patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Westport Parking Regulations Could Hold Up Commercial Development Downtown

The Zoning Board of Appeals heard several variances concerning a proposed development between the Old Town Hall and Bank of America on Post Road East.

 

Though Westport developer Rob Haroun would like to break ground in the spring on a 4,000-plus square foot, one-story commercial building next to the Old Town Hall, zoning regulations may restrict several aspects of the development.

Mel Barr, of Barr Associates in Westport, outlined four areas of zoning regulations on the property his client would like modified. 

  1. Parking
  2. Loading space
  3. Cellar Space
  4. Terrace located in the front landscape area

Barr took issue with the way the parking regulations are stipulated for the property, located at 100 Post Road East. Regulations (29-11) demand existing parking remain, while also providing for additional parking to accommodate any new development. The proposed building only requires 23 parking spaces and Haroun has 25 spaces drawn up into his current plan, which meets the practical needs of the building, according to Barr. Nearly 60 parking spaces would have to be worked into the plan to fulfill the current parking requirement.

“It virtually eliminates the building value of this underutilized site,” Barr said. “It means I have to provide twice as much parking as I would ever need for a building of this size anywhere else in town.”

Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary Jaqueline Masumian suggested reducing the building size as a way to alleviate the parking shortage.

Barr continued by asking the board to waive the loading space regulation, noting the proposed cellar storage space would significantly reduce the amount of deliveries needed. Also, deliveries would come from the rear, by the Westport Police Department, Barr explained.

Parking requirements restrict the proposed cellar as well, Barr said. Westport retailers must provide parking for their basement based on square footage and not usage of the space, something Barr said “makes no sense.”

“The result of that regulation effectively discourages cellars in this town,” Barr said. "What you end up with is commercial businesses in Westport that store out of town and increase delivery traffic because of it.”

Barr mentioned Norwalk and Bridgeport as locations Westport retailers store their merchandise. He stressed that the cellar would be “out of sight, out of mind” and only used for inventory storage.

“On-site storage is important to the success of a new building in the twenty-first century -- particularly in the downtown area,” Barr said.

Masumian raised concern about enforcing how the cellar will be used if it is approved, noting she did not want to see a restaurant rent the space and end up seating people in the basement. 

Finally, Barr asked the board for permission to construct a patio in the front landscape area. Besides outdoor eating, Barr said the terrace space could be used for storage and display.

“It’s a feature that belongs downtown when trying to encourage pedestrian street-scape activity,” Barr said, noting other patios downtown like the one at Oscar’s Deli. “The plaza, a front landscape feature, is in keeping with the pedestrian oriented, street-front character of a downtown area, which is precisely what we are dealing with here.”

Barr and Haroun agreed to compromise by reducing the cellar size of the proposal in order to comply with parking regulations. Zoning Board of Appeals Chair James Ezzes and Planning and Zoning Director Larry Bradley agreed to continue the proposal on Jan 10. 

Matthew Mandell

9:13 am on Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Before we go off the deep end here, and the headline is really not helpful, look at what Ms. Masumian said, reduce the size of the development to be able to adhear to the regs. There are also other ways around the parking issue which should be investigated prior to seeking variance.

Interesting enough, I was at ZBA last night for the next application, 715 Post Road East, for an office building, where the applicant was seeking a 50% increase in the size of the building variance and again parking relief. Why the parking variance? Because of the excess in size. They claimed a hardship because they had a corner lot and topographical problems. Yes, a corner lot, so what, that's not reason to increase the size, only to give relief of ONE side sideback. As for topography, the dang lot is almost dead flat. Yes, there is a retaining wall, but seriously they claimed that as a hardship because it would be seen. Shrubbery is the answer, not an extra 2000 square feet of building - space the law firm building it would not need, but would instead lease out.

Thankfully the ZBA saw this for what it was, and while this application is still open, their comments were clear about lack of hardship and the specious need for the increase in size.

But the question I have, is this the new way to attempt to overdevelop and change the character of our town, to seek variances to the very regs in place to control such things? Light be is being shed on this and again vigilance is the watch word.

Reply

David Floyd

10:19 am on Wednesday, December 14, 2011

I agree. The purchase of properties in town should be based on the as-of-right development ability (maybe with some hope of upsizing/variance). The town has no obligation to permit variances to bail out owners/developers who either overpaid or just want to make more money if they can upsize. Hardship? Agreed. Long-term benefit to town? Agreed. 6,000sf of office on that parcel on Post Road East? It's an eyesore, but develop it based on as-of-right.

Reply

Leave a comment