NEW CANAAN — Plans to turn an estate previously owned by Richard Gere and by Paul Simon into a new subdivision has neighbors concerned that the near-doubling of homes in their neighborhood will have negative consequences on their street.
“The proposed development will be massively destructive to the environment — removal of mature trees being presented (in) the wetlands are going to be substantial,” Brookwood resident Spencer Grimes told Hearst Connecticut Media Group. “That has an adverse effect on the neighborhoods and the neighbors, specifically, who… are already impacted by stormwater runoff.”
Brookwood Hills LLC, owned by Stamford-based developers from SBP Homes, is looking for approval to turn the 32-acre estate at 82 Brookwood Lane into a nine-lot subdivision with a new road.
"This is a spectacular property and it’s our responsibility as stewards of this land to conceptualize a plan that is in full compliance with all local zoning laws, environmental standards and meets the requirements of New Canaan’s Wetlands and P&Z Commissions," SBP partner Jim Hoffman told HCMG in a statement. "We’re confident that we have done this and that the Wetlands and Planning & Zoning Commissions will ultimately see a thoughtful and responsible development plan."
More For You
The developers purchased the property from Gere for $10.75 million in October but had been in talks with town officials about creating a new subdivision as early as August, attorney Amy Zabetakis said at the start of the application’s public hearing on Jan. 29.
Zabetakis, representing the developers, clarified that just because there are nine new lots proposed does not mean there will be nine new homes. Instead the property owner is expected to sell and have the new owners develop the lots individually.
“They've had some preliminary conversations, someone could come along and want to buy two lots and we'll just see one house,” she said. “I think it's easier for people to see a subdivision and acknowledge that it works, quote unquote, if you can see some houses. But these are not intended to be locations where houses… or driveways or septic systems, etcetera, would actually be located.”
That is not to say some of the Brookwood Lane residents are happy with the plans to nearly double the number of homes in their neighborhood.
Grimes and neighbor Robert Fraiman filed intervening petitions with the Inland Wetlands and Planning and Zoning commissions, citing concerns the subdivision and subsequent development of the property could harm the surrounding environment.
Grimes said he and other neighbors were unaware of the developers’ plans for the property until around Thanksgiving, saying he felt as though the developers had “gone out of their way to give us as little time as possible to formulate a response,” especially since the owners’ attorney said town officials were looped in as early as August. Neighbors met with the developer around January, Grimes said.
Resident Lindsay Burn, a practicing landscape developer and Grimes's wife, submitted a letter Feb. 14 claiming the proposal "will adversely and irrevocably impact the native habitats" listed on the developers' wetland impact assessment report, including some federally protected species spotted in New Canaan like the bald eagle and others observed but not listed including several butterfly and bee species. The scale of habitat loss including tree clearing also does not include future home development, which she said could have further negative effects.
In addition to the environmental concerns, Grimes said neighbors are also concerned about how construction will affect traffic, particularly at a troublesome intersection. Several also said they were concerned with the scale of development, Brookwood Lane resident Carolyn Susanin saying the developers' plan to sell the parcels “shows that he has no regard for our town or properties.”
“He is in this to make money and not care about the environmental impact this will have on our very small community of 12 homes,” she wrote. “Our quaint little block will turn into a superhighway of construction which negates the reason why we moved here.”
Grimes said he would be more open if the scale of the development was downsized to something “less aggressive” like six homes and assurances that the area’s wildlife and wetlands would not be affected.
Developers, however, claim the project would have a net benefit for the wetlands by restoring some of the area's watercourses and habitats.
"We have spent months carefully designing this plan to preserve key natural areas, restore wetland corridors that have been lost over the years and enhance green spaces, which also serve as natural buffers for many surrounding property owners," Hoffman told HCMG. "We can appreciate that some of the neighbors are resistant to change and while we respect everyone’s right to express their opinions, it is important that the conversation remains rooted in facts and not hyperbole."
When asked during the public hearing if a traffic study would be conducted, given neighbors’ concerns, Zabetakis said such a study was not necessary because the proposal was a standard residential use.
“If this was a commercial use or if we were putting some sort of multifamily development here, I think that would be appropriate,” she said. “It's not even the maximum of lots that we could get in here. It's an addition of nine residential homes. We're not expecting a major increase in traffic.”
Another potential issue up for debate is whether the developers set aside enough land for conservation as mandated by open space requirements for subdivisions or if they should instead pay a fee in lieu of the open space.
Under the town’s subdivision regulations, based on state statute, at least 10% of a subdivision must be set aside for open space which, unless waived or modified by the commission, would not include a greater percentage of wetland, watercourse or floodplain in excess of 25% of the whole parcel.
The New Canaan Land Trust urged developers to pursue a fee “as a better method to achieve New Canaan’s overall objective of protecting valuable open space,” in a letter submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
“The proposed subdivision is suggesting slivers of land which will not establish a greenbelt or provide other links to open space, it will not supplement existing open space, and it will not provide or enhance local trails," the letter reads.
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were similarly hesitant with the conservation easements, member John Kriz saying, “It strikes me as something that frankly is not going to be built on anyway, so it's not much of a give up."
During the Jan. 29 meeting, Zabetakis — the developer's attorney — acknowledged the Land Trust’s concerns but maintained the proposed subdivision “can provide the necessary open space.”
“We believe the goals of the town plan of conservation development (are) better protected with this low impact development… protecting this space now rather than putting money in a fund with the hope that at some point some open space will become available somewhere else in the town," she said.
When asked if willing to adjust the design based on initial feedback from the commissions and residents, Hoffman said the developers are still waiting for further feedback but are "proactively engaged with a group of neighbors who expressed interest in discussing the project with our team," implementing some adjustments based on their input.
Feb 21, 2025
Weeklies Editor