Letter: Reasons To Oppose Oenoke Ridge Senior Development

As a “ senior” member of the New Canaan community, and as an attorney practicing in the town for over 30 years, I am well aware that a senior living resident option as part of a CCRC  for Waveny would be a welcomed addition to the town. I have the highest regard for all the wonderful people who work at the present Waveny facility and all my town friends who are in favor of this project.

I do not think, however, the Waveny project as envisioned on Oenoke Ridge is the right answer—I oppose it. Nor do I think that the Plan of Conservation and Development endorses destroying a neighborhood, an historic one at that,  because of the cost benefits or economic advantages of building a senior housing facility at a particular site.

I will list my reasons :

1. The site is definitely too small. 

No matter how much the developers try to appease the neighbors by reducing this project’s size and boundary setbacks from their initial design attempt, the project is just too big, bulky, dense and out of character with the surrounding  neighborhood. My property is just about 1.5 acres—I live in the neighborhood on Gerrish Lane  which is one acre zoning. No more than one family/house,  according to our zoning regulations, can occupy such a plot. I could not imagine having 100 or more people living on my property. But that is what is being attempted at the Oenoke site and more.

I would think it a very bad precedent that a corporation, nonprofit or otherwise, can characterize a project as compatible with the character of a neighborhood, in harmony with it, then ask the P&Z to do acrobatics to achieve it. This is nothing more than  spot zoning- and asking for additional special permits to squeeze this huge development onto one and a half acres is  in itself  evidence of overreach and it should not be approved. ( We all know it is not going on a undeveloped 3.5 plus acres—this whole building will be erected on a small lot of 1.5 acres. The Inn covers the additional acreage cited as part of this project and  that development was built with a special permit  extending the allowable coverage of that lot from 10% to 24%—so it is over-covered already. There was a special permit for the size of their parking that was limited as well and the overflow of cars from this new project should not be able to burden this Inn property.)

I believe when you add property to an already non-conforming lot this should upgrade the lot according to our zoning rules- is this going to be flagrantly ignored or will  another special permit be required? A question: if these two parcels are joined which one is the accessory building? Another question: In the new Zone proposed, if 80% of the parking will be underground then just  where will the 20% remaining  go? The traffic plan calls for four parking spaces at the front entrance? ( My front yard accommodates seven cars.) Will we have permanent parking on the driveway lane itself? Is the lane going to be wide enough?

I do not think it wise to upend so egregiously  the very foundations of our zoning rules and principals to accommodate a behemoth development in such a visually aesthetic, historic neighborhood. The proponents who bemoan that this is the only possible place, or the last chance for this housing  or this is morally the right thing to do seem emotionally blinded  to the real zoning issues and credibility of  the zoning committee. I think these statements may be  more about costs. There are other properties to look at -they just may be more expensive; there are other ways of adding senior housing that will not be so dense—we will need to be more creative- Just what is the town to do when the mega mansions stay empty for years? And the close to town benefit or walking distance advantage of this site  is a specious argument  at best. Few, if any, senor residents at the Inn walk into town. Most over-70-year-old residents do not work  or take a train for work; they will not be  walking to the grocery  store or out to dinner—maybe a stroll in the afternoon. Even the employees will not be walking to the site—and they do not take trains to work said Waveny’s director.

2. Lights, they will be distracting to say the least.

As over thousands of our New Canaan residents have now said, the whole surrounding neighborhood character would be adversely affected by this imposing four-story apartment building. Many agree with the visual nightmare  expressed at the second hearing: It will look like a parked ocean liner at night with four floors of lights. Under our zoning rules if this were an athletic site being proposed for development the lights would be subject to  strict regulations at night. No sane mind could say that the four floors of lights will enhance the neighborhood, or be comparable or in harmony with the surrounding residences. Citing the building materials, the look of a McMansion or the architectural details of the porches as comparable or in harmony with the neighboring properties is like saying a 60 foot yawl and the cruise ship are comparable- both are boats and are in water. The proponents cite the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development to bolster the appropriateness of this development. I differ in my reading of the POCD. The plan emphasizes preserving and enhancing the physical character of the town and honoring open space.

The POCD is a guide to get to outcomes beneficial for the community and /or desired by residents. Certainly there is a tug of war here about what is desirable and beneficial, but by needing a specific zoning change specific to just this development, all these requested special permit changes, cutting down  30 mature trees, and increasing the density to such a great degree on this site, going against a tide of citizens opposed to this development—I believe you may create a question on what moral authority would be left for the P&Z. How will you insist residents follow the published regulations and with a straight face  tell a neighboring resident they are over- coverage? It would be characterized as arbitrary and capricious if you allow this type of revision acrobatics to proceed. What will be next?

3. Traffic—the developer’s traffic study was unbelievable.

For the last several years my late husband was a patient at several different CCRC facilities in this area – I am a witness to what goes on at these facilities.

There is a lot of traffic comings and goings all day long. I have had several clients who have lived  up at Meadow Ridge in Redding  in their senior residence. My spouse was at their rehab for several months. I walked around there a lot. As large as their campus is they have drop off and temporary parking issues at the entrances, but there is a large parking lot directly adjacent to deal with the overflow. This project has no such parking.

One thing mentioned in the previous P&Z hearings was how many elder residents need to have personal aides- living in or hourly. There are a lot of caregivers added to the count of people residing in the resident’s units daily and that adds to the car count which cannot be accounted for in the garage parking. The traffic study  done for this project did not account for this. Yet,  they said the significant traffic is not from residents themselves but employees. So if 40 residents needed aides that will be at least 40 more cars to deal with- and perhaps 40 more people living in the units.

Cars, trucks, vans—where will they park? First, there are the residents themselves who are driving or may need to be driven to their doctor’s appointments, their grocery store, their shopping trips, lunch or dinner events- then the social friends and family who come and go. Then, there are administrative employees, staff for kitchen, restaurant, therapy, pool cleaning who drive to work. The pizza man, the dry cleaning trucks, the said individual’s  nurses and aides; oil deliveries, Amazon deliveries by Fed Ex- not to mention the Get About vans, the ambulances, the police. I cannot see from the front of this proposed building where all these temporary cars will park. The traffic study allowed for four parking spaces out front. How will the flow of cars be managed? These are tight quarters shown. Added to which St. Mark’s and the Inn are using the driveway. My example at Meadow Ridge, a very large place and they still have parking issues at the front entrances.  At least they have a back of building access for deliveries—the food trucks, the soda trucks, the laundry, the trash trucks, the plumber, the waste trucks. Can they even fit in the garage? Honk! Honk! get at of the way a fire truck is coming!

The site is just too small to accommodate this potential traffic.

4. Garage—The parking garage is another of my concerns.

I really think it will be too small for what will be  needed for the site and for an aging population. These spaces for elder people do well in a disability- sized parking space, especially if you need the door of the car fully opened to accommodate. Looking at the site plan they look narrow. The plan for this zoning change does not address the width or length of the spaces as the other plans in the present zoning regulations have. There is just enough room to get out of the car in a regular parking space but not  if you need a walker or a wheel chair or a person to help get one  in/out of a car. Also getting into a tight  space may be easy but  backing out in narrow spaces is harder for older drivers—especially to see the cars in the opposite row or coming around the corners. Underground parking is not ideal for older people. There is no flow to this garage plan- no circle of flow. Just saying it appears to be a tight fit. Cannot see delivery trucks in there, either.

5. CCRC issues—a comment about CCRCs:  

The Waveny Director, Mr. Barksdale, said at the second P&Z meeting,  that having the residential part of a CCRC  on a different campus was a new and desirable feature- that  the  more  active seniors that are younger and more mobile do not want to see the nursing side of things ( paraphrasing)-

I take umbrage with that. The fabulous feature of becoming a part of a CCRC community is that the residence is next to all the services.

Especially if one spouse needs the rehab or nursing attention or critical care. The healthy spouse can easily walk next door and have a visit or lunch or a card game with the infirm spouse and go home to his/her unit for a nap and get back over to see the loved one for dinner. If you are an outpatient needing therapy then getting in a van or car for a ride to and from for a session at the other campus is not much of an advantage and can be painfully cumbersome.

All the patient’s friends in the community can visit easily, too, if the facility is nearby and attached. This closeness strengthens the social ties and family care giving. One is going to think twice about making a visiting trip by vehicle. Who wants to get in a car or van at 5 o’clock when it’s getting dark and cold? Or when you have to depend on someone to drive you?

One of  the first recommendations suggested to people investing and moving into a CCRC’s is to look at the financial health and stability of the corporation. Perhaps the P&Z does not have the responsibility of looking into that but does Waveny  have the financial wherewithal? If you are drastically changing the environment of a neighborhood for a worthy cause one would want to make sure the development becomes what it was purported to be. What are their margins for such an expensive development? What if a recession happens during the building of this complex and it must be sold? (  I remember the Meadow Ridge complex I referred to had years of setbacks  and they were money related, construction related, etc. and the  move- in dates kept getting extended -) Are the resident neighbors stuck with a big apartment complex if this non- profit goes bankrupt?  I ask because the present Waveny building is in disrepair. The rooms on the second floor of the nursing facility have drawers and closets broken and are in need of a rehab themselves. The present campus will need a big renovation to stay competitive with all the newer facilities being built. Where is the money for this non-profit’s expansive development coming from? There has been a lot of chatter that this is for New Canaan seniors ( especially the ones who have given back so generously to this community. A very worthy goal—but can they limit the residents to New Canaan senior citizens? I think not, legally and financially they would be courting disaster. But that has been a cry from proponents and why they want to build this—to thank all our seniors who have given so much to the town. Although an admirable sentiment, what if the projected costs go way up- will our future seniors  be able to afford it? Is there a safeguard for this?

To close, I want to offer my site suggestion.

Obviously it should be to a larger location that is not upsetting an established neighborhood.

Many have suggested it should be  right next to the present Waveny—between the Senior Center and the present Waveny nursing/rehab facility. This would be the ideal campus and perhaps everyone should get together and make it happen. The Waveny Park is there, to walk around;  the senior center, the paddle courts, the swimming pool, the golf drive, the fabulous trails, the garden – high school sports teams. Really ideal—a large and beautiful setting which will have enough parking.

It may have wetlands but they may be worked around. If Waveny does not have to pay for the land they can afford the site improvements. I think that is the site that makes the most sense.

If Waveny is requesting that the P&Z rewrite its rules and regulations for spot zoning, jump thru hoops with special permits, ignore thousands of residents who object to this project, cherry-pick the goals  of the POCD plan, then it can ask the P&Z to give it exemptions to deal with the wetland  site issues. And ask the town for this property which is valuable to no one else than Waveny. All the tax paying residents will benefit from this new facility. The main Waveny facility could also be built upon to make it larger and more up to date and we will all benefit as a town and—voila—no harm to the neighboring residents and the Oenoke site.