By James Lomuscio
Westport developer David Waldman says there is a lot of misinformation floating around about his company’s plans to redevelop 35 Church Lane—and that he hopes that information sessions like the one held tonight will alleviate concerns by setting the record straight.
Developers of Bedford Square held a public question and answer session tonight about the planned project. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
The meeting, attended by 16 members of the public, was held in the Bedford Room of the Westport Weston Family Y at 59 Post Road East. It was a Q&A format featuring principals of Bedford Square Associates LLC, who, in addition to Waldman, include Dan Zelson, Paul Brandes, and Lance Sauerteig.
Also present were Jeff Reilly and Mark Herter, principals of Centerbrook Architects and Planners hired to undertake the Bedford Square project.
The Q&A was held prior to Bedford Square’s second scheduled appearance before Westport’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) Thursdsay night, as as the group seeks seeks a zone change for the Church Lane property.
The proposed map amendment 639 to the Westport Zoning Map would permit residential, retail and restaurant development on the half-acre site known as the Gunn property.
The property, acquired last December by Bedford Square for $3.25 million, is also the site of a Queen Anne-style house built in 1893 which is listed on the town’s historic properties inventory. The developers said their plans call for the house to be razed.
At last week’s P&Z public hearing, Thomas Cody, an attorney for Bedford Square, and Herter representing the developers, noted that the zone change would support the road’s redevelopment currently under way.
It includes remodeling the Family Y’s1923-built Bedford building and the old adjacent firehouse—which Bedford Square contracted to buy in 2006 for more than $20 million—into retail and office space. Waldman’s company is also remodeling the historic Sherwood House across the street from the Gunn property into a restaurant and offices.
“What we gathered from a lot of the public comment and after the fact is that a lot of people really didn’t understand the facts and the ramifications of what we were asking for in the zone change,” said Waldman. “Right now the RORD and BCD zone have the same floor area ratio when it comes to each zone.
“The only bonus you get from being in the BCD is that we get residential,” he added, noting there could be about 10 residential units. “We’re actually decreasing the amount of commercial space that is currently on the property, and the additional square footage is for residences only.”
At last week’s hearing several residents voiced concerns that the loss of the building would herald the end of Westport’s charm and usher in an era of tall buildings and over development. One person even said the zone change would allow buildings as high as 50 feet; however, Laurence Bradley, director of the Planning and Zoning Department, noted that buildings could only be as high as 35 feet.
“There were equal amount of people lined up to speak for it,” said Waldman, adding that he looks forward to the hearing’s continuance Thursday night.
At tonight’s discussion Zelson called the Bedford project “the jewel that’s going to be in our portfolio.”
Brandes, who is also a principal of Charter Realty and Development, agreed, “It’s a unique project for us, a very special project for us.”
He described the development as one that would be pedestrian friendly with walkways and access from Church Lane, Post Road and Main Street. Brandes said it would have the feel of a European piazza with people sitting outside for lunch, secluded from traffic. He also said it would give the intimate feel of small scale construction.
Waldman said the change would allow Bedford Square Associates to build no more than 19,859 square feet in two separate buildings, and each building could not be larger than 10,000 square feet nor higher than three stories or 35 feet
“Their job is to build as many square feet as they can,” Reilly said of Bedford Square Associates. “Our job is to make those square feet disappear.”
He presented a list of projects his firm has worked on including the Bruce Museum, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, Quinnipiac University and the Griswald Art Museum.
“All of these have taken the existing buildings, renovated them, making the whole complex better,” he said.
No such plans, however, exist for the Gunn property house, which Brandes said was of little architectural value compared to other Victorian homes. Zone change or not, he said the building would be razed to add to an underground parking garage that could accommodate more than 100 vehicles.
“Personally, would like to see a way for that house to be protected,” said Jennifer Johnson, a Democratic candidate for the P&Z.
“It would be difficult to build with that building in place,” responded Brandes, saying that he would be willing to sell it for $1 to anyone who intended to move it.
The Rev. John Branson of Christ and Holy Trinity Episcopal Church at the head of Church Lane, pointed out that while “the whole downtown will take shape around this project,” residents have expressed concerns about its scale.
“They’re also concerned about increased traffic,’ Branson said. “Is it truly going to be scaled and comfortable for everyone in Westport.’
“The street itself will be better than it is now,” Herter responded, “because you won’t have all those trips to the Y.”
“Your perception will be that of a European village,” said Reilly. “You will be entering into a pedestrian world.”
Sixteen people showing up for this meeting surely
speaks for itself! And – Mr. Waldman states
that as many people spoke for the project as
against it at the last P&Z meeting. I beg to
differ. The three individuals who spoke for the project,
Mr. Waldman’s brother in law, the National Hall
developer and a woman, all of whom belittled and disparaged our community and its residents, were
far outnumbered by those who spoke against the
project. As for the architects, they are paid to speak
for the project.
Ms. Beasley,
I agree with you that 16 people coming to the event speaks volumes. Those 16 people took the time to hear what we had to say, question us on the affects of the requested zone change and educate them-selves so they could better formulate their opinions. However, I disagree with your comments about the three people who spoke for the project at the last P&Z hearing. There were many others who did not get the chance to speak during the last hearing in addition to many letters sent into the P&Z from residents of Westport who support the project and the zone change. More importantly, and something which surprised me and my partners, is the fact that the majority of the public who claim to be against our project did not come to our Q&A last night. In particular, I was astonished that Jack Whittle, Chip Stevens, Lisa Wexler and Connie Greenfield, all of whom were invited to the event, did not show up. These people claim to represent our town’s best interests, claim to want to protect Westport from over-development yet when given the opportunity to question our intentions, they all failed to even show up. Their lack of action, attention and understanding of the facts and presence speaks loud and clear that they, along with the public who is in opposition to our project, do not care to educate themselves, question our intentions and understand the “Jewel” we are trying to create. Facts cannot be disputed. If the zone change is approved, we would be allowed to REDUCE our commercial space from 9,600 s/f to 5,000 s/f. We would be allowed to build NO HIGHER than 35 feet and we would be allowed to build buildings NO BIGGER than 10,000 s/f, on the Gunn property. Additionaly, would be allowed to create a better, more cohesive and continuous project. We would be able to add over 102 underground parking spaces on the site which would reduce the parking burden in the public lots. We would be allowed to increase our allowed FAR ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. We feel those benefits are in line with the Town Plan
The town is being asked to allow a major change in coverage and setbacks in a transitional area. That zone change is what is being reviewed, not the project that the applicant presented in a private venue last night.
One problem may be that we have nothing in writing before the reviewing commission (the P&Z) that we can refer to. This would be helpful in every major zone change application, #639 being no exception. Perhaps the process can be changed so that a rezoning application would require a conceptual site plan. This is not the applicant’s fault, but it is understandably a source of frustration to him.
As to why people may have chosen not to attend last night’s presentation, there are some who may prefer to attend a hearing within the official channels, rather than a presentation by the developer on his terms. They may prefer the more neutral setting of a land use board hearing, where there will be staff on hand to provide factual background information. That doesn’t mean that people who did not attend last night are not interested.
As an RTM member, I received an invitation that was sent to that group (as well as to the general public) but decided not to attend, for various reasons including being a member of that board, as well as reasons cited above. This does not mean I am not watching the process as it unfolds.
Again, it is likely that requiring a conceptual, or even binding, site plan to accompany a zone change would make a difference in applications such as this. It seems certain that in this case, such a plan would be forthcoming.
Does anyone else wonder what “FAR ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES” means?
And of course, Mr. Waldman, there were “many letters sent into the P&Z from residents of Westport who support the project and the zone change” since your letter sent out en masse to friends, clients, and anyone you’d ever met to request that they write letters of support would produce some results. Some people commented on WestportNow or 06880 that they were non-residents who got your letter!
Mr. Waldman
REALLY, Two weeks ago a letter from you that was leaked to the 06880 Blog (http://06880danwoog.com/2011/10/25/david-waldmans-request/)
contained your public relations piece on 35 Church St with a plea that residents not VOTE for Mr. Whittle or me (Chip Stephens) that we would not agree with your project. Strange that I NEVER commented one way or the other to the subject as I realize when or if I get elected to the P and Z I would have to recues myself if I previously stated my opinion one way or the other. Not wise on your part to tell citizens of Westport how to vote on a supposition and guess how or which way I lean. I rely on facts and I have not heard all the facts on the final plan, on the traffic studies, and all the facts that would lead me to a vote one way or the other. I do stand on a platform of Preserve Westport, that is not a platform of anti David.
I see in Westport Now above, that you once again chastised me and my fellow running mates and others for not attending your meeting last night. David how you change like the recent weather. You pulled me aside after the P and Z debates in town hall two weeks ago and apologized for the previous letter asking for an open mind and how you had a whole new opinion of me after the debate and now only objected to Jack Whittle. Now you attack the whole cadre that had other tasks (like jobs ) doing and could not participate in your presentation. Your approach to getting support seems to be very confrontational. I sincerely Westport voters vote based upon their knowledge of the candidates not on the ramblings of a developer with a financial stake in P and Z votes.
Let me state for the record right here for the public and all Westport voters. I hope I get the honor of being elected to the Planning and Zoning board next Tuesday and I hope Westport VOTES for my team of Al Gratrix, Jack Whittle and Cathy Walsh. I come to the position with no prejudgments or prejudices towards any person or projects pending or in the future. My vote will always be based on facts the written rules and plan laid out for Westport
As a resident of westport, living near the center, and very disappointed with its lame atmosphere, I would be a strong proponent of any initiative to liven things up with shops, restaurants, offices, etc.
And for me, details such as traffic studies are interesting but not relevant… the downtown environment leaves much to be desired, and anyone willing to invest in making it a better place deserves thanks.
So, I have 2 simple questions:
1) who on the ballot is in SUPPORT of development so I can vote for them, and
2) whi on the ballot OPPOSES development of our downtown so I can ensure I do not vote for them.
Can someone advise supporters and opposition? It would be nice to know who is all-in for improvement before going to the polls. From what I could decipher from the preceeding comment, it appears to me that the team of Stephens/Stevens, Grarrix, Whittle & Walsh are more in the opposition camp than clear supporters… it would be nice to clarify.
No one opposes development of Westport – but the devil is in the details. Studies and research and PLANS are necessary. Bringing a Walmart to downtown would be development – but…need I write more?
Ms Thibault- thanks , thanks for directing me to the League of Women’s voters site. Unfortunately couldn’t find the positions section from the home page. I will look again, however would greatly appreciatre if you or anyone has a link to the exact area I will find the answers I am looking for.
With respect to “single issue voter”, I will ultimately make decisions as appropriate. The matter of Downtown development is one that I consider critical, probably more important than any of the other political matters being tossed around. Hence, my focus on this issue.
I do beleive that many of the barriers our elected officials put in place for zoning are excessive (I still can’t fathom why there was opposition to something as basic as a movie theater). That, and other roadblocks which have been made against investment, truly bother me.
And Ms Ruggiero- a WalMart? Come on, that’s a bit too extreme of an example. From what I understand, the proposal is basic stuff… invest $ in land & buildings that fit with the surroundings, add jobs, and improve the overall Downtown scene. While I appreciate the need for clarity in the application process, demands for additonal studies + research + plans are prime examples of bureaucracy, and are continue to be roadblocks to much needed revitalization of our downtown area.
There are countless examples of towns that have taken steps attract investement in downtown areas without regret (and in fact cannot think of one where remorse is real)… Come November 8, I want to make sure my vote counts, and with that, support those who simply and clearly encourage progress Downtown, rather than cast a vote for those who excel at running interference and toss out political mumbo-jumbo.
One thing of interest is that five former P&Z commissioners, including two former Chairs, gave reasons to vote against this. (They are Lisa Wexler, Helen Martin Block, Dan Katz, Connie Greenfield and Carla Rea, the latter two being former Chairs). Though not serving in office, they continue to care and offer their experience to the town. I think their “voices of experience” and the reasons they gave for their positions added to the discussion last night.
The importance of the RORD, especially to the neighbors, are exceedingly relevant to this application. If we begin to chip away at our transitional zones—for whatever reasons—what effect will that have on the residential areas? How would that affect property values there? And, isn’t it the duty of elected town boards to represent the residents who elect them?
There is no doubt the process would be helped if there were a binding plan submitted with any proposed zone change, so that we at least had context.
Nonetheless, the fundamental purposes of zones, including buffer zones, remain pertinent to this application and all such applications that border on our residential neighborhoods.
Chip, while we don’t always agree on topics, I think your post added quite a bit to the discussion. The link included is to a different article regarding Bedford Square. Mr. Waldman’s email to his supporters can be found here: http://06880danwoog.com/2011/10/16/downtown-redevelopment-the-drama-heats-up/
Mr. Waldman, please do not chastise us for not making your meeting, when it was scheduled at the same time as the Board of Ed candidates forum. This was pointed out when the presentation was announced, but alternate arrangements may have not been possible. The BOE election is next Tuesday, while your development has quite a longer timeframe, which then has a greater urgency.
Mr. Chaple, could I forward the MOUNTAIN of mailings I’ve gotten in the mail for this election? It’s volume is shocking for an off-cycle election. One practically trips over the campaigners at every corner and event in town. Heck, I couldn’t even manage to dodge Chip at the transfer station. If the town website with sample ballots and candidates websites aren’t enough, the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of Westport also puts out a voters guide of questions and candidates responses every year. They posted it Thursday to their website.http://www.lwvwestportct.org/
Please don’t be a single-issue voter, you owe it to yourself and all our neighbors to evaluate all the topics under local control and make decisions based upon the entirety of the candidate.