Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterfront Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves 108 Water Street switch from office to 130‑room hotel over DEEP objections
Summary
The Norwalk Planning & Zoning Commission approved a revised site plan allowing part of the approved 108 Water Street project to convert from office space to a 130‑room hotel, while keeping prior approvals for 59 apartments and waterfront amenities. DEEP and residents raised concerns about coastal management and dry egress; the commission added conditions to finalize a flood preparedness plan before permits.
The Norwalk Planning & Zoning Commission voted to approve a revised site plan for 108 Water Street that converts a portion of a previously approved office building into a 130‑room hotel while retaining approvals for 59 apartments, boat slips, a restaurant and public waterfront spaces.
The vote followed presentations by Spre Acquisitions’ counsel and consultants, comments from state reviewers and residents, technical Q&A on flood resilience and circulation, and negotiation of permit conditions. The motion passed in a roll‑call vote with one commissioner opposed.
The applicant, represented by attorney Adam Blank and developer Henry Conroy, told the commission the hotel alternative increases the project’s financing feasibility and “activates the waterfront” by bringing guests and a restaurant to the water’s edge. The project team said the hotel option will generate fewer peak weekday traffic trips and reduce parking demand compared with the previously approved office use. Consultants reported a raised lowest parking elevation, backflow prevention for Water Street, additional drainage treatment and a flood preparedness plan that will include hotel operator responsibilities.
Residents and agency reviewers urged caution. Lenel Jones, speaking for concerned East Norwalk residents, cited letters from state reviewers and argued the proposal relied on “resiliency” language to justify development in a coastal flood zone and left unresolved questions about dry egress and emergency access. A DEEP representative (identified in the record as Braden) asked the commission to weigh whether the hotel use increases hazards to life and property and urged a careful review of flood‑preparedness measures.
In rebuttal, the applicant said a hotel operator can more readily mandate guest evacuation than apartment tenants, that the design raises vulnerable parking above base flood elevation, and that the project proposes additional stormwater treatment and a backflow device to reduce nuisance flooding on Water Street. The applicant agreed to refine the flood preparedness plan with staff and to finalize required language prior to issuance of building permits and certificates of zoning compliance.
The commission’s approval includes explicit conditions: the applicant must finalize a flood preparedness plan acceptable to staff (with provisions addressing the hotel operator’s role), secure required certificates of zoning compliance and final permits before occupancy or certificate of occupancy, and implement the drainage/mitigation items described in consultant reports. The roll call showed one ‘no’ vote (Commissioner Dashnik); other commissioners voted in favor.
Next steps: the applicant must complete the revised flood preparedness plan and satisfy final departmental signoffs before obtaining building permits and a certificate of zoning compliance. The commission’s approval does not remove DEEP’s ability to take further action under its statutory authority; DEEP’s letters remain part of the record and were referenced repeatedly during public comment and staff discussion.
Vote at a glance: the commission approved the resolution as revised, subject to final flood‑preparedness language, certificates of zoning compliance, and standard permit conditions.
