Our Town

“The committee couldn’t come to consensus on the meaning of consensus.” This was an observer’s comment overheard after the most recent meeting of the POCD Housing Task Force.

Members of the task force spent approximately one hour – a full 2/3 of the one and a half hour meeting- discussing procedural matters. After considerable discussion, and a withdrawn motion, the task force postponed a vote on the procedure for coming to agreement on any given recommendation. There appeared to be a lack of agreement about how to come to agreement.

Should the task force strive for a general consensus among its members in which any recommendation would require a higher standard for agreement than may be the case with a simple vote? Or would a vote with a majority of one suffice? Or should the requirement be a 2/3 “supermajority?” Or a slightly smaller 60% majority?

What should be the denominator? All those present and voting? All those serving on the task force, whether present or not? What about ex-officio members? How many voting members are there on the task force?

These were among the questions that remained without definitive agreement.

A proposed rule regarding the frequency with which task force members might be allowed to speak also generated much discussion. When should someone be allowed to speak again – after 3 people have spoken, or after 4 have spoken?  Toward the end of the meeting, the task force finally did adopt what they called a “3 after me” rule with 2 dissenting votes.

Early in the meeting, William Finger, the BET representative to the task force, cautioned members not to get “bogged down in procedural things.” He asked that the committee move on, saying that there were “more important things to talk about than how frequently people speak”.

His plea seemed to fall on deaf ears.

A half hour into the meeting, Nancy Brown, the task force chair, noting that too much time was being given to a discussion of how to come to agreement, repeated the plea that  task force members move on with the agenda.

First Selectman Peter Tesei arrived around this time to address members of the task force. Indicating that he was puzzled by the task force’s inability to move beyond these procedural questions, he asked if this may not just be a way of avoiding the substantive issues. He too, asked that the task force move on and said he did not understand why getting a general consensus should be “such a big issue.” He said this was an ad hoc committee with no legal authority. The task force is advisory. Its recommendations, which could include a range of opinion, may or may not be accepted and acted on.

Tesei said all that is expected of task force members is to do relevant fact finding and come up with recommendations that follow-up on each of the housing action items in the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) that was approved last June by the RTM. If there is no general agreement that these are items worthy of consideration and that this is the way to proceed, then the task force “might as well pack up and go home.”

Brown concurred with Tesei, saying that the task at hand was to take up the POCD action items on housing.

Other members of the task force wanted to continue a discussion of procedures and move ahead with a vote that had just been taken off the table. The motion that was withdrawn called for a vote on what would constitute agreement. Some of these members felt that the task force had already done a considerable amount of substantive work and that the group now needed to agree on procedural matters.

Brown countered by saying “we have done very little,” and that in spite of the work that had been done, especially with regard to housing supply, there was still a “heck of a lot more that we have to do.”

This was the 7th meeting of the Housing Task Force since it first met on February 22 to receive marching orders from the First Selectman. At that time, Tesei and Brown asked task force members to familiarize themselves with the housing action items in the POCD as this document provides the basis for what the task force is to report on. Task force members were expected to have an initial report on the status of the POCD action items ready by the end of May, in time for the First Selectman, as chair of the Plan Implementation Committee, to give his first report to the RTM at its June meeting. This report will incorporate the information received from all four task forces.

Here it is the end of May, and the June meeting of the RTM is at hand. The First Selectman has received initial reports from all the POCD task forces, and will soon give his first report on the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations of the POCD.

Expected to provide a summary of the status of each of the housing action items in the POCD, the Housing Task Force at the end of May is in a position to report only that it has met seven times and that these action items are under discussion, and include in the report some kind of narrative of discussions held on various topics. Such narrative is bound to reflect little agreement.

At their initial meeting in February, the members of the task force seemed to agree with the First Selectman that one POCD action item that could be implemented right away was to begin working with our state legislators to change the median income in 8-30g of the state statutes, the affordable housing appeals procedure, from the state median to the area median. The state median income is too low to provide an incentive for developers to use the provisions of this statute for affordable housing in Greenwich. The Stamford-Norwalk Statistical Area median income, which is higher,would be more feasible.

But it is not clear that such agreement still exists. Any narrative of task force discussions on the subject will reveal that there are those members who would prefer the statute remain unworkable in Greenwich.

The inability to come to consensus on the meaning of consensus may be just a metaphor for a task force made up of members with very divergent agendas.

The Planning and Zoning Commission at its May 18 meeting took no action on an application for final site plan and special permit approval to replace the Bella Nona Restaurant at 371 East Putnam Avenue in Cos Cob with a 2,379 sq. ft. Chase Bank that includes drive-thru facilities. The hearing on this application was held open.

Since no action was taken, we cannot yet gauge the effect of a newly adopted zoning regulation.This regulation makes banks and bank drive-ins subject to a special permit process as well as site plan approval. The Commission adopted this regulation in response to issues raised, and comments received, regarding the proliferation of banks in town.The regulation was designed to address resident concerns about such things as adverse traffic impact on neighborhoods, the effect on local businesses and on the foot traffic needed to support these businesses as well as the effect on the retail street scape.

In her staff comments at the February 23 public hearing on this proposed zoning amendment, Town Planner Diane Fox recommended that the Commission approve the new regulation, saying that “requiring a special permit would allow off site issues (such as traffic) to be analyzed by the Commission as well as ensuring that the local business zones continue to provide a variety of goods and services to serve the local neighborhood residents and do not end up as bank zones only.”

Peter Berg, Chairman of the RTM Land Use Committee, is among those who have expressed concern about the ever growing number of banks in town, particularly in Cos Cob where there are 9 of them, either existing or on the drawing board. Berg’s analysis shows that, while Cos Cob has the lowest household income of the 5 Greenwich zip codes, it has the most banks per thousand households. From this, he concludes that the banks are not specifically targeting Cos Cob residents since this is not the part of town where the money is. Rather, he sees the proliferation of banks in Cos Cob as an indication of the extent to which Cos Cob’s village center is being eroded.

Berg contends that the growing number of banks in Cos Cob reflect the fact that Cos Cob is losing its village character and is instead becoming the new central business district for the whole town, while downtown Greenwich, historically our central business district, has instead become a regional center that no longer serves primarily Greenwich residents. Letting downtown Greenwich become a regional center has led to what Berg calls ” retail sprawl.”

Approval of a Chase Bank at the Bella Nona location, in Berg’s estimation, would undermine certain goals in the town’s new Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). These are goals that, in the words of the POCD, call for the protection and enhancement of “well-defined neighborhoods and village centers” as well as the encouragement of “retail, residential, dining, cultural institutions, light business centers and other businesses that provide a variety of quality of goods and services for our residents.”

In Berg’s estimation, putting yet another bank in Cos Cob will hasten the erosion of the neighborhood and village center and reduce the variety of goods and services within the neighborhood. As a result, there will be increased traffic as Cos Cob residents drive elsewhere to meet their shopping needs, while residents from other parts of town drive to Cos Cob for their banking needs. Berg spoke on May 18 against approval of a new Chase bank in Cos Cob, as did land planning expert, Eric Brower.

While the new special permit zoning process for banks gives the Planning and Zoning Commission the authority to exercise judgment regarding the non-site issues that might impact the neighborhood, such as those issues raised by Berg, it is questionable that this process will serve as a deterrent to banks.

Chris Canavan, owner of Greenwich Automotive Services at 111 West Putnam Avenue, the service station at the corner of Dearfield Drive opposite the Greenwich Library , is not very optimistic about the deterrent effect of the new special permit process.”There are no teeth in the regulations,” he says. While agreeing that the special permit allows for more scrutiny, he says that ” in the end they will get the permit, and it will make the business more valuable.” According to Canavan, the banks are not asking for exceptions. They are applying for what is allowed under existing regulations. Only a significant change in the regulations, he says, will curb the trend.

The property on which Canavan operates his business was sold last week to a developer. Canavan does not know who the developer is but says that the anchor tenant of the new development is expected to be Chase Bank. The contract has been signed, and Canavan must soon vacate the property as it is slated to be bulldozed and remediated.

Canavan has operated his business on this site for 27 years and says that the property has been used continuously as a gas station and service center for more than 60 years, since 1949. He was unsuccessful in his bid to acquire the property from TD Bank, its most recent owner. In a memo to his customers, Canavan says that “no retailer can outbid a bank trying to buy/lease the property with a desire to occupy Greenwich space at any cost.”

Although Connecticut towns may not limit the number of banks within their borders, or institute distance requirements between banks, Canavan says that there are examples of zoning regulations with more teeth. Bronxville, NY, for instance, has passed a regulation that prevents banks, insurance and real estate brokers and travel agents from occupying first floor retail space in the General Business Zone. Another possibility would be to allow only ATM’s at the street level.

At Canavan’s urging, many Greenwich residents – his estimate is at least 500 – have signed, or sent, a petition letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission asking that the zoning regulations be strengthened  ”to stop the destruction of our town’s retail areas by banks in particular.”

There is no indication that the Planning and Zoning Commission intends to adopt any other regulations concerning banks.

In addition to the Chase banks planned for the Bella Nona location in Cos Cob and his gas station site opposite the Library, Canavan notes other Greenwich locations targeted by banks. Approval has been given to People’s United for a drive-thru at the former Ku restaurant site in Cos Cob. Banks have their eye on the two gas stations at the corner of Indian Field Road and East Putnam Avenue. The Rusty Oxer truck service business at Valley Drive is being sold to a bank. And the new building on West Putnam Avenue in front of Polpo Restaurant is seeking to have a bank occupy some of its space.

Canavan, who is taking over the Shell station across from Whole Foods, predicts long lines of cars at that service center and a disruption of traffic on the Post Road when his current business closes and as more gas stations are taken over by banks. “At the rate we are going, there won’t be a gas station left in town,” he says. He will be moving the emissions testing operation currently located at the Shell station to 269 Delavan Avenue in Byram.

This proliferation of banks in Greenwich, often with the same bank having multiple branches within minutes distance of each other – there are already 4 Chase bank branches within walking distance of Canavan’s gas station where now a 5th branch is planned – is a phenomenon that seems to be going counter to the national trend.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (March 3, 2010) cites data showing that U.S. banks and savings institutions are opening fewer retail branches and closing more of them. This makes sense in an economic environment reeling from the recession. According to the Wall Street Journal article, banks such as J.P.Morgan Chase and PNC Financial Services Group that have acquired other banks “are closing hundreds of branches as they absorb their purchases and get rid of overlapping branches.”

Another factor influencing the closing of bank branches – the wave of the future – is the growth of online and mobile-phone banking. According to the Wall Street Journal article, Bank of America plans to reduce the size of its branch network by 10% because of this shift to online banking.

“We have to embrace change,” Canavan says, “But we also have to plan for change.”

But this may be easier said than done, particularly when the market is the driving force. Right now, the highest and best use for certain properties in Greenwich may be for the owners to sell to a bank. But this proliferation of banks in Greenwich may be just a passing phenomenon.Tomorrow these bank buildings may very well be white elephants.

How might local zoning regulations best plan for such very specific and market-driven change?