential Planning and Zoning Commission members.

“06880′”s previous post on 35 Church Lane drew 95 comments.  This one might surpass that.

Friends and Colleagues,

I am sending this email with the hope that you will consider sending a letter to the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, similar in nature to the sample letters attached.  I have attached two versions, one for local landlords or business owners and one for residents (if you are not a resident I apologize but hope you will consider passing this on to your friends who live in Westport who would supportive of our zone change and future project).  Please feel free to modify this sample letter so it reflects your views (with the hope that those views are still supportive of our proposal).  We would also welcome personal supportive letters to the editors of the local papers prior to the meeting on the 20th.

Next week, on Thursday, October 20th, the partners of Bedford Square, of which I am one, are going in front of the board to seek approval to change the current zoning on 35 Church Lane from RORD to BCD.  Our partnership purchased the property in late 2010 with the hopes of combining it with our redevelopment of the YMCA.

35 Church Lane

The re-zoning is just the first step which would allow us to create a more vibrant project for the downtown area.  Assuming we are successful with the zone change, and subsequent public meetings to follow, the proposed project could have over 100 underground onsite parking spaces, 35+ residential units, substantial public space, courtyards, outdoor dining, pathways and connections from Elm Street, Church Lane and Main Street, as well as additional small shop retail, restaurant and office space moving down Church Lane and rounding the corner at Elm Street.

As part of the development team and a resident of Westport for over 40 years, I, as well as my partners, care deeply about the character of our town and its overall success.  We are well versed with how adaptive re-use and preservation can be achieved and complemented as well as the principals of smart growth and sustainability.

I am currently working on the restoration of 101-107 Post Road East (soon to be the new home of Urban Outfitters) as well as the restoration of 26-28 Church Lane (soon to be the home of a new restaurant owned and operated by the operators of the Grey Goose).  I was also involved with the restoration of 87 Post Road East (home to Patagonia and recipient of both local and federal preservation awards).  I was part of the development team which repurposed 125 Main Street(home to the new Gap and Brooks Brothers Women) and continue to work hard to make Downtown Westport a better, more vibrant and active place.

Work proceeds on the new Grey Goose restaurant on Church Lane, across from the Y.

I realize that many of you may have questions before you decide to send in a letter supporting our zone change and I would be happy to answer any of those questions either in person, by email or by phone.  If you are willing to send in a letter, please make sure it gets to Mr. Corwin before the meeting on the 20th.

Also, and equally as important, there is an upcoming election for the Planning and Zoning Commission which will help shape the future of the downtown area.  Three members of the current commission are stepping down opening up the opportunity for their seats to be occupied by potentially “obstructionist” members who do not understand change nor want it to occur.

In particular, Jack Whittle and Chip Stephens are these type of people.  If elected, they could impede the positive momentum our current commission has set in place.  They want the commission to remain a reactive body instead of a proactive body.

The other candidates, Jennifer Johnson, Catherine A. Walsh and Al Gratix are all reasonable, intelligent candidates who understand smart growth and want to create a successful, vibrant downtown.  For all those interested, there is a debate on Monday the 17th at town hall between all the candidates.  I believe this debate will be televised on Chanel 79.

Patagonia anchors the area of downtown embroiled in debate.

I implore you to get the word out about the candidates who should and deserve to fill the soon to be vacated seats on the P&Z.  In particular, Jennifer Johnson has a long and solid background in planning and, like Catherine and Al they want to see positive change in the downtown area.  They want to see our riverfront opened up to the public, they want to see vibrancy, an additional tax base to lessen the blow on residents.  They deserve your vote but need your help in ensure they can win.

Thank you again for your consideration.  Our project, like all the projects me and my partners have been involved with, will be of the highest quality in terms of material, diversity and sustainability and hopefully something all residents and visitors of Westpoer will be proud to have in the Downtown area.

Sincerely,

David A. Waldman
President
David Adam Realty, Inc
Suite 200
Westport CT 06880
203-221-8148 ext 220 (office)
203-856-9674 (cell)
David@davidadamrealty.com

85 Comments

Posted in Downtown, Local politics, People

Tagged , , ,