Mason Street Partners responded to the September 17th Greenwich Planning and Zoning denial of an 8-30g development proposed to be built at 405 Greenwich Avenue and 275-321 Mason Street. Attorneys for the development filed a response on record to the Planning and Zoning Commission, citing numerous issues with their recent controversial decision. The development is proposed by a Greenwich resident, Joshua Caspi, a renowned NYC developer, and designed by a former Dean of the Yale School of Architecture to align with the unique character of Greenwich.
“The proposed Mason Street development is an opportunity for Greenwich to approve well-designed housing, with a mix of prices, at a transit-oriented location, and with an environmental cleanup of the former automotive service use” said Tim Hollister, a land use attorney now acting as co-counsel to Mason Street Partners. “This should be a win for the Town.”
Greenwich Planning and Zoning has approved few 8-30g applications despite the town falling significantly below 10% of its affordable housing obligation (necessary for an exemption from the state’s affordable housing law). State data shows that as of 2022, about 5.7% of Greenwich’s housing stock is deemed affordable. 5.7% of the town’s 25,631 housing units are counted as either subsidized or deed restricted by the State Department of Housing.
The Mason Street development proposes as an alternative to the prior plan 75 units, of which 24 units (32% of the total unit count) would be below market and deed-restricted in perpetuity. This new housing, price restricted in accordance with state statutes, will help the state and the town meet its new and affordable housing needs. The site is a vacant commercially zoned property, formerly occupied by a Honda dealership. The existing buildings remain and are currently occupied by several retail tenants and a multifamily residential building.
The site requires requiring environmental remediation. The Honda business closed in late 2022 and relocated to Stamford. The developer will clean the site to residential standards and reposition it for residential and retail use. The former auto Honda dealership is ideally suited for this type of transit-oriented mixed-use development.
The development will bring housing to the site and will include over 10,000 square feet of retail space. Experts have noted that this retail component will add to the vitality of downtown Greenwich. The development will help the town and state increase housing stock near the transit line, remediate a vacant, former car dealership property, and bring jobs and economic growth to Greenwich.
In a recent letter to the Commission, Attorney Hollister raised three concerns with the Commission’s decision.
First, in an 8-30g application, noncompliance with existing Zoning Regulations, or even preferences and requests of Commission members and staff, is not the basis for denial unless the site plan presents a substantial public interest in health or safety. No such concerns have been established with this application.
Second, the town’s stormwater and drainage rules are subject to, not exempt from, 8-30g, meaning that concerns raised by the Commission regarding stormwater and drainage will be fully addressed in the current application.
Third, in an 8-30g application, a zoning commission is required to address concerns with conditions of approval rather than denial, which is one reason why the September 17 denial, which was preceded by a proposed conditional approval, is invalid.
The developer‘s response also highlighted the Commission’s obligation to operate accurately and in good faith. In its September 17 resolution, the Commission addressed at length environmental concerns related to groundwater quality, but without acknowledging that the applicant’s consultant Langan Engineering, as Licensed Environmental Professionals, had concluded that environmental conditions at the site can be remediated in compliance with DEEP’s RSR regulations, and the Commission’s peer reviewer Fuss and O’Neill in an August 2, 2024 letter which the Commission had in hand September 17, fully concurred in that opinion.
Attorney Hollister, noted, “As a matter of law, the concurrence of experts on a technical matter of environmental science prevents the Commission from reaching a contrary conclusion. Similarly, the denial states that the sidewalk plan needs to be modified, but the Greenwich Department of Public Works had said in its comments that the plan is acceptable.”
The Greenwich Planning and Zoning Commission will now have the opportunity to participate in the resubmission process, with a hearing to be held in Greenwich on November 13.
Adam Wood
