Thirty-five residents of Greenwich have submitted a second petition to the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission asking it to kill a development proposal from Mason Street Partners, LLC. Among those presenting details of the plan to Greenwich officials was White Plains-based developer Joshua Caspi. It calls for two mixed-use buildings across the street from one another at the bottom of Mason Street. The second petition against the project follows a previous one that had been signed by 99 residents.
The site is where Mason Street intersects Bruce Park Avenue, and the west site is also a through-lot fronting on Greenwich Avenue. The total area proposed for development is almost 1.5 acres. It had been used for a car dealership and single-unit residence.
There would be 92 residential units in the two buildings, along with approximately 14,500 square feet of commercial space. Four underground gasoline storage tanks and contaminated soil would need to be removed from where the auto dealership had operated.
The applicant had met with Greenwich officials in a series of pre-submission meetings and now has formally applied for site plan and special permit approvals.
The west side building would have 40 units, with 6,875 square feet of retail space. It would be six stories tall, with 17 parking spaces. The east side building would have 52 units, with 7,545 square feet of retail space and also would be six stories tall. It would have 155 parking spaces. The units would be a mix of rental and for-sale units.
A Greenwich staff report noted that a significant loss of on-street parking may result from this development because of required sightlines from the proposed driveways.
The residents said in the petitions that they oppose the building heights requested in the application and expressed concern that the project would destroy the character of the neighborhood. The residents also questioned whether the impact on infrastructure such as the water supply in Greenwich has been adequately studied.
Twenty-eight of the proposed units would be in the affordable housing category or a minimum of 40 years. Three of those units would be restricted to the affordable category in perpetuity. The residents opposing the project said that the number of affordable units that is proposed is not adequate.
