By Nancy Guenther Chapman
NORWALK, Conn. – Impassioned speeches and detailed arguments of protest failed to persuade a majority of Norwalk zoning commissioners Wednesday evening, allowing a long-time Norwalk developer to move affordable housing units out of his project.
Although the plans approved for 20 North Water St. in February provided 11 affordable (workforce) housing units at the site, the plan now is to have only four affordable housing units there, where tenants will enjoy fabulous luxuries that include a movie theater onsite. Others will be at 50 Connecticut Ave., a building already occupied by a racially diverse group of workers.
The commission voted 4-3 to approve a compromise amendment proposed and written during the public hearing by Commissioner Adam Blank: Spinnaker will provide a 12th affordable housing unit offsite, if it successfully closes on a studio apartment it has under contract, and will move two of the affordable units now slated for Connecticut Avenue to another location before it is given a final certificate of occupancy.
Commissioners Harry Rilling, Mike Mushak and Nathan Sumpter voted against the compromise. Joe Santo, Emily Wilson, Jill Jacobsen and Blank voted for it.
Richard Redniss of Redniss and Mead Inc., a certified planner, spoke on behalf of Spinnaker, explaining the financial reasons the company wanted to change its plan. Costs had gone up significantly, he said. That included $300,000 for piles due to poor soil conditions and $250,000 more than what was budgeted for siding. The Second Taxing District expects Spinnaker to pay for electrical improvements in the area, a cost of $186,075, he said. Parking equipment is $150,000 more than expected.
Ths costs have gone up $1.5 million in a 100-unit project, he said, “so it’s a significant amount per unit. You’re not going to get the return on that, because the market is what it is.”
The company is seeking a bank loan of $22.6 million and the numbers need to add up, he said. Quick action was needed for the project to move ahead, he said.
“They can’t complete this process until they pin down what is happening with these units,” he said.
As proof that the company is serious in its plan to build, he offered this factoid: About $1.7 million of concrete has been ordered for the parking garage. “They are very serious about getting this project off of the ground,” he said.
Ed Musante, president of the Norwalk Chamber of Commerce, was the only person to speak for the project in the public speaking portion of the hearing.
“This project does a number of things,” he said. “… It pumps money immediately into the economy. It adds to critical mass in the neighborhood, making it more desirable. This is a project that will help expand the offerings in the area. The more people you have on the streets, the more economic activity.”
Others questioned the numbers presented, and the honesty of the application.
Diane Witkowski said the $500,000 Spinnaker received from the Department of Economic and Community Development had not been mentioned in the calculations presented in a Nov. 27 letter to the commission.
“Spinnaker has been in business for a long time,” said Courtenay Austin. “They should know what their costs are going to be. $1 million seems excessive. It looks to me that we may wind up with another bomb site.”
Diane Lauricella seconded that thought. While Spinnaker claims that environmental costs are higher than expected, Lauricella said the previous owner of the property had done studies and an experienced developer such as Spinnaker should have known what it was in for.
Others complained of racial discrimination.
“You’re running all the minority out of here. It’s bad what’s going on,” John Mosby said. “If you don’t stop it we’re gonna bring this lawsuit.”
“All we are doing is moving people from one side of the city to another,” said Corrine Weston of the Sono Alliance.
“Norwalk has a rough edge, which is good,” said Mary Teresa “Missy” Conrad, who said she came to Norwalk for its diversity.
Bobby Burgess reminded commissioners of the NAACP lawsuit the city lost regarding affordable housing.
“Turn the application down,” he said. “I think it violates the consent decree.”
Others said the company should eliminate some of the amenities planned for the property rather than moving people offsite, while former District A Common Council member Rich Bonenfant saw an institutional problem at work. “In the long run I’d like to discourage the practice of offloading problems to other districts and other neighborhoods,” he said.
Sumpter warned of the consequences of allowing Spinnaker to make the change. “I do not want to set a precedent that allows developers to continue to come before this commission, say one thing and then do something else,” he said. “If we do it for one developer it means we are opening the floodgates to other developers to do it.”
Leave a Reply
You must Register or Login to post a comment.