[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
WA _t4 ;,lNTNv ar @,x COD pU,, W.U., 40 J, i -4e "4_ JOY F 7, jq ..-Z I.R. I@ UI Ll- .4p rn w7" G) KA t4t' Ll .07 f AM ;C- .I 9 it LY -q t5o NORWALK COASTAL AREA iMANAMEENT PROGRAY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION November, 1981 NORWALK PLANNING & ZONING COMISSION This Document was financed in part by a grant through the office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U. S.Department of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and was @prepared in cooperation with'the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Coastal Area Management Program. CO@TTENTS 7 PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1-9 II. BACKGROUND A. LandUse 10-36 B. Water Quality/Coastal Resources 37-49 C. Parks, ODen Space/Public Access 50-58 D. Shoreline Appearance/Historic Preservation 59-61 III. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 62-64 A. LAND USE/ECONOMIC BASE 64-70 B. WATER QUALITY/COASTAL RESOURCES 71-74 C. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, WATERBASED RECREATION, PUBLIC ACCESS 75-85 D. SHORELINE APPEARANCE/URBAN DESIGN/HISTORIC PRESERVATION 86-88 IV. OPPORTUNITY AREAS-DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS Introduction 90-91 A. Rowayton Avenue 91-92 B. Roton Point 93-94 C. Wilson Cove 94-95 D. Village Creek 95 E. Manresa Island 96-0 F. Water Street 96 G. Landfill/Railyards 98-99 H. Upper Harbor 100-102 I. Cove Avenue 102 J. Canfield/Shorehaven/Cove Marina 103-104 K. Norwalk Islands 104-105 V. Revisions to Norwalk 14aster*Plan NORWALK COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD F7 Norman Bloom Tallmadge Brothers Oyster Company Samual Briggs, Human Relations Commission Robert Burk, Norwalk Seaport Association Richard Carpenter, South West Regional Planning Agency Janet Clayman, League of Women Voters Ben Detroy, Norwalk Maurice Devine, DevineBrothers John Deware, Vantage Point Condominium Association James Ga:Hella, Norwalk Cove Marina John Harman, Norwalk Seaport Assn., Connecticut Archeological Society Len Harris, Norwalk Shellfish Commission Lee Hartog, Rowayton Marine Works William Hopkins, Home Oil Company Robert Johnson, Norwalk Company Amy Kerschner, Village Creek Arnold Libner, Libter Feed Iz Grain Company Ceil Michalik, Norwalk Company Richard Miner, Rowayton Civic Association Judith Parker, Preserve the Wetlands Nathan Pusey, Connecticut Bank and Trust V1, Donald Relyea, Harbor Master V Walter Reynolds, Coast Guard Auxiliary Angelo Rubino, Norwalk Economic Opportunity Now (NEON) maxine "Bunny" Scott, Rowayton V Christopher Stapelfeldt, Connecticut Commercial Fish ermen's Assn. Whitney Tilt, Long Island Sound Task Force - Oceanic Society Shale "Bud" Tulin, Norwalk Housing Commission v Hans Vervaat, Preserve the Wetlands Yvonne Williams, Neighborhood Housing Service ITOR'HALK PLAJqTING 8: ZONING CO@N2ISSION Roland C. Clement, Chairman Alfred C. Canevari, Vice-Chairman Xlenneth W. LaClair, Secretary James C. Braye Mary E. Burgess James L. Carroll Lawrence D. Church Seymor Specter Doxey A. Wilkerson Alternates: Former Members: Edmond L. Abel Warren D. Kealey, Chairman (1980-1981) Jane Egbert Richard Salvato, Vice-Chairman (1980-1981) Rev. Leland Hunt Richard King STAFF *Joseph R. Tamsky, Director *Bennett Boeschenstein, Assistant Director Edward J. Leary, Senior Planner Joseph Bienkowski, Assistant Planner iMichael Greene, Planning Engineer Gregory Dunn, Community Development Planner " "Linda Kasper Reed, Coastal Planner 'John Howard, Zoning Inspector Michael Rourke, Zoning Administrator *Roger McFaddent Draftsperson *Janet Hynes, Coastal Designer/Draftsperson Michael Valiente, Development Inspector Evelyn M. Rowe, Secretary Marion McPherson, Technician Dorothy I'lonroe, Technician elarianne Chambers, Clerk/Typist SUWTER INTERNS Patricia Charnas, Marine Biology 0 Patricia Cheung, Designer/Draftsperson Arlene Frazer, Economist Daniel Pokras, Urban Planner 1@-Assigned to this project I N T R 0 D U C T 1 0 N e The Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program 9 The Coastal Area and Planning, o Norwalk's Coastal Area Planning Strategy '0 W Ip LM THE CONNECTICUT COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM* The Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program, established in August, 1974, is operated under the auspices of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (1972). This legislation passed by Congress in response to a recognized need for wise planning and resource management in the Coastal area, gave the nation's thirty-four coastal states and territories the authority and funding to start programs. Although pro- gram participation is voluntary, all coastal states have established programs. Before the establishment of Connecticut's coastal management program, use of coastal resources was already publicly regulated. However, in many cases, multiple approvals at municipal and state levels are required. The State's Coastal Area Management Program is designed to ensure that during the various review processes all government branches evaluate a project's coastal impacts under a common set of policies. The decision to establish a common set of review policies to be used by existing management and regulatory agencies, rather than establish a new regulatory authority evolved from'numerous studies and public meetings. Use of existing agencies eliminated a need to establish new regulatory juristiction. Moreover, it provided for the review of project impacts on coastal resources and future water dependent devel- opment opportunities by all regulatory, planning, and development C, authorities. Existing regulatory procedures were altered only to ensure consideration of coastal impacts. Use of common review policies reduced fragmented and uncoordinated decision making. Finally, if the State's program receives reduction in the number of conflLcts with federal regulatory and development decisions. In 1978, the State's General Assembly, after several public meetings and hearings, enacted the Connecticut Coastal Area Management Act (Public Act 78-152) which established a coastal boundary, broad goals and policies, and a Legislative Study Committee on Coastal Management. The Study Committee, after ten public meetings, recommended that the 1979 General Assembly consider the shared municipal-state approach . with voluntary revision of municipal Master Plans and zoning regula- tions and mandatory municipal review of coastal projects. In 1979, the Coastal Area Management Act was amended according to these recom- mendations (Public Act 79-535). The state's Coastal Area Management Act was implemented on January 1, 1980. *State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program. Connecticut's Draft Coastal Management Plan ,(Hartford, CT: State of Connecticut, 197@). 2 :011,@i L The Coastal Area and Plannin The Coastal area is that region where terrestrial activities impinge upon the marine environment, marine resources, and marine activities and where marine activities impinge on the environment, resources, and activities of the land. According to the State's CAM legislation, the coastal area is "bounded on the seaward side by the limit of the statels jurisdiction in Long Island Sound (and) on the landward side . . . bounded by the continuous line delineated by a one-thousand foot linear setback measured from the mean high water mark in coastal-waters, or a one-thousand foot linear setback measured from the inland boundary of state regulated tidal wetlands, or the continuous interior contour elevation of the one-hundred year frequency coastal flood zone, which- ever is farthest inland".* In spite of this legal definition, the coastal area means different things to different people. To the environmentalist and ecologist, the coastal area is a region of high biological productivity and many IL biological and chemical processes. Here are unique habitats such as marshes, mud flats, and tidal pools. To the economist, the coastal area is a productive region. Here people produce industrial goods and services, harvest.food from the sea, and relax with water-based E_ recreation. To others, the coastal area may be space, nature, property,* capital, deity, or fatharland. L Regardless of the definition that anyone person or group chooses, the coastal area is a physically and increasingly market scarce resource. The problem is one of allocation-can a method be established to allo- L cate an essentially fixed supply of coastal area resources among the diverse and expanding demands of the public and private sectors? L Coastal area planning is the opportunity to prepare a long-range, 0 holistic statement which guides future land use. The basic tools are the experiences of the past and present,.projected needs, and the existing coastal resource base. Norwalk's Coastal Area Planning Strate&y To prepare this Master Plan for the coastal area, Norwalk's Planning and Zoning Commission employed the basic strategy recommended in the State's "Model Municipal Coastal Program".* *State of Connecticut. State of Connecticut Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement. (Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980), p.s-1. *State of Connecticut. Department of Environmental Protection. Coa.stal Area Management Program. Model Munici2al Coastal Program. Planning Report 28. (Hartford, CT:State of Connecticilt), January, 1979. J@ 7/ v W I V. 'Tz f 1 7V IWO qll_ 't- 17JRO"Y ;"A :I ;A 11 4T .7f I tz zj if )A OASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM "'PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NORWALK, CONNECTICUT mT @ o voo - ftEs o -- 3 The strategy employed has seven stages: I- Establishment of a Citizens Advisory Board II- Issue Identification III - Information Sessions IV- Formulation of Goals and Objectives V- Identification of Opportunity Areas VI- Development of Draft Master Plan VII - Master Plan Adoption I Establis hment of Citizens' Advisory_Board Planning and Zoning Commissioners and staff developed a list of about 100 individuals, civic groups, and private businesses representing the various sociological, economic, and political beliefs of Norwalk. From this list, forty representatives were invited to serve on the Citizens', Coastal Area Management (CAM) Advisory Board. An open invitation was extended to concern citizens interested in coastal issues. NORWALK COASTAL AREA K&HAGU4E:NT PROGRAM 2 3 5 9 it 12 vctabllsh Pretiatin- Review of Parks, Land Use %later Historic Revision Discus- Finalize Pub I ic Prepare Prepara- Advisory ary [email protected] State Open & Econo- Quality, Preserva@ of Coast Sion of Draft Hearings New tion of cofiwtitcee tifica- Coastal Space, mte Base Boating, tion. coastal prelimi- Plan and Zoning new ordi- tion of Policy & Public The . Shorelint Issues nary Adoption ReStela- nances, issues Use Guid( Access Harbor Appear- State- goals & tions subdivi- lines as a"ce. ment, pre draft they Urban prelimi- plan reguls- relate Design nary tions, to. goals capital Nonialk policies budget for propasnis. No rsia tk coliviloo I t Y develop Prepare weiit pro- alterna- ponnis, tive develop- develop- meot plans ment etc. plans Prepare Prepare Prepare Prepare Prepare Prepare Prepare Prepare Selectlov Final TWO Draft Draft uork preser- Prelimi- Backgrouni Backgrounc Backgroun( Backgroun4 Alterna- of! pre- Report Hearings Regula- Regula- nary paper Paper rjet@ Platr tive ferred map Planning tions tiolls L'M@k "i_ vation rA z. Prepare on issue Prosenta- Presenta- Presenta- Presenta- Develop- alterna- Public Zoning Public Public I'tat of Norwalk statement tion & tion & tion & tion & ment; Platv tives Hearing Commis- Hearings Hearings 4XW Potmitial Coast: @ r*-e _13a r e`_ speakers speakers Speakers Speakers Finaliz Notices Sion Goals & One Grotips to )resenta- lie repre- tion of jectivul Hearing sented 1;tAte Cougaun I-oats & Council pollcies 1,11th Norwalk Examples ighth C _tj_ Ifeng First Secood Third Fourth Wth Sixth Feven h Eighth Ninth Tenth Future Future _.t:L Meeting Ifecting Meett Meeting Hooting Meeting Ifeeting Meeting Meeting tioeting Meeting C4MA0%. Nov. 24 Jan. 27 Feb. "I]. _h_" 9 23 Harch 30 April 27 Hay 26, 2 1981 1980 11981 1981 1981 F 1981 1981 1 1 ----% V @ r-------% r ------ 4 T 4 Issue Identification The Norwalk CAM Advisory Board formulated the following questions 0 when identifying and assessing the major issues of the coastal area. A. Land Use and The Economic Base 1. How can a wide variety of land uses be continued on Norwalk's waterfront while preserving marine oriented uses, increasing public access, and encouraging appropriate new development? 2. How can waterfront land be made moreattractIve to new invest- ment? 3. How will the proposed Maritime Center effect surrounding coastal land uses? How can the positive effects be encouraged through- out the harbor area? 4. What types of commercial uses should be permitted on the water's edge? 5. How much industry should be permitted in the coastal area? Where? How can these industries be protected? 6. How much water dependent industry should be encouraged? Where? 7. How much residential development should be encouraged in the coastal area? Where? 8. What can be done to ease the housing crisis of Norwalk and Fairfield County without eliminating any socioeconomic groups? B. Commercial Port Facilities 1. Can existing storage terminals be improved or buffered? 2. Should storage terminals be centralized? Where? 3. How can the port facility be modernized? 4. What is the future of small port facilities? 5. What are the problems and opportunities associated with the conversion of the power plant from.oil to coal? 5 C. Commercial FisbinF. 1. How much land and at what locations can be dedicated to the fishing industr (shellfishing, finfishing, and lobstering)? 2. Are economic incentives needed to encourage commercial fisheries? 3. How can fisherieshabitat be protected? D. Water Quality and Natural Coastal Resource Preservation 1. Is wate'r quality at some sites so deteriorated that additional water based activities.should be discouraged? 2. Where does water quality need improvement? 3. How can water quality be improved? 4. What natural resources exist in the coastal area? How can they be protected? E. Parks-, Open Space, Water Based Recreation and Public Access 1. Should the remaining large Norwalk Islands (Chimons and Sheffield) be purchased? How should the city's island holdings be managed? can the archipelago be used? 2. Where could waterfront Parks be established? How and where can public access to the waterfront be expanded? What can be done to protect coastal open space short of acquisition? 3. What can' be done to improve public access to Norwalk's beaches? 4. How can recreational fishing facilities be improved? 5. Where should water-based recreation be encouraged/discouraged?. 6. Can Norwalk make better'use of its excellent boating harbor? 7. How can existing marinas and boatyards be preserved in spite of competition for waterfront land? 8. Can more people take advantage of boating and related recreational activities? 9. Should public boating facilities (marinas, boatyards, launching ramps, boat rentals) be expanded? Where? 10. How can public fishing facilities be improved? lit 6 F. Shoreline ARpearance,, Urban Design, and Historic Preservation 1. How can valuable historic resources be revised or restored rather than demolished? 2-How can buildings be designed s o they face the waterfront? 3. How can architecture and designof private facilities be harmonious with existing buildings and the natural features of the land? 4. What types of subdivision and zoning controls on housing development will minimize harmful impacts on the coast? 5. What types of waterfront development should be encouraged in Norwalk? III Information Sessions In response to the questions formulated by the Citizen's CAM Advisory Board, the Planning and Zoning staff in an effort to respond to these questions arranged a series of five information sessions. The sessions held monthly (February - June, 1981) were designed to provide the Advisory Board with background information. Prior to each session, a memorandum was distributed containing information about the coastal issue to be discussed. At each session, staff members summarized the background information and highlighted key issues through a slide presentation. When weather permitted, a brief field trip served to highlight the coastal issue. Individuals from Norwalk and surrounding Fairfield County communities who are recognized for their technical expertise in or knowledge of a parti- cular field served as guest panelists. These panelists shared their knowledge with the Advisory Board and evaluated Norwalk's coastal area problems and opportunities. The following list summarizes the coastal issues discussed and contributing guests. February, 1981 - Parks, Public Access, and Open Space guests: Hans Vervaat, Pres6rve the Wetlands- Robert Burk, Norwalk Seaport Association-Robert Detore, Director, Norwalk Parks and Recreation March, 1981 - Land Use,and The Economic Base guests: Lee Hartog, Rowayton Marine Works - Gordon Goodlet, Stamford *Area Commerce and Industry Association (SACIA) Richard Miner, Rowayton Civic Association 7 April_1981 - The Harbor, Water Quality, and Boating field trip: Veterans Park Norwalk Water Pollution Control Facility guests: Richard Roach, Chief - Regulatory Section of Operations Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Don Relyea, Harbor Master-Norwalk Harbor Thomas Brigante, New England Pollution Control Company may, 1981 - Historic Preservation, Shoreline Appearance, and Urban Design field trip: United Church of Christ Pinkney House Walking tour of Rowayton guests: Valle Fay, Norwalk.Preservation Trust Larry Flax, Association for a Better Community Design Keith Simpson, Environmental Design Associates, Inc. June, 1981 Port Activity and Commercial Fishing field trip: boat tour of Norwalk Harbor, Five Mile River Harbor, and Norwalk Islands guests: Norman Bloom, Tallmadge Brothers Oyster Company Lynn Johnson, The Center for the Environment and Man William Hopkins, Home Oil Company Christopher Stapelfeldt, Connecticut Commercial Fishermen's Association Minutes compiled at these meetings appear in Appendix 3 of this report. IV Formulation of Goals and Objectives Based on the discussion generated at the information sessions, a series of six weekly subcommittee workshops was organized so that effective goal and objective statements could be formulated. Advisory Board members participated in the subcommittee workshops of their choice. The six workshop topics were: 1. Commercial Fort Activity and Commercial Fishing 2. Historic Preservation 3. The Harbor, Water Quality, and Recreational Boating 4. Urban Design and Shoreline Appearance 5. Land Use and The Economic Base 6. Parks, Open Space, and Public Apcess 8 At each workshop, Planning and Zo'ning staff reviewed the relevant State policies, specific issues previously identified and discussed, and background information. The staff also presented draft goal and objective statements for the Subcommittee's consideration. Following review and discussion of these statements, the Subcommittee endorsed goal and objective statements for the Advisory Board's consideration. The endorsed statements which reflect the issues, problems, and needs of Norwalk's existing conditions and the State's coastal policies, appear in Section Three, "Goals and Objectives", of this report.* V Identification of Opportunity Areas Following the information sessions and workshop series, elevel. coastal areas.were designated as "opportunity areas". "Opportunity Areas" were selected based upon the comments and recommendations of Citizens' Advisory Board members subcommittee participants, Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and Planning and Zoning staff. The "opportunity areas" are unstable - that is existing land use and zoning are not compatible. In fact, if these coastal areas were developed to the full extent permitted by existing zoning, land uses would be totally altered. Moreover, these areas seem ripe for change. The eleven designated flopportunity areas" are: A. Row'ayton Avenue rV D Poton Poirnt C. Wilson Covp D. Villag-6 Creek E.- 11anrese Island F. Water Street G. Landfill-Was1hington Street. TJ. Upper Harbor. 1. Cove Avenue J. Canfield/Shorehaven K. Norwalk Island& . Specific consideration of each area is made in Section Four, "Opportunity Areas and Development Scenarios", of this report. *Minutes are compiled at these workshops appear in Appendix C of this report. 9 VI Development of the Draft Master Plan The Planning and Zoning staff analyzed available information obtain*ed during the preceeding stages. The information consisted of: endorsed goal and objective statements, actual and potential aspects of the "opportunity areas", environmental resource base, and socioeconomic considerations of the coastal area, the city, and the region. The product of this analysis is the draft "Revised Master Plan of Land Use for the Coastal Area" which appears in Section Five of this report. VII Master Plan Adoption Adoption of the draft Master Plan by the City is a four stage process: 1. Review by the Citizens' CAM Advisory Board - The Advisory Board reviews the draft Master Plan, recommends revisions_if@necessary, and endorses the plan. 2. Review by the CAM Committee of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Committee.reviews the draft Master Plan as endorsed by the Advisorv Board, recommends revisions if nece6sary, and endorses the plan. 3. Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission reviews the draft Master Plan as Master Plan as endorsed by the Advisory Board and CAM Committee. Two public hearings are held to solicit citizen response. The Commission recommends revisions if necessary and endorses*the plan. 4. Review by the Common Council. The Common Council reviews the draft Master Plan as endorsed by the three other review groups. A public hearing is held-to solicit citizen response. The Council votes to determine if the plan should be adopted as the official Master Plan for the coastal area. When this plan for the coastal area is approved and incorporated into the City Master Plan for Lana Use, zoning regulations will be revised where appropriateg the plan will become the basis for future decision making including the capital budget and the Community Development Program. II. B A C K G R 0 U N D A. Land Use and Economic Base B. W-,:@ter Quality, Coastal Resources C. Parks, Open Space, Water Based Recreation, Public Access D. Shoreline Appearance, Urban Design. Historic Preservation 7 A Re 7': f -,LNarGRAND REPUBLIC 10 LAND USE AND THE ECONOMIC BASE A ','hort 111_t@Lory of Norwalk and the Coast A. The Glacial Period Abo ut.20,000 years ago, the last in a series of massive ice sheets or glaciers moved across the land over what is now Connecticut. The glaciers acted at once like a plow, a file, and a sled. Like a plow, the glacier scraped up loose rock particles and gouged out bedrock, like a file, grated away firm-rock, and like a sled, carried away the sediments unearthed by the plowing and filing actions.* As the tem- perature rose, the glacier retreated northward, leaving large rocks and boulders at its southern most reach. As the glacier melted, the waters carried and deposited rocks and soil. In time, a rich environ- ment suitable for plant and animal survival existed throughout the region. B. Indian Settlements The land was covered with a virgin forest, and abundant wildlife and crossed by narrow but deep w-atercourses. The shoreline was rimmed with sandy beaches, rocky shores, and marshlands. it wa's here that the Munsee Indians, descendents of the Delaware Tribe and members of the Wappinger Confederation of the Algonquin group lived. The Munsee people, later called "People of the Shell" established their village Norwauke, on the shores of Long Island Sound. Here there was abundant food in all seasons, particularly shellfish - clams, oysters and mussels- the shells of which were deposited in great heaps or middens. Today, remnants of the Munsee Indians are found at three Norwalk sites- Butler Rock Shelter, Sagua Hill, and Spruce Swamp. At Spruce Swamp, originally a fresh water kettle hole pond near Long Island Sound, is a coastal area site where many Indian artifacts have been found. Projec4 tile points, also known as arrowheads, suggest that these people were hunters; middens, heaps of shells, indicate that these Indian residents ate shellfish; pottery fragments testify to the technical skills of some Indian craftsmen; and skeletal remains suggest some ritualized burial rite. C. Early Settlements and Port Activities on April 20, 1640, Daniel Patrick purchased from the Munsee Indians, Norwauke River to the Five Mile River. Despite Patrick's death soon afterwards, families led by Roger Ludlow of Fairfield expanded their settlement westward from the Saugatuck River to include Norwauke. *F lint, Richard Foster and.Skinner, Brian J. Physical Geology; 2nd IT 1, F-7--w- edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977. Norwauke (Norwalk) of the mid-seventeenth century was developed as three separate settlements - East Norwalk on the east bank of the Norwalk River, Old Well (South Norwalk) or the west bank.of the Norwalk River, and Rowayton on the Five Mile River. Like many early New England settlements, Norwauke's coastal location provided these young communities with water routes for swift transportation and communication. However, unlike most other settlements, Norwauke had a well protected harbor, insulated from the forces of Long Island Soilnd by an island archipelago. The early settlements prospered as subsistence agricultural communities. However, by 1720, the excellent soil quality of the area combined with the good water transportation base changed Norwalk from a subsistence to a surplus economy. Norwalk emerged as a hub of agricultural activity eventually becoming the regional center for produce shipments by sloop to New York City. D. A Growing Town: 1800's Ninteenth century Norwalk prospered with this water link developing shipbuilding and trading industries. Construction of schooners and sloops flourished at Rowayton and Dorlon's Point in East Norwalk. Trade routes were established between Norwalk and several New York State communities providing Norwalk with an excellent market for surplus goods. Several local entrepreneurs supported these trading ventures and eventually established profitable trade routes with both the West Indies and Falkland Islands. However, despite the desire for further trade expansion, growth was impeded by the physical limitations of the shallow harbor. In 1824, commercial trade routes were expanded to provide swift, safe, and inexpensive passenger service on steamships travelling from Norwalk to New York City. The good service of steamships, the excellent harbor, the rugged coast- line, and the many navigable waterways complemented by Connecticut's elaborate turnpike network seemed to eliminate any need for railroad development. However, by 1830, rail service extended from Boston to Providence making the final link to New York inevitable. Despite initial fears about the railroad system, linking Norwalk to New Haven and New York boosted the city'd economy. Norwalk of the 1800's was a city to be envied as it seemingly held all the ingredients of success. In Norwalk, there was a great concentra- tion of warehouses, hotels, retail establishments, and manufacturing plants as well as excellent water, rail, and turnpike connections. Businesses were oriented to the land and water for transportation, reinforcing the link between mainland commerce and waterfront activi- ties. Norwalk was indeed an.ideally located city. 12 E. Norwalk A Shellfishing Center of the 1800's About 1800, a group of South Norwalk business men recognized the commercial opportunities for harvesting and marketing shellfish. During their vigorous marketing efforts, these businessmen realized that the shellfish supply was not inexhaustable. Soon they began planting oysters to ensure a good, marketable shellfish supply. Other local businessmen discovered that salt water areas such as creeks, coves, or inlets could be isolated to promote oyster growth. The group marked, staked out, and enclosed a piece of ground near Tavern Island. Here they transplanted oyster seed from Chesapeake Bay trans- forming Connecticut into the major seed producing state north of New Jersey. Norwalk businessmen continued these mariculture experiments throughout the 1870's. Several entrepreneurs extended oyster seed beds from shallow areas inside the Norwalk Islands to areas outside the Islands. In 1874, Captain Peter Decker of Norwalk introduced a steam-powered sloop, to the industry. The vessel, "The Early Bird", was equipped with two dredges allowing oystermen to harvest 150 to 200 bushels daily. These deep sea experiments and steam-powered sloops helped Norwalk become one of the most productive oystering communities in the Northeast. F. The Trolley Era As railroads linked various cities together the development of the trolley, linking areas within Norwalk, provided increased mobility and made more city areas accessible for residential use. Large, luxurious homes were built along major trolley lines, particularly along East and West Avenues in Norwalk. The early twentieth century was an era of solid growth and progress with development recorded on Norwalk's tax rolls: 1910 Grand List $22 million; 1925 Grand List - $44 million. Manufacturing and shell-' fishing industries prospered beyond expectations. Fabulous beach resorts such as Dorlon's Point and Roton Point Amuse- ment Park offered magnificent waterviews, fine hotels, and both dancing and bathing pavilions which served as "the Mecca for people far and wide . . ., crowds (who) came here by trolley and other conveyances from the Norwalks . . .".* Although most homes were modest, a breed of luxury estates was devel- oped along Norwalk's waterfront-offering panoramic views of the harbor and islands. John Keyser financed the construction of a splendid home on Manresa Island; L.O. Wilson developed a gentlemen's estate with a *"Rowayton" (newspaper article) 1910. Rowayto n Historical Society Archives. 13 shoreline drive on Wilson Point; and James A. Farrell built Rockledge on a 15 acre Rowayton site with aview of.Wilson Cove. 'Yet none of these estates could match the elegance of Elm Park, the 60 room chateau of the Lockwood family. Although much of Norwalk's waterfront was a showcase of estates and cottages, several tracts of waterfront land were reserved for industry. The combination of effective land transportation routes and low land costs fostered the development of large, non-water related factory buildings physically oriented away from the water. Miarshland was filled to expand the amount of buildable land. Eventually, the harbor served as a sewer for many industrial waste materials. The image of the Norwalk waterfront changed from an eighteenth century maritime marketplace to a twentieth century industrial stronghold. In the early 1900's, increasingly poor oyster larvae sets were recorded in Norwalk. The U. S. Fisheries Bureau suggested that unless spawning beds could be maintained with reasonably good sets, Connecticut's oyster industry would be lost. In 1924, the industry's problem of poor larvae sets was compounded by the "typhoid scare", an illness caused by consuming contaminated oysters. Scientific evalua- tions of Norwalk's shellfish revealed heavy metal concentrations probably of copper, zinc, and lead,probably generated by local industries. As a result of these studies, all Norwalk oysters were transferred to beds in other Connecticut and New York communities for filtering. The 1938 hurricane and the silt borne by its waters destroyed about eighty percent of the local shellfish beds as well as many vessels and land- based support facilities. By 1950, the Connecticut oyster industry was near extinction. G. The 1930's to the Present Economic Growth Norwalk maintained a solid industrial base through the Depression era. Aided by Federal work programs.under Roosevelt's New Deal, several hundred people'were employed locally to construct the Merritt Parkway and a city incinerator and to improve Calf Pasture Park. It was the same stable industrial base which guided Norwalk through World War II. During the post-war period, the construction-of new roadways, includ- ing the Connecticut Turnpike and Route 7, coupled with the existing Merritt Parkway made rural areas accessible and prompted suburban growth. In Norwalk, some new residential communities such as Village Creek, an integrated residential development, were carefully planned. However, massive subdivisions on land that was once forest or farm land and winterization of summer cottages were more common. 14 The flood of October, 1955 stymied Norwalk's growth. In approximately seventy-rtwo hours about thirteen inches of rain fell causing over $8 million in business and residential damages. Urban renewal efforts,of the post-flood decade helped rebuild about twenty-six acres of the city. -Since 1960, the Connecticut oyster industry, has recovered. The State's industry, now valued at more than $15 million, is rapidly expanding. This expansion is attributed to two. factors: (1) the abundance of healthy oyster larvae of shellfish as an agricultural product, and (2) improved water quality. Yet, despite this -rowth, a serious Droblem remains. To continue the industry's expansion, additional iand-based support facilities such as processing plants and wharf space ar6 needed. For example, Tallmadge Brothers Oyster Company, based in Norwalk suggests that support facilities expansion could allow the company to double or possibly triple the current operations level*. Ideally, any expansion should occur on the waterfront. How- ever, waterfront land is a physically scarce and increasingly market scarce resource. Unless provisions are made to accomodate and encour- age the industry, it isunlikely that shellfishing, as historically known in Norwalk, can survive. During the past decades, several new industries including Perkin Elmer, Burndy Corporation, and Connecticut Light and Power Company (dL&P) have moved to Norwalk. With the exception of CL&P and the remaining fisheries and petroleum industries, most of Norwalk's waterfront industries are not linked to the water. II. Waterborne Commerce Although few water-based companies remain on Norwalk's waterfront, water transportation remains an effective and economical method for moving heavy, bulky goods long distances. Norwalk Harbor contains approximately five miles of Federal navigation channels. These channels provide a vital link for Norwalk's ten commercial terminals six petroleum tank farms, three sand/gravel storage areas, and one shellfishery. A. Petroleum Facilities Three-fourths of all water-borne commerce on Long Island Sound is petroleum products which includes gasoline, heating oil, asphalt, tar, and various petroleum distillates (i.e.: kerosene, diesel). Six separate terminals line the banks of Norwalk Harbor. Letter from Tallmadge Brothers Oyster Co mpany to Norwalk Redevelop- ment A'gency, March 3, 1980. Copy on.file, Ncrwalk Planning and Zoning Offic e. 15 Storage COMPANY NAME Tanks Capacity @EpL=ent Devine Brothers a 38 Commerce Street 7 15,470 35 Harris & Gans, Co. a 68 Water Street 22 15,350 40 Home Oil Company b 46 Smith Street 4 59,500 25 Manresa Power Station Manres.a Island-CL&P 3 640,000 80c Norwalk Oil Smith Street 20 32,950 2d Pepco 90 Water Street 9 3,570 26 atotal employment of petroleum and sand/gravel divisions btotal employment of Norwalk office;does not included branches Ctotal employment of power station;does not include other Norwalk- based'offices done permanent/full-time;one seasonal/full-time. Norwalk's total petroleum storage capacity is 766,840 barrels. Compared to four other major Connecticut ports, Norwalk has the third greatest number of oil terminals, surpassed only by New Haven and .Bridgeport. Based on storage capacity, Norwalk ranks as fourth among four port communities. Port Communit Storag e Terminals Storage Ca2acitY*- Bridaeport 12 2,599 New Haven 20 10,045 New London 4 1,640 Norwalk 6 767 Stamford 5 NA *1,000 barrels 16 B. Sand and Gravel Facilities Sand and gravel, important commodities in the construction industry, are shipped to Norwalk from Long Island and New Haven. These bulky commodities require extensive waterfront storage areas for easy load- ing. Three waterfront sites on Norwalk Harbor are used for sand and gravel storage. Expansion of these storage areas is limited by surrounding land uses. Company Name Storage Capacity (yards) Employment D'Addario sand-3,000 3 Smith Street gravel-2,000 Devine Brothers sand-1,500 35a Commerce Street gravel-1,500 Water Streetb sand/stone-2,000 atotal employment in sand/gravel and petroleum divisions bproperty leased to Devine Brothers by Harris & Gans Company Among five major Connecticut ports, Norwalk is ranked as tbe,third most active port based on sand/gravel shipments in 1976. By 1978, Norwalk's total sand/gravel shipments increased 308 percent to 138,952 tons. Port Community 1976 Tonnage Percent of Total Bridgeport 22,828 8.5 New Haven 4,762 1.7 New London 4,762 1.7 Norwalk 34,022 12.5 Stamford 205,763 75.6 272,137 - Total tonnage C. Fisheries Facilities Although once one of New Englane!s major shellfishing ports, Norwalk is today the home port for a single company - Tallmadge Brothers Oyster Company. During 1976, the company harvested 3,495 tons of non-prepared shellfish, surpassing the harvests of the State's major commercial ports. TABLE 1 17 Norwalk Fishing Licenses issued by Type: Number % Personal use (non-commercial) 75 66% Marine commercial bait 2 2% Commercial lobster or fish trawler 13 12% Commercial finfish (by methods other than 20 18% trawl net) Lobster Dealers 2 2% TOTAL 112 100% TABLE 2 Fish Caught in Fairfield County & Long Island Sound Fairfield County Long.Island Sound Fish (Type) Total lbs. Caught % Total lbs. caught* % Lobster 221)276 79.0 972,035 39.0 Flounder 5,223 2.0 492,119 20.0 Fluke 618 0.2 48,724 2.0 Blackfish 2,929 1.0 31)094 1.0 Bluefish 2,613 1.0 78,486 3.0 Cod 10 0.1 3)667 0.1 Yellow Tail Flounder 16 0.1 35,808 1.0 Dayfish 40 0.1 21)299 1.0 Herring - 0.0 20,254 1.0 Soup 15,958 6.0 217,516 9.0 Sea Bass 160 0.1 3,925 0.1 Weakfish 1,407 0.5 71,887 3.0 Whiting 0 0.0 116,698 5.0 Squid 3)107 1.0* 87)162 4.0 Lobster Bait 23,572 8.5 190)317 8.0 Unclassified 0 0..0 7)140 0.3 Ling 26 0.1 9,713 0.5 Angler Fish 30 0.1 4)295 0.1 Butterfish 1,180 0.4 43,907 2.0 Crabs 0 0.0 3)465 1.0 278)165 100.0 2)461)1511 100.0 *Total lbs. caught in Connecticut and Long Island sound. 'Source: Eric Smith, State of Connecticut, Dept. of Environmental Protection Marine Fishery Se rvice, 1980 18 Port.Communit Tonnage Harvested Bridgeport 0 New Haven 0 New London 10 Norwalk 39495 Stamford 0 3,505 - Total tonnage According to the Connecticut Commercial Fishermen's Association, ten independent commercial fishermen are based in Norwalk. This indepen- dent fleet, although barely recognized locally, earns each fisherman at least fifty percent of his annual income. In Norwalk, each commer- cial fisherman operates his vessel alone (e.g. with no crew). Vessels are berthed at commercial marina facilities which charge recreational rental fees of up to $1,200 per season. These high fees have forced several fisherman to relocate to other communities. Moreover, commer- cial marinas cannot provide the land-based support facilities needed to store fishing gear.. A group of local fishermen did attempt to establish a fish processing company about 3 years ago (1978). However, plans were abandoned when the monthly costs surpassed $2,000. Little is known about the actual catch made by each local fisherman. State records, however, suggest that in 1980 the average independent commercial fisherman harvested about 4,400 pounds of lobsters as well as several thousand pounds of finfish-(flounder, cod, fluke, black- fish bluefish, weakfish, etc. D. Problems of the Commercial Port Compared to other Connecticut ports, Norwalk Harbor is a shallow water harbor accessible only to small vessels of limited cargo capacity. Large vessels which can carry the load of several small vessels and are more economical and efficient to operate, require deep (35-40 feet), wide (300+ fbet) channels. As a result, when compared to the State's three deepwater port facilities, Norwalk receives fewer tons of commercial goods. Port Communit Channel Tidal Range Tonnage (1975) Bridgeport 35' x 400' 61 2.86 million New Haven 35' x 400' 61 11.43 New London 36' x 600' 61 3.48 Norwalk 12' x 150/200' 71 0.85 Stamford 18' x 200' 71 0.85 19 The Harbor's limited access has been reduced in recent years with the main channel's siltation. As a result, only partially loaded vessels, usually seventy percent filled, were able to enter the port. Dredging,the channel has temporarily eliminated this problem. The passage of vessels into Norwalk Harbor is further compounded by the limited clearance of the New Haven Railroad and Route 136 (Stroffolino) Bridges. This situation is particularly significant since nearly eighty-five percent of the goods shipped to Norwalk Harbor areoff-loaded at the four facilities north of these bridges.* The Railroad Bridge (Vertical clearance 16 feet) and Route 136 Bridge (vertical clearance 8 feet) can be opened to accomodate water traffic. However, the Railroad Bridge can be opened only with twenty-mfour hour advance notice and the approval of the Conrail Station Master. No openings are permitted during morning or late afternoon travel periods or if low tide occurs one hour either side of the scheduled opening. The Route 136 Bridge is opened to all passing traffic upon request. The bridge is, however, closed to all water traffic during.peak morning, noon, and late afternoon travel periods. During the winter, movement in the upper harbor is often delayed by ice jams. Commercial traffic must also contend with seasonal recreational boating traffic. Despite these problems, water transport of commercial goods is Norwalk's second most important method of shipment, surpassed only by truck transport. Percent of Goods Shipped Method of Shipment in/out of Norwalk truck 56.5 water 29.8- railroad 7.0 pipeline 6.5 air 0.2 *.Norwalk Harbor Information Package 26 March 1979, p.56. On file .in Norwalk Planning and To@ing office. 20 ECONOMIC-BASEL Perhaps the most important single determinant of coastal land use. is the enormous development potential the land offers for office and residential constru'ction. This is a rapidly developing trend that has swallowed up traditional marine uses, industrial uses, abandoned and vacant land uses and replaced them with high income land uses. Greenwich harbor, once the site of a commercial port facility is now lined with the new wave of waterfront land uses, and the commercial port has been eliminated. Stamford's Yacht Haven once the largest private commercial boat yard in the City has been developed for a massive office-retail-residential complex, Harbor Plaza. Harbor Plaza counts as its tenant Continental Group. Inc., and advertises "sailing at five, why not?" to lure it's high priced corporate clientele. In Rowayton, boatyards have been replaced by office buildings and condominiums at a rapid rate. The traditional marine uses are now the exception and commercial fishermen are forced to look for more hospitable harbors. Lee Hirtog, owner of the Marineworks, a boat- yard in Rowayton, believes that the development of the Five Mile River area is the result of the anxiety of people who originally worked to assemble land parcels with the hope of expanding their marine businesses. However, as he explained at the March 30, 1981 CAM meeting, only a certain number of marine businesses can operate/ survive because: 1) larger yards tend to absorb the business 2) high quality dealerships are not avail@ble to small yards. As a result, many operators seek diversification in order to sustain their business through the winter. Diversification may consist of boat- building, boat sales or Pven an office building, apartments, or some combination. This trend has been reinforced by: 1) the fuel situdtion since 1973 which made it more difficult for small boatyards to.supply their customers and which has made boating an increasingly expensive form of recreation, and 2) the success of other waterfront ventures such as.those in Stamford. Greenwich, and Westport TABLE I Waterfront Industries - '-Tumber 6: !@@oy Industries Niumber of sic (Non-Water Dependent) Industries Employment 09 Fisheries* 1 38 20 food and kindred products 3 81 2/2 Textile mill products 1 NA 23 Apparel & other finished products 1 5 made from fabrics & similar materials 25 Furniture and fixtures 3 167 27 Printing, publishing, and allied 6 94 industries Chemical and allied products 346 30 Rubber and miscellaneous plastics I NA products 31 Leather and leather products 1 NA 32 Stone, clay, -loss and concrete 1 2 products 33 Primary metal industries 1 5 34 Fabricated metal products, except 4 107 ordinance machinery and transpor- tation equipment. 35 Machinery, except electrical 5 710 36 Electrical machinery, equipments 6 303 and supplies Transportation equipment 1 9 23 Professional, scientific, and 5 282 controlling instruments, photo- graphic and optical goods; watches and clocks 42 Dilotor freight transportation and I 'NA warehousing 47 Transportation services 3 98 10 ',,Tholesale trade 2 121 52 Building materials, hardware, farm 2 .8 equipment dealers 53 Retail trade - general merchandise 55 Automobile dealers and gasoline a 23 stations .56 Apparel & accessory*& stores 1 8 57 Furniture, home furnishings, and 1 6 equipment stores 58 Eating and drinking places 14 39 59 Miscellaneous business services 7 31 .62 S.ecurity & commodity brokers, 1 3 dealers, exchange 65 Real estate 8 12 72 Personal services @3 8 73 Miscellaneous business services 6 9 7.5 Automobile repair, automobile *svcs. 6 37 T.'@E,L- "'ontinued 76 'Iscellaneous repiair services 4 00 U, "liscellaneous services 1 TOTAL 109 2,564 *Fishim, indust-ry with office 0 emDloyment only. S4 SIC-Standard Industrial.Clas .1-fication Source: P 6. Z Survey 1981 777-777 -0, 1. WIT- -e, V5- 6,,1:, W7 r Waterfront Industries - Numbers & Employment Industries Number of SIC later Dependent) Industries Employment 9 Fisheries 1 40 29 Petroleum refining and related 5 130 industries 29/32 Petroleum, refining and related 1 35 industries/stone, clay, glass and concrete products 32 Stone clay, -lass, and concrete 1 12 -products 44 Tlater transportation 20 164 50/49 Wholesale trade/electric, -gas 1 65 and sanitary services (54) Fish (sea food) markets* 7 51 TOTAL 36 497 *Seafood markets are not necessarily dependent on Norwalk Commercial Fishing for their supply. Source: P & Z Survey, 1981 TABLE 3 Waterfront Industrial Survey - Land Value & Taxes Industries- Total Land Total S I C (Nion Water D@2,pendent) Value* Taxes 09 Fisheries $ 143,517 $ 22,124 0 Construction other than 92,813 4,929 building construction general contractors 20 Food and'kindred products 296,671 25,151 22 Textile Products 13,382 41,215 23) Apparel and other finished 9,504 1,283 products 25 Furniture and fixtures 311,520 45,757 27 Printing, publishing, and 291,332 23,883 allied industries 28 Chemicals and allied products @,374-,574 148)789 30 Rubber and miscellaneous 39,914 6,550 plastics products 31 Leather and leather products 105,848 9,266 33 Primary metal industries 78,557 7,359 34 Fabricated metal products, 326,222 30,612 except ordnance machinery and transportation equipment. 35 Machinery, except electrical 872,670 10,538 36 Electrical machinery, equip- 676,649 1961-407 ments and supplies -3 Professional, scientific, and 178,630 .15,831 controlling instruments; photo- graphic, and optical goods, watches and clocks 42 Motor Freight transportation 300@795 20,014 and warehousin- 47 Transportation services 257,648 13,26-0 50 Electric, gas and sanitary 641,689 28,639 services 52 Building materials, hardware 24,041 2,857 and farm equipment dealers 53-t Retail trade - general 19,323 ),036 55 Automotive dealers and gasoline 698,905 40,444 service @tations 56 Apparel & accessory & stores 20,889 2,878 57 Furniture, home @urnishings, 105,320 11 415 and equipment stores 58 Eating and drinking places 538,083 41,215 59 'Miscellaneous retail stores 99,975 7,937 65 Real estate 73 Miscellaneous business services 196,334 111345 75 Automobile repair, automobile 433,770 19,792 services, and garages 76 Hiscellaneous repair services , _91-5014 10,800 lk-Approximate 1972 land values based bn 8,163,079 805,475 Norwalk'Assessor's Records Source: P&Z Survey, 1981 TABLE 4 Waterfront Industrial Survey - Land value & taxes Industries Tota. I Tand Total S I C (Water Dependent) Value Taxes 09 Fisheries $ 64,464 $ 3,716 29 Petroleum refining and 544,267 47,031 related industries 29/32 Petroleum refining and 168,119 8,157 related industries: stone,clay, glass, and concrete products 32 Stone, clay, glass and 57,767 2,420 concrete products 44 Water transportation 1,942,200 119,764 50/49 Wholesale trade/electric 1,526,349 329,101 54 Fish (seafood) markets 698,905 17,264 TOTAL 5,002,071 527,453 Approximate 1972 land values based on Norwalk Assessor's Records. Source: P & Z Survey, 1981 Oysterboay EBEN A. THACHER 21 Gordon Goodlet, planner with the Stamford Area Commerce and Industry Association stressed the regional implications of the economics of waterfront land use, He noted: 1) office development will not bypass Norwalk forever and, in fact, has beaun to occur at 0 '21lerritt-Seven, Prudential (Connecticut Ave.) and Rowayton 2) the landowner is faced with a difficult choice which can be influenced by restrictions and/or incentives 3) Stamford and Greenwich do not exhibit the best land use. The best land use requires coordinated planning and wise use of coastal resources. In an effort to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the economic base of the coastal area,, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a survey of commercial and industrial properties on the L waterfront. The survey results as presented in Table 1 indicates that there are 112 non-wat'er dependent industries and commercial establishments with an employment of 2,585 as contrasted with only 37 water dependent industries and commercial establishments with an employment of 490. The major waterfront employers who are non-water dependent are part of the machinery manufacturing group (SIC 35) which employs over 700 people and is represented by large firms such as the Norwalk Company, ,.iash Engineering. Second in employment is the chemical and allied products group and third, electrical machinery. Water dependent industries are led by, the water transportation industry (including marinas) with 164 employees. followed by petro.. leum refining and related industries and electric gas and sanitary services. The fishing industry represented by Tallmadge Brothers 0 employs approximately 40 persons. Table 3 presents land values and taxes for water dependent and non- water dependent industries and commercial establishments, The 1972 assessed value of waterfront industry (adjusted to 100%) is $8,821,247 representing $854,586 in annual taxes. Water dependent industries represent $5,002,071 in 1972 lsnd values and $527,453 tax revenue. The enormous value of water dependent land uses represents a resource as well as a potential cause of continuing conflict as individual property owners choose to "cash-in" the value of their waterfront land by selling out 'to non-water dependent land uses. 22 The market analysis of the South Norwalk Revitalization Area provides economic base data for the entire region as well as Norwalk and the South Norwalk neighborhood. The conclusions of the market analysis as prepared by Economics Research Association (ERA) are that there is a strong potential for retail, office and residential uses as well as a Maritime Center/a hotel/conference center, and certain entertainment uses. Retail Market Analysis The South 'Norwalk Revitalization program estimates that a potential exists for 86,000 square feet of additional retail space by" 1990. The retail uses mentioned as having the greatest market Dotential are specialty retailing. restaurants. furniture and home furnishings. But. the study notes that retail competition in the region is exten- sive due to the large number of discount department stores in Norwalk, specialty retailing in Westport and convenience & comparison shopping in Darien' and New Canaan. Stamford. with its 800.000 souare foot mall containing Macy's and Penny's and the existing Bloomingdale's and Lord & Taylor department stores offer additional competition within a ten mile radius. The study estimates that with the South Norwalk Revitalization program in effect, and despite the regional competition retail space would grow from an additional 12 000 square feet in 1980 to 86,000 square feet in 1990. An added factor is the internal market that would be established by the addition of new residential, office and entertainment/cultural activi ty. office *Market AnalZsis The conclusions of ERA are that the region can support an increase in office space and that some of this will take place in South Norwalk. Major findings of their study: Market analysis for office uses indicates that the re 'gion can support an increase in office space, and that South Norwalk can play a role in office development. Projections Z oJ_ office*employment in @he Norwalk Labor Market Area, trends in office development in surrounding towns and a survey of-regional office market trends show the follow- ing: e About 7 million square feet of space has been built since 1970 in Greenwich, Stamford, New Canaan, Norwalk, Darien, Westport, and Wilton. Another 10 million square feet is under construction or planned. 23 Norwalk has about 645,000 square feet of office space, about 400,000 square feet of which was con- structed after 1960. The vacancy rate in new office buildings in Norwalk has decreased from 22 percent in March 1978 to 7 percent in March 1979. due to large part to rental of space at 50 Washington Street. Approximately 4.6 million square feet of corporate office space is under construction or planned for development in Norwalk: The Merritt 7 Corporate Park, with an eventual size of 3.9 million square feet, the Prudential Fisher complex (400,000 sq.ft.), and the Singer development (100,000 sq.ft.). 1980-1985 1985-1990 Annual demand 4,300-7,000 sq.ft. 11,300-17,000 sq.ft. Cumulative 22,000-45,000 sq.ft. 80,000-130,000 sq.ft. supportable space Rent levels for renovated space in a significantly upgraded downtown setting could range from $7.00 to $9.00 a scuare foot (in constant dollars). To over- come the curret image problem of the area rent levels may initially have to be on the lower end of the range with rates increasing in relation ship to public and private improvements. Source: South Norwalk Revitalization Program; Anderson, Notter Finegold and Economics Research Associates 24 Residential Narket _Ai@a@@sis The residential market continues to show some signs of health, despite high interest rates. At the present time over 200 units of new housing are under construction in Norwalk, and the 1980 census indicates a falling household size which will further increase the 'deman'd for small units. The ERA market conclusions are as follows: An analysis for residential growth in Norwalk and the surroundina communities of Westport, Wilton, Weston, 0 Darien, New Canaan, and Stamford, indicates the follow- ing: e An average of 350 housing units were built in Norwalk each year during the last decade. a Since 1971, 1368 condominium units in 13 develop- ments have been built in Norwalk. At present 930 condominium units are planned or are under construc- tion in Norwalk. Norwalk is the likely location for future multi- family residential development because most of the surrounding towns are zoned for'single family housing. 9 There was an average vacancy rate of one percent in several apartment complexes surveyed in 1979. a Assuming an overall publicand private sector revital- ization plan is implemented, an annual housing demand is projected for 70 units a year through.1985 and 1990. These figures only reflect housing demand and do not include.housing need (i.e., subsidized dwellings). There is a larye u@met demand for rental aT)artments by young professionals in the Southwestern reaion of Connecticut. This represents a potential market for aPartments and lofts converted from industrial/ commercial use. 0 There is also a potential demand for loft space by artists in the region. Source:- South Nongalk Revitalization Program; Anderson, .,7otter,, 0 71negold & Economics Rlese@rch Associates. C) 25 ,faritime Center 1.1arket Anal -yj is :.Iarket analysis for the proposed 'Maritime Center indicotes that between 450,000 and 570,bOO people could visit an attrectivelv planned Center on the South Norwalk waterfront. For the 'Iari'time Center to function as a viable recreation. education and entertain- ment attrac@tion, the aquarium and marine history museum should be within either the same or adjoining structures. thus facilitating a 71critical mass," water-oriented attraction. An independent marine history museum would probably have a limited market appeal. -Since the South Forwalk waterfront does not have the physical capa- I city to accommodate another Mystic Village or South S@reet Seaport, a combined aquarium and marine history museum offers the best solution for attracting marine-oriented vi'sitors. The resident market areas for the proposed-South Norwalk Naritime Center are: Primary market areas: Fairfield County, part of New Haven county, Westchester County, part of Putnam County. Secondary market areas: In Connecticut, the rest of New Haven k1ounty and part of Litchfield County. In New York, part of Dutchess County, Rockland County, part 6f Orange County, and the DronxI and Bergen County in New Jersey. Although part of New Haven County is within an hour's drive of South Norwalk, much of it is also within an hour of '_Mystic Acuarium, and Mystic Seaport. Therefore most of New Haven County has been included in the secondary market area. which has a lower penetre.tion ,rate in order to adjust for the effect of competition from Mystic. The population of the primary market is estimated at 1,835,000 in 1978, increasing to 1,846,000 in 1980, and 1,876.000 in 1985. The go,oulation of the secondary m@arket is estimated at 3.573.000 in 19-73, decreasing to 3,500,000 in 1980, and 3,526,000 in 1985. The decline is due to a continuation of the ponulation decline in the BIronx. 'rhe total resident market, inclu@in'g primary and secondary market areas, is projected*to remain constant at approximately 5.4 million. @Market penetration rates were-based upon experiences at other acuariums and marine history museums and are used to estimate the percenta-e of -resident and tourist/visitor market populations which would visit the proposed Maritime Center in South Norwalk in a given year. Attendance has been projected for a typical operating year between 1982 and 1985. The 1935 resident and tourist/visitor mark et is used to calculate this attendance. 2 A rance of penetration rates are applied: 13 to 15 percent of the 0 primary market area population, 3 to 4 percent of the secondary market area population, and 2 to 3 percent of the tourist/visitor mrarket. The penetration rate of the secondary market area is conservative, and reflects the competing aquariums and marine history museum (Mystic Sea-port) wi@hin 100 miles. The penetration rate of the tourist visitor market acknowledges that many visitors are on business or are only passing through to another destination. Attendance forecasts for a typical operating- year are as follows-- Resident market 350,000 to 420,000 Visitor market 100,000 to 150,000 Total Attendance 450,000 to 570,000 Conclusion The overall impression is that the Norwalk waterfront represents one of the most lucrativ6 areas for land development in the Southwestern region, but that this development undoubtably will be at the expense of losing.traditional water dependent industries, ITT the commercial port, fishing industries, private boat clubs, marinas and boatyards. The choice of encouraging new development with its higher property taxes, employment, and image, versus the traditional land uses which have a lower economic return will not be easy. 27 T -,',IC [email protected]: I'17-IG-11BORHOOD E_ DISYRICTS JS7 & ECONTO.f A. Rowayton Comparison of 1929 and 1981 zoning maps of Rowayton shows that zoning has remained essentially the same. The largest change in zoning.involved the Farrell estate which was rezoned from residen- tial to Research and Development in an effort to permit some corpor ate development yet retain the village character of the community. other zoning changes reduced the bulk of buildings on Rowayton Avenue in the Business #3 Zone to preserve views of the water, and changed lot area requirements in the single family zone. The busi- ness #3 zone was established as a strip along the Five Mile River leaving the rest of the area as residential zones. Despite the continued existence of the original zoning, land use in Rowayton has changed dramatically. once an oystering village with three shipyards, Rowayton was a quiet residential community with many small family farms. This pristine village was noted for its panoramic views which spread "out before us like some beautiful painting showing its charming Five Mile River".*. With the construction of Roton Point Amusement Park; in the late 1800's, this quiet community was transformed into a recreational "Mecca for people far and wide". Rowayton, the resort community, attracted visitors from as far away as New York-as it was accessible 7 by trolley, train, and steamship. Magnificent mansions and neat cottages were built throughput the district while boatyards lined the river bank. Today, Rowayton retains its small town character typified by a some- what dense mixture of neat cottages, small fainhouses, Victorian mansions, and contemporary dwellings. In the past two decades some controversial changes have occurred in the business zone along the Five Mile River. The pristine water view is almost totally blocked F by large buildings which provide glimpses of the river through narrow corridors. Many commercial boatyards have been replaced by executive offices and condominiums with a few private slips. The businesses sometimes line both sides of Rowayton Avenue and have been established at two sites on Wilson Cove. Although the two businesses on Wilson Cove do not conform with the intended residential uses prescribed by zoning, they both offer b6ating opportunities and thus buffer the negative impact of lost boating opportunities on the river. Unless Rowayton's remaining marine uses are preserved through zoning, it is unlikely that the small town maritime character of Rowayton will long remain. *"Rowayton" (newspaper article), 1910. Rowayton Historical Society Archives. Ibid,. 28 Despite P"owayton's rapid development, several parcels of.ope-n space land, both private and public, remain. IL is lilkely that the two publicly o@,med tracts (total area 10.9 ac.) and the two district owned tracts (total area 15.4 ac.) will remain undeveloped. The two land tracts with the most uncertain futures are the I'lart Property on Farm Creek and the Roton Point Club on the south central face of the Rowayton peninsula. Currently, zoning permits extensive residential development on both sites - up to five units on the Hart Property peninsula and 100 units on the Roton Point site. If the Hart Property peninsula is developed, then much of the remaining Farm Creek tidal iarsh will be dest-royed,and what marsh remains will be of poor quality. If the @,!,oton*Point site is developed, Rowayton will lose one of the largest tracts of open space on its waterfront. It is likely that such major waterfront development projects will alter the community character. The following issues have been identified within Rowayton's districts and neighborhoods: Rowayton Avenue -(Opportunity Area) lack of comprehensive business district plan relating parking, land use, vehicular traffic, sidewalk, river access, and amenities lar-e number of conversions of boatyards to office buildings lack" of visual access to waterfront lack of public access to waterfront in spite of Pinkney Property Farm Creek Hart Property - need to protect last remaining open space lack of public access ?9 Roton Point (opportunity Area) lack of public access high development potential for multifamily housing need for historic preservation of remaining Roton Point Amusement Park buildings and critical shorefront areas Bell Island - need for historic preservation and/or design review to protect unique character lack of public access - high risk from storms,"floods, - zoning and land use incompatible Additional Sources: - 1973 Master Plan of Land Use - Topic Study - Rowayton Master Plan (Pratt Institute) - Master Plan of Parks & Open Space 1977 - Five Mile River Estuary Study Vr@ I--) wo 7T ,iic Q,. 6p Mt-l '17 1 -.7 2 j OFFICE R"I Ok FAMI LY TWO-FIVE FAMILIES FIVE + FAMILIES NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL MARINE COMMERCIAL PUBLIC INSTITUTION PRIVAT E INSTITUTION PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING & ZONING COMMISr ROWAYTON LAND USE NORWALK, CONNECTICUT FEET VO0 Km MILES @q' I -1 t 70 % n*X.: M7- 'TI f % 77'@L TT 14 Zw;. n. CAI AA RESIDENCE A RESIDENCE B RESIDENCE BUSINESS NO. 3 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R. D-) PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIC COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NORWALK, CONNECTICUT ROWAYTON ZONING .FEET AOO .0 1000 MILES 0 30 B. South Norwalk Originally the City of South Norwalk, this dense, urban area,is typical of the tight fabric of older American cities. Land uses vary from lot to lot. older manufacturing industries in large mill buildings have given way to new high-technology concerns end small k__ C@ diversified incubator industries. The 1929 zoning map established large areas of the waterfront as a "Heavy Industrial Zone" and that zoning classification remains to this date. Interior sections of. South Norwalk were designated "Light Industrial" and "Business No. 2". Only the Shorefront Park area. Woodward, Lincoln and Quintard Avenues were zoned exclusively as residential areas. The.large Village Creek salt marsh bordered by Meadow Street and Woodward Avenue were zoned for Heavy Industry in this first zoning map, and much of that zoning classification remains today. While the zoning which was established fifty years'ago has changed little in South Norwalk, the land uses have changed. South Norwalk is no longer the largest manufacturing or employment center in the 'city. Port facilities such as the Gulf Oil Tank Farm on Water Street, the Mobil Oil Facility on Ely Avenue, the commercial dock at Wilson Point have been closed. Large mill-type buildings including the Norwalk Ice Factory on Monroe Street, the Norwalk Lock Company on Marshall Street, and the R & G Corset Factory on 'Marshall Street are no longer used for large scale manufacturing industries, but now house a wide variety of small scale industrial and commercial enter- prises. Those manufacturing industries that do remain such as Nash Engineering, the Norwalk Company, Beldoch Popper, and King Industries have modernized their facilities and no longer have the harmful impact on the environment they once had. Problems remain, however. The industrial uses such as the junk yards surrounding Village Creek continue to have a harmful impact on the tidal marsh and the zoning map suggests that much of the rest of the marsh is available-for industrial development, a conflict with State D.E.P. regulations and Coastal Area Management Policies. The estimated population of South Norwalk in 1980 was 6.202 and within the South Norwalk area are two neighborhoods targeted for Community Development Assistance (South -,vlain and Springwood Ely) because of the high concentration of low incomeand minority persons and deteriorated housing stock. The South Norwalk Revitalization Program (1979) is the basis for the renewal now underway in South Norwalk. The program consists of $14 million in private investment and [email protected] million in public investment in phase IA. Street improvements are in place .on,Washington Street including brick sidewalks, granite curbs and appropriate street furniture. A new parking deck at Haviland Street is nearing final design, and plans are well advance towards a Haritime Center (museum and educational/scientific center). 31 i', private developer is committed to major rehabilitation and reuse of 16'buildings on Washington Streetas part of the Washington-South Main Urban 'Renewal Plan. Subsequent Dhases of the South Norwalk revital- ization program call for elimina@ion of the oil tank farms on Water Street and its replacement with a waterfront hotel. This area will be examined in detail in the sections that follow especially in Section V, Opportunity Areas. South Norwalk: Summary of Issues The followin.- issues for South Vorwalk have been identif"ied: Landfill - Washington Street (Opportunity Area) - future major development opportunity at Landfill-Reed/Putnam-railyards - Maritime Center Plans,- Central Focus - lack of public access along Water Street - zoning and land use incompatibility - historic"preservation - Washington Street and individual buildings throughout factory district hazardous waste control - landfill - declining Washington Street and South and North Main Streets' business district - South Norwalk Revitalization Program - poor traffic circulation under Railroad bridge and throughout - constricted channel because of draw bridges - need for revitalization adjacent to railroad station - -combined sewers potential for new or rehabilitated multifamily housing Water Street Area (Opportunity Area) - lack of public access - high potential for major new land uses (eg. office buildings & commercial developments) on vacant and underutilized parcels of land - threatened oyster induitry, recreational marinas and boat clubs -door 07 @A ty F70NE FAMILY EITWO- FIVE FAMILIES FIVE FAM I L I ES -1 vt/l I HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER @ tik MARINE COMMERCIAL PUBLIC INSTITUTION PRIVATE INSTITUTION UTILITY HEAVY MANUFACTURIN LIGHT MANUFACTURIN E OFFIC PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PR I VATE OPEN SPACE F4,1 . .......... ................ \ zl 21 A 41. K J -d @/ lk@ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NORWALK, CONNECTICAff FIXT -u* 0 SOUTH NORWALK LAND USE MILES . 0 4 f7 ago- AAA RESIDENCE r-7-1 Z: ---, AA RESIDENCE 8 RESIDENCE C RESIDENCE D RESIDENCE L-J BUSINESS NO. 1 r-j BUSINESS NO. 2 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL N 0.1 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL t;ja 7'.-. - @., L. - , nA LE 3 A @111@ Al ve NO IN ON ............ . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 3011, Aff lbwl@ n A4111 -X X4 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NORWALK, CONNECTICUT FEET ALK ZON ING MILES 314 SOUTH NORW 32 Wilson Cove (Opportunity Areas) - incompatible zoning and land use at Wilson Cove Yacht Club - Moreland property with potential for cluster housing and historic preservation Wilson Point potential.for cluster development or subdivision of remaining large parcels Villaze@Cr(@q@ (Opportunity Area) - tidal marsh heavily impacted by adjacent industries disturbance of residential areas by hunting - potential for hazardous waste-spills elanresa Island (opportunity Area) - proposed conversion from oil to coal powered/bulk-storage - lack of public access - visual intrusion - thermal pollution - impact of fly ash dump on water quality future use of port facility Additional Sources: -South Norwalk Revitalization Program & Anderson,-Notter, Finegold E. Economics Research Associates, 1980 -Ulorwalk 14aritime Center Study, Jos. Wetzel Associates, 1980 cter @Ja_ Plan of Land User 1973 '-!aster Plan of Parks Open Space, 1977 -South "Norwalk Traffic Parking Study, 1979 -Nonqalk Harbor 11anagement Study, 1978 33 C. 'Norwalk Center Tbe center of Norwalkl, once also a separate City like South Norwalk, is very similar to its counterpart down the river. With a population of 2,00) the land use patterns reflect a dense urban fabric -of commer- cial, industrial and residential uses. Four of the five commercial ports in the City are located here,.in the upper harbor. Norwalk oil, Home Oil, Devine Brothers (sand and gravel) and D'Addario (asphalt) ship via barge up the circuitous route to crowded locations. (see ,4aterborne Commerce). The coastal boundary encompasses significant upland areas including the Academy Chapel neighborhood which receives Community Development and Housing Assistance Funding. Several important historic areas. also line the upper harbor. The Lockwood-Mathews Mansion. (National Register of'Historic Places)the Chapel Street houses, Wall Street. (Hour Square),the Green (State 'Historic District), East Avenue. Zoning patterns in the center of Norwalk are for the most part the same as.those established 50 years ago. The waterfront is'zoned "Heavy Industrial" reflecting, perhaps an anticipated influx of major manufacturing and port facilities. In fact, however, only 1070 of the upper harbor waterfront is used for heavy industry today. Upland areas adjacent to the harbor are zoned for multifamily residential) commercial, and restricted business (a new zone recently revised to include incentives for hi-storic preservation). llorwalk Center: Summary of Issues The Coastal Area Management Advisory Committee has identified the following issues for Norwalk Center: - uncertain future of commercial port facilities - lack of public access and parks on the waterfront r - lack of visual corridors to the waterfront - zoning and land use incompatibility historic areas - Norwalk Green, Hour Square, in need of preservation - building setbacks and height controls needed to protect and enhance view - hazardous waste control to prevent spills from oil tank farms, chemical Wall Street business center needs -strengthening industr,, - potential conflict of recreational and commercial boating - traffic on East Avenue and other arteries Yankee Doodle Bridge congestion - potential Pulse Point/Railroad Station coordination to improve mass transit - large non-water dependent industries on the waterfront - combined sewers - potential for new or rehabilitated multi-family housing F Vi@ 'i J', 1@ :ft 7 J\ INA f 4 11 "All 1C .4, Tjj)@3ip* 4@A I IL I A IL 1-5 -4-- -7 al F@ ONE FAMILY LLJ TWO - FIVE FAM I LY FIVE + FAMiLIES HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL . ....... ... NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER CIAL MARINE COMMERCIAL PUBLIC INSTITUTION PRIVATE INSTITUTION UTILITY HEAVY MANUFACTURING LIGHT MANUFACTURING 'j, OFFICE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COASTAL -MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIC NORWALK, CONNECTICUT A NORWALK CENTER LAND USE FEET 400 0 1000 MILES 0 Alp IP t' Z -M rIll I @'q qj) IiiT. wN, @o' i 4 ............. m ko -N 7- AAA RESIDENCE 8 RESIDENCE 'JV D RESIDENCE BUSINESS NQ1 F BUSINESS NO.2 SINESS (B.R.) RESTRICTED BU I'M LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NO 1 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL lk V/1 COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING I ZONING commissio ALK CENTER ZO NORWALK, CONNECTICUT A NORW NING FEET 0 1000 MILES 34 Additional Sources: 'Nlorwalk Survey of industry, 1980 Norwalk Overall Economic Development Program, 1980 TOPICS 14aster Plan of Land Use, 1973 i4aster Plan of Parks & Open Space, 1977 Norwalk Transit District Pulse Point Study, 1981 D. East Norwalk This community was, during most of its history, an agricultural district. One of the largest family homesteads, Taylor Farm, stretched from the east bank of the Norwalk River south to what is now Calf Pasture'Point. Some residential communities were built in the Fort Point and Seaview Avenue areas. Today upon much of the fertile agriculture lands moderate to upper income housing has been constructed. Several marinas and boatyards; operate along the river's edge. Calf Pasture Beach and Shady Beach provide city residents with water-based recreational opportunities while Veterans Park provides a unique view of the harbor and Sound. Taylor Farm is maintained as meadow. Some waterfront condominium construction has occurred in East Norwalk at Vantage Point and Dorlon terrace. East 1,7,or@-7alk: Summary or' Issues The following issues have been identified f6r each of the following areas within East Norwalk: Fort Point-Van Zant-Veterans Park inappropriate use of Veterans Park for non-water related recreation lack of waterfront access from Ft. Point Street neighborhood deteriorated housing poor traffic circulation qspecially on Fort Point Street potential development of truck war,ehouse and adjacent waterfront properties for office and/or condominiums small boatyards for sale-rapid change in land use possible incompatibility of zonin@ and land use need to improve neighborhood commercial districts-Ft. Point, Van Zant, indescriminate filling of shoreline Liberty Square Cove Avenue (Opportunity Area) - incompatibility of zoning and land use small boatyard may convert to condominiums - conflict over use of city street ends - poor traffic circulation especially during summer months - historic preservation especially Lovejoy Oyster House *see attached sheet 35 Canfield Island Shorehaven - Cove 1,1arina (Opportunity Area) -largest tidal wetland in city zoned for development as single family housing -lack of public access to Canfield Island Creek -Shorehaven Golf Course zoned for single family development -illegal filling of wetlands and adjacent uplands potential for additional public open space -deteriorated bridge to Canfield Island -need to evaluate shoreline stabilization along Shorehaven Avenue -disturbance of residential areas by water skiing, hunting -potential for major new commercial or residential development at Cove Marina -open space land at Taylor Farm undefined & subject to misuse -incoherent collection of parks/open space lands -land of public boating facilities -inbonsistant zoning and land use Additional Sources: Mathews Park Master Plan, 1981 Veterans Park Master Plan, 1981 Master Plan of land Use, 1973 ' viaster.Plan of Parks & Open Space, 1977 Norwalk Harbor Management Study, Peter Pelligrino, PHD E. The Islands A unique feature of Long Island Sound, the Norwalk Island Archipelago represents a critical environment and ecosystem for oystering, fin- fishing and tidal wetlands. The,islands were rezoned in 1974 from B Residence toIsland Conservation Zone which permits a density of 1/2 dwelling unit /acre of land. The housing may be clustered and wetlands and natural features are to be preserved. Three of the islands are owned by the City of Norwalk: Shea Island, The Plains, and Grassy Island as permanent open space. The Islands have regional and national significance as recognized in the Long Island Sound Heritage Bill introduced in Congress in 1978. They have been cited as an important open space preservation area in the State of Connecticut's Plan of Conservation and Develop- ment and the Long Island Sound Study. The future of the remaining privately owned islands remains in doubt. however Chirrmons and Sheffield Island are particularly vulnerable to develo-oment because of their size and location, While development on the islands would be extremely c6stly in terms of utilities. v rI J;. 7@ 'j Oil L J J. 'IN A@. r j/_ ON "Ti T T j X", IL T AX. V 'A M, 0" J F ONE FAMILY TWO- FIVE FAMILIES FIVE FAMILIES F- ilk... HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 11@ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL .... MARINE COMMERCIAL PUBLIC INSTITUTION PRIVATE INSTITUTION UTILITY ININ HEAVY MANUFACTURING ....... ... ............. A MANUFACTURIN .... LIGHT G OFFICE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NORWALK, CONNECTICM A EAST NORWALK LAND USE Fm 0 Ulull a A V a. H, P. .4 v, o-"! 4\ . ....... ...... AAA RESIDENCE ...... ......... g AA RESIDENCE A RESIDENCE .... ... 14@ B RESIDENCE ....... ...... C RESIDENCE D RESIDENCE BUSINESS N0.1 @IGHT INDUSTRIAL NO.1- PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NORWALK, CWNECTICUT A& EAST NORWALK ZONING FEET mILES 36 transportation, and regulatory requirements, itis not inconceivable that a luxury summer or year-round development might be built there. An outstanding feature of the Islands is the unique heron rookery on Chimmons Island, a valuable sanctuary for these birds that is unequalled in Long island Sound. The 1860's Lighthouse on Sheffield Island of stone construction is an important coastal historic landmark marking the entry to Norwalk harbor. Tavern Island's year-round mansion built by Broadway producer Billy Rose lends character and style to this small island. Finally, the island archipelago represents an outstanding coastal resource in Long Island Sound. The 1973 Master Plan of Land Use identified the entire island archi- pelago for open space acquisition. In 1977 the Master Plan of Parks & Open Space called for the acquisition of Chimmons and Sheffield Tslands as public open space, and the protection of the remaining islands as private open space. The 1,@orwalk Islands: Summary 'of Issues The following issues have been identified for the Islands: - lack of public access - uncertain future of Chimmons Island heron rookery historic preservation of Sheffield Island lighthouse, Billy Rose House on Tavern Island critical environment/ecosystem for oystering, finfishing, and open space high aesthetic value & coastal resource threatened zoning permits development 1/2 unit/acre N 0 R W S J, A N A @.K Ay ls@ .,- '-, 4,.,, C, 0 Z 37 T,7 ATEP OUALI7,7 6: NATUPAL Fr,:ATUP.FS T,,7ater'quality is the measure of a pollutant whicb occurs in a water segment.. Based upon the measured pollution level in a water segment, the water is classified and specific uses are permitted and/or prohibited. Uses may include swimming, finfishing, shellfishing, and boating. Water quality reflects nearby land use patterns and the pressures which these land uses impose on the water system. Norwalk's rivers and harbors and the Long Island Sound basin served many disposal functions. Historically, local waterways have served as a community's sewer system. Norwalk typically dumped raw or partially treated sewage into the harbors; industries disposed of chemical waste materials; and utility companies and industries have used local water for cooling processes. In response to this degreda- tion of waterTvays,-federal and state governments have instituted pollution control programs designed to eliminate pollution from water- ways expanding the scope of permitted uses. To r'educe the water quality problem, Norwalk operates a secondary treatment plant capable of removing about 90 percent of the gener- ated organic wastes from the system. However'. the plant is fed by a combined sewer system, that is, a system which carries both sanitary sewage and storm water runoff from city streets. Studies conducted in the late 1970's indicated that the principal source of water quality degredation in Norwalk Harbor is the combined sewer overflow of municipal and industrial discharges which have contaminated harbor sediments and reduced dissolved oxygen supplies. As a result of combined sewers. when a substantial amount of rain falls, the plant's treatment capacity is surpassed and the entire load is discharged directly into the river, This overflow increases human and environmental health risks. Norwalk's treatment nlant was upgraded in 1981 to include supplemental treatment facilit ies. Plans to lay separated sewer systems throughout the City Will result in the channelization of storm water runoff directly to the river while sanitary sewage is funneled to the treatment facility. f ....... ... PEACH IS CALF PASTURE 18 m 6-/ H 0 YT S IS BETTS IS.,,' !,'@l':.,CtDAR HAMMOCKS GRASSY JB= CMIMMONS TREE HAMMOCK ........... 1,.. _-LITTLE TAVERN SANDY HAMMOCK DEEP HOLE HAMMOCK rAVERN 15 RAM IS CROW IS C 0 Fps IS DOG IS WOOD IS, EL HAMMOCK LITTLE AMMOCK" ONE FAMILY THE PLAINS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE X PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ........... .................. SHEFFIELD IS IF COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING A ZONING COMMISSION THE ISLANDS LAND USE NORWALK, 0ONNECTICUT IF WE MILES Z . ......... ...... PEACH IS CALF PASTURE IS S IS j BETTS IS," L@DAR HAMMOCKS GRASSY I ............. CHINIMOHS TREE HAMMOCK,:::, SANDY A.MOCK'.. DEEP HOLE HAMMOCK X., ",._.LITTLE TAVERN .... TAVERN 15 RAM IS CROW Is J:X %X.: COPPS is DOG Is ....... WOOD Is EL HAMMOCK LITTLE,H THE PLAINS SHEFFIELD IS ISLAND CONSERVATI PLANNING A ZONING COMMISSION COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NORWALK, CONNECTICUT AAL THE ISLANDS-ZONING PEET 0 38 Closure of the city's landfill in 1980, has forced Norwalk to accept the costly option of transporting garbage to the town of New Milford, approximately 35 miles away. Although this disposal method is adequate today, it is unlikely that inland communities can or will desire to accomodate the city's garbage indefinitely. Alternative disposal and resource recovery programs must be developed. The landfill site, although not physically stable is the proposed site for a commercial and waterfront park complex. The following water quality issues have been identified: - Is water quality at some sites so deteriorated that additional water-based activities should be dis couraged? - Where does water quality need improvement to allow additional recreational uses? - How can water quality be improved? Striped Bass 39 COASTAL RESOURCES The Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program has identified fourteen Coastal Land and Water Resources (Coastal Policies and Use Guidelines, Planning Report #30). In order to further delineate these Coastal Resources the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted its own coastal survey. The results of that survey are described in the following pages and accompanying maps. For the purposes of this survey field observation was the primary method employed along with analysis of soils and surficial geology maps prepared by the State CAM office. Of major im portance throughout the coast are the large number of undesignated tidal wetland plant species, many of which seem to be relatively young and establishing themselves along highly stressed portions of the shore. The survey has rated the condition of bulk- heads and seawalls, many of which are in.poor condition adding to the siltation and dredging problems of the harbor. A final, unclass- ified resource, but one which is of note is the tidal pools which occur off of Bell island. A wide variety of wildlife was observed during the survey including a Diamond Backed Terrapin observed swimming in the upper harbor. Birds including the ibis, egret, heron, gulls and swans, ducks, shorebirds, tern, comorantl rails and assorted terrestrial species can be found within Norwalk's Coastal Area boundary, attesting to the fact that Norwalk's shoreline has numerous sanctuaries for wildlife. The following coastal resource definition, which are a further refinement of the State CAM definitions, were used in classifying the water and shoreline: State C.A.M. Coastal Resource Designation Norwalk Coastal Resource Designation E-Coastal Bluffs and Escarpments (Same) mE-Modified Bluffs and mE-1 - Bulkhead in good condition Escarpments mE-2 - Bulkhead in poor,condition mE-3 - Seawall in good condition mE-4 - Seawall in poor condition mE-5 - Filled area mE-6 - Shore stabilization through Rip Rap mB-Modified Beaches and (Same) Dunes R-Rocky Shorefront (Same) 40 State C.A.M. Coastal Resource Designation Norwalk Coastal Resource Designatio Coastal Flood Hazard Area (Same) Freshwater wetlands and Undesignated Tidal wet- See 'Regulated tidal wetlands' lands I-Islands (Same) Shorelands (Same) B-Beaches and Dunes Sandy beach - beach composed of sand and small stones Rocky Beach - consists of stones approximatinE the size of cobbles. D-Developed shorefront (Same) W-Water (Same) T-Regulated Tidal Wetland Tidal wetlands - areas containing marine grasses which are inundated at high tide and exposed at low tide Intertidal Flats Relatively flat expanses of sediments (muds and sands) subject to alternating periods of tidal inundation and exposure. Estuarine embayments (Same) Nearshore waters (Same) Offshore waters (Same) Coastal Boundary (Same) Tidal Pools pools of salt water exposed at low tide and usually found on roc ky areas. F-1 41 7qw.@yton Coastal Resources Rowayton.1has a diverse coastal environment ranging from the np-tural features of its salt marshes to the metal, wood or cement bulkhead- in- which line much of its commercial area. South of the White Bridge which links Rowayton to Darien in the Five ilile Piver channel is an extensive mudflat which is exDosed at low tide. This flat continues south to a point adjacent to the Rowayton and Wilson Avenue intersection. It is bordered by rip rap on its northern sections and striT)s of designated tidal wetlands throughout its eastern shore. On the'west it is accompanied by an area of tidal 'Dools. The commercial zone shoreline which extends from Wilson Avenue south to Cook Street is completely bulkheaded and dredged for marine uses. The condition of these bulkheads is generally good with few exceptiors. South of Cook Street to Juniper Street is found an area of rocky beach and tidal pools below its stabilizing seawall. The ar?a south of Juniper Street to the south eastern corner of Bell Island is characterized by rock outcroppings and sandy beaches with occasional seawalls to stabilize portions of the bank. Bordering the southeast corner of Bell island is a conglomeration of resources including tidal pools and undesignated wetlands rocky and sandy beeches, with small areas of rocky shorefronts as well. A. small sandy beach area (East Beach) is located on Bell Island'-- eastern shore that has exposed tidal pools along the waters edge at low tide. Continuing north to the north of Farm Creek there is again a mi-ture of resources including mudflats, wetlands. sandy beaches, rocky sii@re- front, and tidal pools, At low tide Farm Creek is an extensive area of intertidal flats and designated tidal wetlands.. The southwest corner of the creek has areas of fill for development purposes and its western extremities have been stabilized with seawalls some of which are in disrepair. The northeastern strip of shoreline in Rowayton is comprised o.-Lc alternating areas of seawalls, rocky shorefronts and unstabilized areas. A narrow striT) of intertidal flat is exposed at low tide with .occasional areas of tidal pools and designated tidal wetlands as well. C. 'Al JIL, 5T kv R ES COASTAL RESOURC mEl BULKHEAD GOOD mE2 BULKHEAD DETERIORATE ......... ITIE 3 SEAWALL GOOD mE4 SEAWALL DETERIORATED mE5 FILLED AREA ...... ME6 RIPRAP ROCKY BEACH SANDY BEACH ROCKY SHOREFRONT TIDAL WETLANDS INTERTIDAL FLATS TIDAL POOLS E- ESCARPMENT -I- ISLANDS -D- DEVELOPED SHOREFRONT -EM- EM ESTUARINE EMBAYMENTS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSI h COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM NORWALK, CONNECTICUT ROWAYTON SOURCE:1981 COASTAL SURVEY, NORWALK PLANING & ZONING COMMISSION FEET 400 .0 MILES 42 Th e wetlands and mudflat areas of Rowayton, especially the Farm Creek area support a large array of wildlife, including birds, shellfish,, and juvenile finfish. 0 soils The major soil types in Rowayton are the 1) typic undorthents. cut and fill 2) Charlton-Hollis fine sandy loams 15-407, slope 3) Hollis- Rock outcrop complex 15-35% slope, and the 4) Hollis-Rock outcrop complex 3-157 slope - Surfici I Geology & Shoreline Cha:nz la _!@s Tluch of Rowayton's coastal land area is not of natural origin. A large portion of its land was created by filling in of tidal wetlands .or flood plains. Natural granite and mica quartz gneiss outcroppings occur occasionally along Rowayton's interior sections, with larger projections distributed fairly evenly throughout. Larger areas of mixed outcroppings and glacial till can be found in the northeastern C> regions of Rowayton around Wilson Cove. The outer shoreline has changed relativel y little over the past 145 years. Extensive fill has been placed behind the shoreline as indi- cated by the soil types. The Five Mile River or western side of Rowayton has expanded by fill and been stabilized by bulkheading, while the beach areas on the southern shore have generally advanced as well. Conversely, the eastern shore has receded slightly. The remaining areas have stayed virtually unchanged. e Shellfish Concentration Areas The Soft Clam (1-fya arenaria) can be found in the Five Mile River channel while the Hard Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) and Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) are found throughout.the Five 'Mile River inlet, Wilson Cove, Farm Creek and an extensive area off of the Eastern coast of Bell Island. SOUTH NORWALIK, 9 Coastal Resources The South Norwalk coastline stretching from the Western side of @,.Iilson Point to T%fack.Street in the "Shorefront" area has as diverse an array of natural resources and coastal features as was found in, Rowayton. 43 @..Iilson Cove's eastern coast remains in a natural state through its upper 800 feet of inlet. Here is found a thin strip of intertidal fiat exposed at low tide and a narrow buffer strip of designated tidal wetlands. An expanse of rip rap covers the coast to its southerly tip while additional strips of designated wetlands occur sporatically along this shore. @Iodified escarpments in the form of rip-rap and seawalls line the point itself and extend over 2,000 feet up its eastern shore, small pockets of rocky shorefront, designated intertidal wetlands and tidal pools are exDosed at low tide. A large expanse of intertidal flat lines all of Wilson noint's eastern coastline except for its southerly most 1500 feet. The shoreline has remained in a natural state with only 2 excap- Licns of modified escarpments. This area contains tidal pools, -rocky shorefronts, and designated tidal wetlands including a man-alade tidal CD pool. The Village Creek marsh area is a 93 acre expanse of designated tidal wetlands and intertidal flats. Another such area is the 65 acre marsh area found to the north west of the Manresa peninsula. This area is considered to be nrime wildlife habitat. These marshes are nesting and feeding areas for rails, ducks, swans. shorebirds and wading birds,, filtering systems for the salt water and nurseries for juvenile finfish and shellfish. @-Tinresa Peninsula itself is bordered by an extensive wall of riT.) rap and seawall that extends to the northeast corner of the Harborview area. Areas of desi-nated tidal wetlands and tidal pools with lesser areas of rocky shorefront are found on 14anresa's southerly tip. These areas as well as stretches of mudflat can also be found on the eastern shore of 11anresa, and Harborview. The Harborview marsh, once an extension of the 'Manresa wetland, has been altered somewhat by the filling and bulkheading of portions of its banks. From Neptune Street north for approximately 2,000 feet-is a stretch of natural shorefront with areas of sandy beach, mudflats and designated tidal wetlaTtds. The remaining 2,000 feet of coastline, north. to Mack Street is stabilized by seawalls. Intertidal flats, sandy beaches and designated tidal wetlands are exposed at low tides. 0 Soils The soil types found in Wilson Point and South Nor@-7alk are very similar to those found in Rowayton. The most common soil types in this area are the 1) typic udorthents, cut and fill 2) Charlton Hollis fine sandy loams, 3-157, slopes, 3) Westbrook mucky neat 4) Hollis Plock outcro-o comDlex 3-157 slope 5) %ollis Rock outcrop complex 15-3-57 slope and Tisbury silt loam 'S 0-3% slones. The existence of these COASTAL RESOURCES mEl BULKHEAD-GOOD IOR mE2 BULKHEAD-DETER mE3 SEAWALL-GOOD J@, mE4 SEAWALL-DETERIO RATE mE5 FILL AREA mE6 RIPRAP SANDY BEACH ROCKY BEACH ROCKY SHORE FRONT TIDAL WETLAND INTERTIDAL FLAT T L POOL IDA i4l .% NZ 61P7 7 A 7%, 4v PA ....... ...... z1 14 sw j T, A: .................I .7. I z --A PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION COASTAL M*fikr PROGRAM NORWALK, CONNECTICUT SOUTH MET qcxjgrF:lqal roAsTAL SURVEY, NORWALK PLANNING- ZONING COMMISSION MILES 44 soils dictates a large use of fill and shore stabilization for develop- ment nurposes, as well as soils reflective of glacial deDosits. 0 Surface Geology Shoreline changes The Wilson Point peninsula displays numerous bedrock outcropings separated by glacial till. Village Creek and Manresa marsh are composed of salt marsh deposits U which are made up of salt peat, silt and clay. The drier area's surround- ing these marshe@ are comprised of glacial fluvial deposits, such as gravels and sands. Isolated bedrock outcropping occur throughout. Except for a 2500 foot strip of land north of Marborview marsh, the entire South Norwalk/Wilson Point coast has been altered by landfilling since 1835. and Harborview were islands in 1835 and have since been "connected to the mainland by filling of shallow waters and marshes. Stabilization of this land is achieved through bulkheading and seawalls. Shellfish Concentration Wilson Cove presents the sale area of shellfish concentration in this section. The ',qard Clam, (Mercenaria mercenaria) is the only inhabitant to these waters in laro-e concentrations. NORWALK e Coastal Resources The area of Norwalk's coastline North of Mack Street to the TH'all Street bridge and south to Interstate 95 is used mostly for commercial and industrial purposes. At present few areas remain that have not been bulkheaded, an@ no desi 'gnated tidal wetlands remain in Norwalk's upper harbor except for an area around the sewage treatment plant which sub- sequently has been filled. 47 The Heavy Industrial zone north of 'Mack Street is intensely bulkheaded up to the Washington Street bridge. A small area of riT rap and fill is located in the central portion of this section. Thlese bulkheads are generally in good condition along the west banic in the southern c' section of Water Street, but the area north o_-F the Washington Street bridge consists of a badly deteriorated bulkhead and eroding shoreline. North of the railroad brid-e is an extensive area of fill that continues for approximately 1200 feet with pioneer ilant species thriving on drier portions of the bank. Directly adjacent to Libert.V Square 45 south of the-1,71orwalk landfill site is one of the few remaining ralatively untouched areas in the upper harbor. A small section of undesignated tidal wetlands exists here. The shoreline of the forner Non.7alk landfill just south of 1-95 is unsightly and relatively unstable. Pioneer plant species are beginning to stabilize the upper banks of this highly dis-turbed area but formal shoreline stabilization is clearly needed. North of the thruway for 1200 feet on the west side is a stretch of filled area followed by a bulkhead which is in good condition. Small strips of intertidal flat follow but seem out of place midst the bulkhea@ing, fill areas, and seawalls which line the river's west bank to the Wall Street bridge. These structures are generally in varying states of deterioration and add to the erosion and sediment problems found in the Forwalk River. The same deterioration is found on the River's eastern bank with the entire length filled, bulkheaded or seawalled south to a marsh area just north of the interstate. A-ain half of the structures are in poor 0 condition and in great need of repair. The section of land 2000 feet north of the interstate does expose intertidal flats and undesignated tidal wetlands at low tide. *-Soils The major soil types in this area show a radical difference from those found in Rowayton and South Norwalk. This area is almost entirely man- made fill. The major soil groups are the: 1) Urban land type, and the 2) typic udorthents, cut and fill, neither of which are indigenous to this area. o Surface Geology and Shoreline Chap&es Due to the magnitude of fill in the upper harbor area there is little surficial geology of any significance besides two estuarine deposit areas of silt and mud in the lorementioned marsh areas. The shore of Norwalk's upper harbor shoreline has changed greatly since 1335. The banks have been stabilized and floodplain filled. The rIver bank 100 years ago was much wider and less regular in shape, with mrany inlets, peninsulas and islands occuring along its banks. Today the river channel is a gradually widening series of graceful curves bulkheaded, seawalled. filled, or simply-left untouched for the time being. .4 -.1 -4@ U4 TI N - --------- L7: @,: 6 .. ..... ............ v"- Y, v 0 '@ @K- COASTAL RE SOURCES ME1 GOOD BULKHEAD mE2 BAD BULKHEAD z@., mE3 GOOD SEAWALL mE4 BAD SEAWALL mE5 FILL AREAS ROCKY BEACH TIDAL WETLAND INTERTIDAL FLAT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING a ZONING COMMISSION NORWALK, CONNECTICUT NORWALK CENTER -PC-pc-cp @ SOURCE: IM COASTAL StjRVEy, NORWALK pLANV4G & ZONING COMMISSION FEET 400 0 mm MILES 0 46 EAST NORWALK The section of Norwalk's coast south of interstate 95, east to the Westport line has a large percentage of land directly accessible to the water for public use than do the other areas. Less of this section is bulkcheaded or seawalled in comparison and water recreation facilities are more common and heavily used. Only one 20 foot section of bulkheading exists along Norwalk's harbor south of 1-95 to the eastern most point of Veterans Memorial Park. The river's banks in this area are lined mostly with undesignated tidal wetlands, intertidal flats and occasional areas of fill. The marsh immediately north of the railroad bridge, belonging to Norwalk's sewage Treatment Plant has been labeled a designated tidal marsh. A major natural resource of Norwalk's harbor is the extensive intertidal flat that exists along the southern section of Veteran's Memorial Park. Mill Pond, which is tide fed, is situated to the east of Veteran's Park. Its banks are occupied by alternating sections of seawalls which are in good condition, and undesignated tidal wetlands. The Eastern side of East Norwalk Harbor south of Seaview is an extensive stretch of modified escarpments which reaches to the southern tip of Gregory Point. These bulkheads and seawalls are generally in good condition. Small interspersed areas of undesignated marshes, sandy beaches, intertidal flats and filled areas occur between and in front of these stabilized areas. The southern tip of Gregory Point is lined with a sandy beach area. Charles Cove's southwestern area is bulkheaded as is its south eastern bank. The middle and upper cove is lined with mud flats, undesignated tidal wetlands, rocky beaches and rocky shorefronts. Between Charles Cove and the Calf Pasture Park peninsula is a marine with bulkheaded banks in variable conditions as well as areas of fill. Calf Pasture Peninsula remains in a fairly natural state. Undesignated wetlands line its southern exposure and support a sandy beach area on its eastern shore with a narrow strip of mudflat exposed at low tide. The beach area extends some 2500 feet before it is reduced in size by a series of seawalls and rip rappings beyond its eastern border. Fea- side of these modified escarpments is a narrow section of beach which extends to the mouth of Canfield Island Marsh. An extensive expanse of designated tidal wetlands, intertidal flats and smaller areas of tidal pools, rocky and sandy beaches rocky shorefronts and filled areas, create a highly productive natural 0 47 setting which supports large quantities and varieties of marine life and their dependants. Large numbers of marine species exist in this beautifully picturesque settings. It is a nesting area as well as a refuge for migratory birds. Soils As was found in the previously mentioned sections of Norwalk, this region also contains a large percentage of filled and altered land. Seemingly the only area that has remained with its natural soil type is the Canfield Island marsh and upland zones. The soil desig- nations in this region are the 1) typic udortbents, cut and fill, 2) urban land, 3) merrimac sandy loam, 0-3% slope, 4) Westbrook mucky peat 5) merrimac sandy loam 3-8% slope and the 6),agawam fine sandy loam 0-3% slope Surface Geology and Shoreline Changes Much of the coastal areas are comprised of artificial fill. Salt marsh, deposits of salt peat and stratified silts and clays are found in Canfield Island marsh and at Gregory Point's west side. Small areas of glacrofluvial deposits and bedrock outcroppings are found in the uplands of Taylor Farm to the north of Calf Pasture Beach. The shape of the shoreline has been altered extensively by the filling of lowlands especially around the Gregory Point Peninsula, Calf Pasture Peninsulas, and the north border of Canfield Island Marsh. The land area has grown considerably in dimensions since 1835 Shellfish No areas of shellfish occur directly off shore from East Norwalk, however, extensive tracts of the Sound are open for shellfish harvest- ing in the vicinity of the Norwalk Islands and adjacent to Calf Pasture and Shady Beach. Inerstitial (living between par- Infauna: Deposit-feeding clams. tickles of sediment. in this case. 1. Nucula, 2. Tellina. 3.Voldia sand) meiofauna: 1. Ciliate, 2. Tardigrade. 3. Ostracod. 4. Hydrazoan, 5. Flatworms 6. Archiannelid. 7. Nematode 0. -1, 4@ -A. Z ... ....... a t /4 dd, V j W 7, 'y A -4, . .... ---------- --- - 1411jg@.@ A J;: ..I V, zi 3 iz 4@ Y 4 J; N -V 7- e M.- Al Ati", W. t - "'COASTAL RESOURCES mE I BULKHEAD-GOOD mE2 BULKHEAD- DETERIORIATED . . . ........ mE3 SEAWALL-GOOD Y `4 mE4 SEAWALL- DETERIORATED mE5 FILL AREA mE6 RIPRAP SANDY BEACH ROCKY BEACH ROCKY SHOREFRONT TIDAL WETLAND INTERTIDAL FLAT POOL s, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING a ZONING COMMISSION EAST NORWALK NORWALK, CONNECTICUT A& SOURCE0981 COASTAL SURVEY, NORWALK Pt ANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEET MILIES 48 NORWALK ISU&TDQS Norwalk's islands, located from one to two miles off its shores, create a buffer zone that lessens the disruptive forces of wave and current action on Norwalk's harbor and coastline. Three main islands, Chimmons, Shea, and Sheffield, and sixteen smaller islands were formed by glacial deposition. These terminal morains today cont ain large numbers of birds, and a host of intertidal species of grasses and aquatic life each of which supports its o@m dynamic .community. Chimmons Island holds one of the largest avian nesting sites in Long island Sound. Culls, herons, egrets, ibis, ducks and assorted songbirds call Ch-immons Island home during the warmer months. It is noted for its heron rookery - a feature that makes it unique in all of Long Island Sound. The northern shore of Chimmons has two areas of steeply sloping cliffs composed of boulders. The remaining circumference is a gravel to cobble C> sized rocky beach with exposed intertidal flats at low tide. All of Ram Island's shorefront except the sheltered cove area on its southwestern side is of the gravel to cobble type,cover. The cover itself is an interface between glacial till and water. No beach area has been created by the depositional process. Small strips of inter- tidal flats are positioned around the edges of the beach areas. A. small stretch of undesignated tidal wetland is situated in the north west corner of the sheltered cove. Sheffield Island is lined with a seawall along its western exposure where remains of deteriorated house and adjacent pier s'tand. The remaining shoreline of Sheffield Island is composed of gravelly to cobbly beaches with intertidal flats exposed at low tides. nlo areas of brackish wetlands occur inland in the higher elevations, both on the north western portions of the island. Betts, Grassy and Copp Islands all have the indigenous rocky beaches while the remaining smaller islands are simply masses of bedrock or till with no-beach to absorb the waters fury. 49 0 Soils The soils found in the islands upland areas are the I)Agawam fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes, and the 2) Agawam fine sandy loam, 3-8% slope, with Beach deposits found along most shore interfaces. The deDositions of these soils was caused by glacial action. Long Island Was the furthest southern advance of the giant ice sheets in this area. With their retreat came a deposition of suspended materials and hence the creation of Norwalk's isiands. * Surficial Geology Surficial Geology matches the soil type closely in this area. The Upland or higher elevated areas are composed of glacial till, with inland T,.7etland areas made up of salt marsh deposits of salt peat and silt. Again beach deposits line most shorelines. Glacial erratics .are common on these islands. These erratics were deposited after bein 'a displaced by glacial advances and subsequent 'retreats. Granite and granite gneiss make up the majority of erratic rock types with lesser abundance of mica-quartz shist deposits. The overall extent of land surface has not varied greatly since 1835, however, due to the natural forces present in this area, the shapes of the islands have shifted moderately over the years. The waters around these islands are the prime harvesting area for Norwalk's shellfishing industry, The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea vir-inica) and the Hard Clam (Mercenaria m.ercenaria) inhabit the 0 adjacent waters in large numbers. Only the areas directly north west of Shea and Chirr!wions Islands are not inhabited to any large extent by these bivalves. coastal Desource issues - !o@.,, can remaining critical coastal resources be -Dreserved? - @.rnat methods can be used to direct develoT)ment awav from soil types and geological features'which would be severely impacted by such development? - How can developed shorefronts be stabilized to limit shoreline erosion? ol AT :> F T iz I PEACH I PASTURE IS F, HOYTS 18 j IS GRASSY Is, CHI. I ON$ .-LITTL/ TAVERN SANDY HAMMOCK VEEP)tOLE HAMMO5C TAVERN IS "AM 11 CROW is .-Pp. IS OOG Is Z_ W_ WOOD Is EL HAMM;@@., "11LE HAMMOCK' COASTAL RESOURCES ri .__ mE3 SEAWALL-GOOD )@I.E PLAINS ESCARPMENT SHALLOW WATER AREA SANDY BEACH ROCKY BEACH ROCKY SHOREFRONT INTERTIDAL FLAT SHEFFIELD I TIDAL MARSH J/.ElT. 'I. ON f., T COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MANNING ZONING MUMISSION TV H" LE 11 S I, LL A N DWS MMWALK, CONNECTICUT PUT Elms --------- I-11 77 X '14 ... .. F % ASTAL 8,ousl0f4 y k Ali S RE w iq "T "is v z C@" '4_etbqD: @P(JNQARY 100 ANDS P61 GWATED TIDAC-WiTL k" & opri; E mv@4'u J "A 'kH'@ ACE ipvt*@Iia" T: o A ji4i" "V 7:77711 rt X4, % J, g 7. '7 x 1::., V tv Ix .......... VV 'i . . . . . COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NORWALK, CONNECTICUT 50 Parks, Open S2ace, Waterbased Recreation, and Public Access I. Waterfront Rediscovery In 1981, about 200,000 people attended the Norwalk S-eaport Association's Fifth Annual Oyster Festival. This September festival, a'final salute to summer, is the major waterfront celebration of Norwalk Harbor, the oyster industry, maritime history, and summer recreation. In the near future, the waterfront festival will be complemented by the Maritime Center the proposed nautical museum/aquarium/research complex which V, will be housed in the Norwalk Fabricator's Building. It is expected that the Center will attract about 500,000 visitors and generate between $1.8 and $2.2 million profit each year. Clearly, Norwalk's water front has been "rediscovered" as an attractive recreational area. As in other urban waterfront communities - both large (like Boston, San Francisco, New York, and Baltimore) and small (Portland, ME, Salem, MA., New Bedford, MA., and Port Judith, R.I.) - a partnership of public and pri- vate development forces can create a beautiful bustling harbor. Be it "rediscovery", "renaissance", "rebirth@', or "revitalization", Norwalk, like other waterfront communities, has great development potential where-an exciting mix of residential, industrial, commercial,, and recreational uses can be combined to form an attractive place to live. II. Parks and 02en Space Of Norwalk's 860 acres of public land, 123.6 acres are located on the coastal area mainland and 83 acres are islands. These municipal land holdings are parks and open space lands. A. Parks Parks are publicly owned lands officially designated for public recreation, historic preservation, or conservation. Parks are open to the public and*users are subject to established re-u- lations. In Norwalk, parks are classified in four groups. (1) city parks - large land tracts open to all residents from throughout the city (2) district parks - medium size land tracts serving groups of neighborhoods (3) neighborhood parks - small land tracts serving neighbor- hoods 51 (4) taxing district parks - land tracts serving taxing district resi nts. There are 22 coastal area parks in Norwalk all located on the mainland. Parks: (1) Veterans Park (36 acres) a large park with ball- fields,, boat launching facilities, municipal marina, play areas, fishing, view of islands, home of Oyster Festival; future site of Harbor Center, Marina Core, and waterfront passive recreation area. (2) Shady Beach (11 acres) - swimming, picnic facilities, view of islands; open only to city residents (3) Calf Pasture Beach (33 acres)-swimming, ballfields, picnic facilities, benches, walkways, fishing pier, shellfishing, play areas, Coast Guard Station, summer concerts, view of islands (4) Lockwood House Museum (I acre) walks, benches, archives;, national historic landmark .(5) Mathews Park (17.8 acres) golf, sledding, Lockwood Matthews Mansion District Parks: (1) 1ILL1 Pond (0.5 acres)- skating, view of Norwalk Harbor (2) Rowayto Community Beach (0.5 acres) municipal wharf, view of Five Mile River Neighborhood Parks: (1) Witch Lane (I acre) - play area (2) Ludlow Park (3 acres) play area (3) New 14arvin School (8. 8 acres) - ballfields, play area (4) Rowa-yton School (8.2 acres) - ballfields, play area, skat- ing, golf 52 (5) Ely School (4 acres) - ballfields, play area (6) old 1.1arvin School (1.4 acres) - ballfields, play area (7) Brien McMahon Annex (5.8 acres) - ballfields track (8) Irving C. Freese Park (0.5 acres) - walks, benches, view of Norwalk River and central business district (9) Washington Street Park (1.2 acres) - walks, benches, view of National Historic District Taxing District Parks: First District: Norwalk Green Klondike Park Third District: Edgewater Place Sixth District: Pinkney Park Bayley Beach B. Open Space Rowayton Community Center Open space lands are open, undeveloped lands which are either publicly or privately owned. In Norwalk, there are six municipally owned open space land tracts in the coastal area. However, there are no management plans for any of these muni- cipal tracts. (1) Shea Island (46 acres) - swimming, picknicking-) camping, passive activities (2) The Plains (21 acres) - passive activities (3) Little Ram Island (3 acres) passive activities (4) Grassy Island (1'3 acres) - passive activities (5) Taylor Farm (30 acres) - passive activities (6) Devi I's Garden Road (6 acres) - passive recreation Private open space tracts in the coastal area include: - Norwalk Islands (14 islands) - private clubs (Roton Point, Wee-Burn, Shore and Country, Ascension, Shorehaven) 53 marshland (Hart Property, Kulze Preserve,'Langdon Property, llanresa, Village Creek, Wilson Point, IShorehaven/Canfield Island, Charles Creek, Shorefront Park, Harborview, Ann Street railyards) . 2rivate coastal residential associations (with private roads; Canfield Island, Village Creek, Seaside Place, Wilson Point, Rowayton 3each Association, Harborview). TIJ. @-10,terbased Recreation The Norwalk Islands, lying about one to two miles offshore, form a chain about six miles long. These islands protect Norwalk iarbor from storm impacts and add to the area's scenic quality making 'Norwalk"s waters attractive to large numbers of visitors who come to swim, sail, and fish. As well as providing a vital link for waterborne commerce, Norwalk Harbor's five miles of federal nav4-gation channels invite pleasure crafts to local waters. Serv4-ced by numer- ous marinas, boatyards, and clubs, the harbor is a physically healthy and accessible estuary with uni cue historical, cultural, and recrea- tional features. Like 'Norwalk Harbor, the Five Mile River Harbor is an estuary. However, this estuary is unprotected allowing strong currents and waves to penetrate into the harbor. Despite the potential storm impacts, the harbor has emerged as one of Fairfield County's most popular docking sites. The harbor's eastern bank has been exten- sively bulkheaded to provide boatslips and access to moorings. It seems, however, that many of the mar*ina, boatyard, and club owners, troubled by changing economic conditions, have redesigned these docking facilities as private "executive boating facilities". Despite the demand for public facilities which have historically crowded the harbor, boating opportunities are rapidly disappearing from the harbor. The loss of these opportunities will undoubtedly jeopardize the federal maintenance dredging of the harbor channel and place additional pressures on other boating areas. Wilson Cove, Village Creek, Cinfield Island Creek and Charles Creek are Norwalk's four minor harbors. Charl 'es Creek has been associated with waterbased recreation for many years. Slowly, however, the Clubs have been replaced by various residential developments which command exclusive use of these waters. The three other harbors (Wilson Cove, Village Creek, and C@nfield Island Creek) serve the adjacent residential associations by providing exclusive access to the water s edae. These harbors have no developed public access points. 54 U A. Boa ting U Surpassed in popularity by only two other waterbased activities (swimming and fishing) boating is the nation's sixth most popular recreational activity. Participation in Long Island Sound boat- ina activities is seasonal with peak use periods on summer week- ends. In Norwalk, thirty private marinas and boatyards, eleven boat clubs, a municipal marina, an undetermined number of mooring spaces secured from the Harbor 'L'-'Iaster, and several private wharfs accomodate about 43,000 boats in Norwalk Harbor and the Five Mile River Harbor. A list of these facilities appears in Table 1. Norwalk's largest private commercial facility, Norwalk Cove Marina, accomodates about 350 to 400 vessels while the smallest private commercial facility, Haskell Marine Service, accomodates nine vessels. AIC the thirty commercial marinas and boatyprds, there are 1,19155 slips available .at an average cost of $30 per linear foot* and 257 moorings avail- able at an average cost of $20 per linear foot*. About one half of these businesses provide repair and winter storage faciliti-es. Only two businesses rent boats at prices ranging from '19.50 to $36 per day. The occupancy rate is 100 percent all- virtually alt busine.sses. Among the twelve private boat clubs, the largest facility, South Norwalk Boat Club accomodates 291 vessels at annual cost of The smallest facility, Ischoda Yacht Club accomodates 20 vessels at an unknown cost*. These club facilities are exclusively avail- able to members and are fully occupied each year. A summary of boating facilities appears in Table 2. Despite the profits generaged by marinas, boatyards, and boating 0 clubs, many owners are facing economic dilemmas. As operational ti costs rise and profit margin's fall, many owners evaluate other land use oDti.ons such as offices, apartments, or condominium complexes which generate a substantially larger profit. Eventually, the t opportunity costs associeted with these other land use options become so great that abandoning the boating facility in favor of another land use becomes an economic necessity. As this alternative develop- ment and profitability are realized, commercial boating facilities are permanently lost. 1,11oreover, stricter environmental laws and sta ndards will probably limit major new commercial marina development. Any boating facili- ties that are developed will probably be associated with land -pro jects such as hotels, offices, and condominiums and will be available to the general public on !a limited basis. F 55 Summary of Norwalk Boating Facilities Table 2 Public Zommercial Public Private Summary Norwalk _IoLqaL@(In I-lunicipal Total Clubs Total slips 895 300 100 1,295 682 1,977 fee "29/ft* $31/ft* 83/ft 630/ft* NIA 810/ft* J 157 174 331 moor. 67 190 fee '?'18/ft* M/ft* ?20/ft* @-TIA ?20/ft* Occup, 99% 100% 100% 100017r 100% 100/., boat rent. 1 1 - 2 2 fee I$32/day $9.50-'36/ - $9.50--36 :'9.50-$36/day I? I? day day avail. 10 15 - 25 25 boat 10 3 - 13 1 14 repair boat 11 6 - 17 1 13 storage fee - - capac. 1,095 344 1,439 160 1,599 launch 7 3 1 11 3 14 boat 2 - - 2 2 build. -:--r%verage cost per linear foot 56 Like marina and boatyard owners, boat owners are faced with rising costs of pleasure boating opportunities. Boat ownership is a luxury with general expenses including fuel, storage fees, mainten- ance, slip/mooring rental, and personal property taxes. Harbors are crowded and seasonal traffic is heavy. As a result o-F these physical and economic limitations on recrea- tional boating, many boat owners are turning to other boating options. Some are abandoning individual boat ownership in favor of time-shared ownership or chartering opportunities where costs are divided among a group of users or shareholders. other options include: securing a mooring in the federal channel in lieu of rent- ing from a private marina or boatyard, keeping a boat at home on a trailer and Igunching it at a public facility when needed, us-!_ng smaller boats such as sun-fish which can be carried on a car-to), or purchasing a slip from a private marina or boatyard - a cond@rina (condominium marina). Despite rising costs, the demand for boating is rising, particularly among the middle income sector, a group which generally uses public boating facilities such as those at Veterans Park or the Saugatuck River in Westport. As this user group expands, additional pressures will be placed on these limited public facilities. Plans to expand public facilities at Veterans Park to include a Harbor Center, I'larina Core, additional launching ramps, and slip space for transient' vessels will certainly complement eXisting.private facilities. It remains questionnable, however, whether public facility expansion can accomodate growing boating demands, The large expanse of water in Norwalk Harbor is an untapped boating resource which could potentially accomodate many boat moorings, However, placement and assignment of moorings must be carefully coordinated. The Army Corps of Engineers has proposed that Norwalk develop and adopt a harbor management plan which could provide -the framework for a mooring plan asowe 11 as guide recreational activities in the harbor. If the new and/or expanded mooring facilities are linked with improved boating facilities at Veterans Park, recreational boating in 1,11orwalk's i,.7aters would be accessible to the largest pos- sible user group. B. E:@shiijp* Salt water fishing in western Long Island Sound has increased in -popularity in recent years. Stimulated by the development of 4-'mDroved fishing tackle, increased amounts of leisure time, im-oroved w;,t-er quality, and improved economic conditions since World War II, fi-shing is the second most popular waterbased recreational activity, Sur- %passed only by swimming. *A review of Norwalk's commercial-fishing appears on pages of this reDort. 57 -lied closely to the boating industry, recreatio-nal JE ishina der,-_a-rids 0 clear wa,'--er to sustain a healthy finfisb population and -navi-3ble waLerways for boat access, Fishing sustains several land based 0 businesses throughout equipment and bait sales, boat rentals, 'r-oat C) and motor sales and repairs, a-Lid party boat charters. Develooment oF electronic "fish finders" (depth recorders) may stimulate the support of yet another portion of recreational fishing. In Norwalk's waters, fish catches include the popular species such as blackfish, fluke, scup, and winter flounder, as well'as the coveted species like bluefish, weakfish, and striped bass. Fisher- men angle for their catch throughout the year with peak participa- tion from late spring to early autumn. Despite the popularity of finfishing, fish species must tolerate habitat pres'sures - the slow cleanup of waters, dredging activities, and the periodic influx of boat effluent and chemical wastes as well,as natural pressures or' predators, temperature, and limited food supplies. Ironically, these pressures are most severe in the shallow, brakish waters of an estuary - the very place where finfish spawn and nurse. These estuarian bre'eding grounds must be protected to ensure the future of Norwalk's recreational finfishing activities. C. Swimming Ranked as the nation's most popular water based activity, pwimming is one of the least expensive but most physically stimulating sports. Swimming can be physical exercise or pure enjoyment; participation can be regimented or undisciplined. Swimming is the ultimate water activity since no special equipment is needed. Swimming in Long Island Sound is a-seasonal activity with a use period extending from about Memorial Day to Labor bay. In Norwalk, there are two public beaches designed to accomodate swimmers - Calf Pasture Beach, and Shady Beach. Together these facilities provide a total of 1,120 linear f2et of beach frontage, the type of frontaqe most attractive to swimmers. Although these beaches comprise only 0.� percent of Norwalk's 22.5 miles of shore, they attract-usprs from throughout the City as well as surrounding communities. IV. Public Access With the increased amount of leisure time and advent of clean water, more people are turning to the waterfront for recreation. The waterfront is an important place attracting crowds of people. The waterfront is unique for here people view man's water activities- fishing, boating, and swimming - or find solitude on an empty beach where waves lap upon the shore. The waterfront is a place for socializing with family and friends, for rediscovering a somewhat faded mariner's tradition, and f@r escaping from everyday life. 4 P4 _g, loo. _X W IJ 6ASTAL NEIG" ORHO 6D6 TO)OG -MST" rs-zv, V,-- @T 49_.@CO UN@t`( NIT lit TOW _W@TRICT Utl A 1W j @o '140u@(oo lulku, ASSIST p ASSOCIATIONS VF V @E@@TE Z, 200 p ,7 oI'. % 1? 14 11.11"'! ill@ I'. V. IV OU Hou it H @,7 INA CAN MILD z 9 % I ISLAND V INAW. ..Ac, HOREFAONT PARK %lp I AT @` wL 4'. 4" ij, 00-It. R-_ Ism GjI k,; WILSON P I T ."soN P J., `A, I@ILL .0 I. A No--- Ji COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION N.ORWALKJ-. CONN9&ICUT ,A I 'ILook at the crow@s of water-gazers there ... posted like silent sentinels all around the town stand thousands of mortal men fixed in ocean reveries. Some leaning against spiles; some seated upon the pierheads; some looking over the bulwarks of ships from China ... What do they here? But look! Here come more crowds, pacing straight for the water, and seemingly bound for a dive. Strange! Nothing will content them but the extremest limit of the land They must get just as nigh the water as they possibly can without falling in. And there they stand miles of them, leagues. Inlanders all, they come from lanes and alleys, streets and avenues, north, east, south, and west. Yet here they all unite." from Mobv Dick Herman Melville However, the waterfront is physically limited. There is just so much. How and where can public access be obtained and maintained? The shore is public property up to the mean high water mark. Thus much of the public's coastal territory is submerged twice a day. owners of property adjacent to the public-territory are often dis- turbed by visitors who cross their land on the way to the shore. There are some public land holdings - parks, piers, promenades-but these access points are limited. Public access is subject to serious questions - should non-residents be Allowed to use these areas? Should they pay? Public waterfront access and coastal development are often at odds - needlessly. Public access is not intended to usurp the right to appropriate coastal development. Rather access and devel- opment are intended to complement one another. Waterfront devel- opment bears the responsibility to help fulfill the need for water- front recreational opportunities. Private projects can be designed to include public facilities - like a courtyard, walkway, pier, or marina - which provide access to the public's territory. Since no land should be taken without compensation, the developer and public sector must cooperate to protect their territories. In, Norwalk,, a significant potential for maintaining acc ess to the public territory and the waterfront is through the Coastal Area Management Act's provision which states that a development project is waterdependent if "the use provides general public access to marine or tidal waters" (PA79-535, sec. 3(16)). Another method for maintaining public access is by protecting the City's four street ends which reach the waterfront providing views ranging from. d ramatic glimpses to tremendous panoramic views. Perhaps these streets can be best protected if managed and maintained by the neighborhoods on behalf of all people who cherish waterfront access. 59 STIOR-1-LID77 APKARANC7 & URBAN DESIGN T'he way buildings are placed on the waterfront, their orientation, the extent to which they provide or obscure a water view, the architectural design, and the compatibility with surrounding buildings, open space, circulation patterns, and natural coastal resources, determines the overall shoreline appearance of a developed community. Natural areas and shore types - rocks, islands, marshes, beaches, coves, harbors, and estuaries - are among the desirable coastal features which attract development to the waterfront. The Long Island Sound Study's publica.tion, Shoreline Appearance and Deq_@gn, outlines general design principles for waterfront development. Major considerations for coastal development include: 1) setback and height - The height and setback of a structure affects the visual appearance of a coastal area. The influ- ence of setback and height on a coastal area is determined by topography, shoreline configuration, vegetation, and adjacent land use character, Low structures (less than 50 feet high) can generally be blended into the landscape, Setbacks of about 100 feet above mean high water usually provide an adequate shore- line edge. 'foderate (50-80 feet) and tall (+80 feet) structures have a greater impact on the shoreline appearance. In the case of certain waterbased uses such as port facil- ities and ma*rines, tall structures may be sited on the waterfront. However, especially in non-urban areas, non-water related buildings should be setback about 250 feet from the coastline to minimize visual impact. on flat, low, straight, shores, on easily visible hills, and on coves and river mouths, setback and heig, ht controls must be based on the specific site on shorescape analysis. 2) mass and silhouette: Building mass should be as inconspicu- ous as possible. In developing large scalc, facilities, masses should be broken into uni ts wherever possible, inte- grating the units with the.topography. Roof form and silhouette should be varied and styled in accordance with the regional character to blend with the adjacent landscape. 60 3)-building image: (Color/ma'terials/texture). Colors of structures should refle natural surroundings and local coastal architec- ture. Materials and texture should reflect natural materials if possible. 4) shoreline cover and plant screenings: Plants should be used to reclaim eroded shores, and screen development. Use species, patterns, massing, and heights, compatible with structures to be disguised. Extend shore cover regulations to a depth reflect- ing vegetative type and coastal resource priority. Require a minimum screen of vegetative buffering: _50 feet for conifers, 100 feet for deciduous species, and 150 to 300 feet in areas of high scenic value. Control thinning in shoreline areas, Preserve natural shrubbery if possible. If removed replace vegetation with other erosion preventing or natural types. 5) e@rth forms:(foreground) Use berms, mounds to mask unsightly structures. 6) access/approachways: Allign roads, rail lines, parking,storage areas to be parallel and as far from the shore as possible. Provide access to the shore with small feeder roads and foot- paths which complement the overall environment. Open scenic views through controlled clearing and thinning. 7) site furniture: develop controls to limit visual intrusions (billboards, utility poles, transmission lines, fences, etc. . . . ). Use fencing, trash backets,, benches, light fixtures which reflect regionalcharacter (historicaland architectural). If incorporated into design controls, these factors could guide shoreline development providing landowners architects developers, builders, and planning officials with standard and effective tools. In Norwalk several coastal areas reflect many of the design qualities suggested by @he Long Island Sound Study: 1) The Washington Street Historic District, listed on the National Register, contains a unique collection of 19th dentury commercial buildings. The architectural quality of these buildings was analyzed in The Washington Street Urban Study. Recommendations were made regarding signage, cornices, windows, facades, and other details. If imple mented, the design guidelines will give unity to this district. 61 2) T@@u@r Sqt@ai@@ is an urban square of 18th century brick buildings on I@Torwalk's central business district waterfront. The square includes the Trolley Barn, Landmark Building, and Stock Exchange building. 3) Norwalk Green/East Avenue is a collection of Revival, Federal and Victorian buildinas inters-oersed with 20th century archi- tecture. Despite tbios architec'tural panache of styles, the area retains much of its New England town character. Originally designed as a single family residential area, the Green/East Avenue is the city's professional office district. 4) Bell Island, sometimes compared to Martha's Vineyard, is a unique residential area perched on a rock sbore with rows of summer cottages on narrow streets. @Iost cottages are now year- round residences. Although zoning requires lots of 6,250@scuare feet minimum and 50 foot front yard setbacks, most Bell island zones do not conform. 5) RoWayton Avenue is the commercial area of Rowayton. Norwalk's sixth taxing district. The commercial district an area inter- spersed with boatyards and marinas, once resembled a small New England fishing village. However, this district is now mixed with office buildings and condominiums which alter the character of the area. 6) Cove Avenue neighborhood in East Norwalk is lined with frame houses neighborhood businesses and small marinas forming s community with a distinct water orientation. The Cove Avenue character is changing as marinas sites aredeveloped into condominiums. The following issues have been identified: - How can buildings be designed so they face the water- front? - How can architecture and design of private and public facilities be more harmonious with existing buildings, and the natural fea tures of the land? - How can valuable historic structures be reused or restored rather than demol-ished?' - !,That ty-pes of subdivision and zoning controls on new housing development will minimize harmful impacts on the coast? d V VY 3 D U110S 3 U Uldol5l" inOU33NN03 'N'IVMUON NOISSIWWOD DNINOZ V ONINNVId WVUDOUd IN3W39VNVW IVISVOI -"'7'.1 1 0, �r!,@ Ali r., V IN REN 60 prdo wivmkf( 0 62 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A. Land Use and Economic Base Goal 1: Maintain a wide variety of land uses Goal 2: Improve Storage Areas For Water Borne Commerce Goal 3: Re-emphasize Commercial Port Goal 4: Emphasize Waterbased Industries Coal 5: Support Commercial Fishing D. Water Quality, Coastal Resources Goal 1: Protect &. Upgrade Water Quality Goal 2: Protect Natural Coastal Resources C. Parks/Open Space, Waterbased Recreation, Public Access Goal 1: Develop Management Plan For Waterfront Parks Goal 2: Manage & Expand Public & Coastal Area Open Space Goal 3: Secure Establishment of Private Coastal Area Open Space Reserves Goal 4: Improve Public Access to Norwalk's Coastline Goal 5: Promote &, Manage Waterbased Recreation Goal 6: Endorse Plans For Maritime Center D. Shoreline Appearance, Urban Design, Historic Preservation Goal 1: Protect Unique Visual Resources Coal 2: Protect Coastal Landmarks AFTER THE FISHING TRIP, NORWALK, CONN: 63 Progress has been made as the Rowayton Land Use Group and the property owners have a good relationship. The study group does not want to put anyone out'of business. The group is concerned with the preservation of marine uses along the river . . . Rowayton is a popular place to live, it has land and resources which are attractive to developers, and it has a limited area of one square mile . . . As,a result of this popularity, Rowayton is subjected to traffic problems, over development and congestion". Richard Miner, 1-Harch 30 1 1981 The C@Vi advisory committee should examine each area - what is the best use, fullest use possible so that marinas can be maintained? Consider dual use-office-apartment combined with marinas". Lee Hartog, 'IMarch 30, 1981 T4e should consider mixing commercial pro-perty/use within marina areas. Planning and zoning should not force property owners to maintain marinas until there are public facilities. Lee Hartog, April 27, 1981 "An oil spill up river would be less disasterous and easier to confine and clean than would be a spill in the outer harbor. Also, if the oil tanks were moved to South AT rWS1k, i-@o there would be more truck traffic on small streets. Costs of shipping bulk materials by water transportation are cheaper." 'Maurice Devine, Ju ly 21, 1981 "Portland (Me) is a good e a xample of a city transformed by private and -oublic initiative. There are some really significant changes which effect whole areas,, bringing in attractive shops and walk- ways. Ben Detroy, July 28, 1981 64 A. LAND USE AND THE ECONOIAIC BASE Coal I 14aintain a wide variety of land uses on Norwalk's waterfront while preserving natural coastal resources protecting the right of public access, and encouraging appropriate new development. Objectives (1) Provide economic incentives to encourage appropriate new development in specific parts of Norwalk's coastal area. Establish "priority development districts" based on existing coastal natural resources and development features. Encourage development where impacts are low. Discourage development where impacts are high. (2) Develop creative zoning tpchniques which: (a) encourage a mixed use complex (offices, restaurants, shops, parks, promenades, and residences) of appro- priate scale and promote public waterfront access, security at all hours, and tourism; (b) establish waterfront zones dedicated primari ly to water-based activities (commercial port activity, commercial fishing, marinas/boatyards, recreational boating, public access) that cannot reasonably be located inland. Zones could include marine indus- trial, marine commercial, and marine residential; (c) explore the use of transfer of development rights permitting the sale of waterfront development rights to designated "priority development districts". The sale or transfer of development ri 'ghts could- produce two results: (i) reduces development in coastal/waterfront areas best suited for preservation or small scale development and (ii) increased develop- ment in-those areas which can bear the pressures of large scale development. (3) Investigate the possibility of land banking whereby the community purchases key land parcels, reselling a portion of the land with specific development restrictions-and retaining a portion of the land for a specific community purpose. During the period of removal from the market, when the land is "banked", the value of the land may appreciate allowing the community to retain a portion of the land tract at litt-le or no cost. Proceeds irom the resale of the banked land can be used to purchase other key parcels at a later date. 65 (4) Endorse the rehabilitation and improvement of existing transportation corridors and facilities as the primary means of transportation in the coastal area. (a) endorse the iLnprovement of Conrail passenger service to Norwalk, a community offering unique water-based recreational and cultural activities (Oyster Festival, In-water Boat Show, Maritime Center, harbor cruises); (b) improve Norwalk's train ' 'station facilities (i) encoura&ing the development of adjacent mixed-use facilities (restaurants, shops) in South Norwalk and (ii) similar but appropriately scaled facili- ties in East Norwalk; (c) coordinate operation of Norwalk's "Wheels" bus syst to provide good service to coastal facilities (Calf Pasture Beach, Maritime Center, Washington Street Historic District, Lockwood House, Lockwood- Mathews Mansion) and supplement train service; (d) examine the traffic circulation and parking situa- tion in the.city's commercial areas (Wall Street, Rowayton Avenue, Cove Avenue) to determine how congestion problems can be ameliorated. (e) encourage expansion of rail freight'service to Norwalk to supplement existing water and truck transport systems; (f) encourage relocation of the Ann Street railyard to an inland site. (5) Support National and State efforts to control and pro- hibit air pollution. (6) Encourage Federal and State agencies to balance the need for adequate and reliable public utilitv services at the lox@est reasonable cost to consumers with the need to protect the environment and ecology of the State and to minimize damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values as provided by the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS 16-50g). (7) Simplify the buildingland zoning approval proces by eliminating repetitive or unnecessary zoning regulations and reorganizing the numerous existing'rev 'iew and approval processes into a two step process (e.g. preliminary/ conceptual review and final review). 56 "There is no problem in Norwalk's dredaina because it is a 1 0 commercial exT3erience. only the environmentalists cause problems. There was a 10 year delay in dredging because of conservationists. Would dredging stop if the commercial port were centralized at Manresa? Wm. Hopkins, July 21, 1981 'Ve want dredging to continue. Write it in the charter." James Gardella, July 21, 1981 'Ve are looking at the long range effects of port activity 0 1 and the optimum use of the waterfront. We must look at all the possibilities and incorporate our ideas in the Master Plan to assist Norwalk in the Future." Roland Clement, July 21, 1981 "Fishermen in Norwalk would love to see a municinal nier. It should be situated so that it does not disturb the rest of the waterfront. Development posts are too high for the fish- ermen to build the pier themselves and no adequate sp,,?ce is available. Fishermen must pay commercial prices to moor boats. If a fishing pier were established. people could buy fish right off the boat." Chris Stapelfeldt. July 21, 1981 67 Goal II Improve storage areas for water-borne commercial products. objectives (1) Require that any new commercial-storage facilities (petroleum, sand/gravel, asphalt) be established outside the coastal boundary or abut existing coastal storage facilities south of the Norwalk River bridges (Straffolino and railroad). Facilities could be connected to land and water transport vehicles by pipeline. (2) Alternative A Encourage the relocation of petroleum, sand/.gravel, and asphalt storage facilities south of the Norwalk River Bridges (Straffolino and railroad) to reduces the number of shipments which require opening these bridges. Alternative B Encourage the retention of Norwalk's petroleum, sand/ gravel, and asphalt storage facilities at their present locations to maintain the commercial waterfront of the harbor and to ensure continued dredging of the Federal channel. (3) Support the development of _@@rqv@d roadway access to storaae areas. 0 (4) Identify areas within easy access of the main naviga- tion channel to provide centralized offloadiLng south of the bridges or offshore. * (5) Design into the storage program provisions to accomo- date new bulk cargos such as coal. (6) Investigate constructing a regional pipeline for oil transport to supplement existing transport systems (water, tiuck, rail) which carry fuel to Norwalk. Goal III Reemphasize the role of Norwalk Harbor as a commercial port in western Long Island Sound. objectives (1) Seek cooperation fr'om the Army Corps of 'Engineers and other federal agencies to ensure that Norwalk's.navi- gation channels are maintained. 68 (2) Coordinate commercial port activities with the Harbor Master, State regulatory agencies, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Consider establishing a local Port Authority as provided under Connecticut statutes (CGS, Sec. 7 (29a-329f)). Goal IV Emphasize the role of Norwalk as a seaport community serving as the operational base for several water-based industries. Objectives. (1) Encourage tourism along Norwalk's waterfront by ensuring public access to the waterfront, coordi- nating tours to the historic waterfront sites (Maritime Center, Washington Street) and preser- ving South Norwalk's seaport heritage. (2) Coordinate tours of Norwalk's commercial fisheries facilities and the Norwalk Islands to ensure public access to-the waterfront and public knowledge of this unique industry. Coal V Support the stabilization of Non%,alk's commercial fisheries industry (mollusks, finfish, lobsters). Objectives (1) Assist private industries by seeking development funds to encourage the establishment and expansion of the fisheries industry in Norwalk Harbor and the Five Mile River Harbor. (2) Provide economic incentives to stimulate expansion of the local employment base and land-based SUDPOrt facilitiesl securing Norwalk's position as a 1@a_d- ing fishing community. (3) Seek greater Federal and State s@@PT@o@@ for the valuable fis ies resources of Long Island Sound. Encourage the development of aquaculture in Norwalk Harbor including the use of heated waters from Connecticut Light and Power Company's Manresa facility. Encourage the private sector to continue researching and developing new fisheries _tech:,.@a@@es. (4) Encourage th e expansion of the shellfisheries industry 0. including the reuse of existing historic industry buildings as part of a mixed use complex with public ,waterfront access. e9 0 (5) Establish a municipal fishing center for commerci al fishing boats which could include a wharf, processing, facility, and retail/wholesale markets. Take immediate steps to identify funding sources and areas suitable for development as a commercial fishing center (eg. south of the Norwalk River bridges, accessible to vessels at any tide, subject to the least threat from oil spill hazards. (6) Coordinate the commercial fleet's use of Norwalk's waters with the Harbor Master, state regulatory agencies, and the Army Corps of "Lngineers. . (7) Coordinate efforts to stabilize the commercial industry with the Connecticut Commercial Fishermen's Association and private fisheries companies (eg. Tallmadge Brothers). (8) Explore the recruitment of support industries (eg. processing facilities, offices) to Norwalk to increase 0 the industry's economic base. (9) Assist the industry in developing adequate land-based support facilities. '7 7 Y "4M 71-7 Scup 70 kater quality has improved 60 percent in the past decade. The Shellfish Commission has opened additional areas for hand digging land hope to eXDand the area. Pollution which occurs in the northern reaches of the river is less serious since most industries are clean- ing UP. There are a variety of waterfront activities which@the City 11opes to promote. Tom Brigante, April 27, 1981 "When an area is dredged, it never comes back to life The banks are full of life but the channels that are dredged are dead. Roton Point dock was dredged 50 years ago and is still dead." Norman Bloom,, August 4, 1981 "why is the problem in the upper harbor? Consider what is coming I Gown the River." Diane Lauricella, August 4, 1981 "',k-lany companies are involved with the Pollution Abatement Program. Today no one wants to pollute. However, 20 or 30 years ago, there was an improper understanding of how much a river could tolerate. As a result rivers were overloaded-the harbor was developed with tank farms. It is a difficult topic with economic ramifications . . . we must manage our problems with hazardous wastes and solid wastes with a "cradle to-the grave" management system. Dick lUng, August 4, 1981 71 B. WATER QUALITY AND NATURAL COASTAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION Goal.I Protect and where possible upgrade the quality of Norwalk's water. objectives (1) Establish an annual program to separate combined storm and sanitary sewers in accordance with the Facilities Plan Update for Sewerage System (1979) since Federal and State Clean Water funds are presently unavailable. (2) Acquire or protec through fee-simple acquisition or conservation easements critical parcels of tidal marsh and near-shore vegetation. Easements should be of suffi- cient width to ensure that these resource areas function effectively and have adequate planting to slow runoff. Reestablish vegetation where possible. (3) Mitigate adverse impacts of industrial land uses which are immediately adjacent to tidal wetland and coastal waters by requiring through coastal site plan review the relocation of stored hazardous and toxic substances as far from the coastline as possible, placement,of all such substances in containment dikes, and the use of drainage structures to capture and retain such substances before they reach coastal waters. (4) Monitor water quality at State and local levels to ensure the achievement of "SB" water classification throughout Norwalk's harbor waters. When possible, redefine water quality zones in Norwalk Harbor -to ensure that habitats for juvenile and adult finfish and shellfish are protected, -to ensure that existing swimming areas are main- tained and that new areas are opened, -to ensure that existing fishable areas are main- tained and that new areas are opened, -to ensure that the aesthetic and physical quality of existing boating areas are maintained and that areas of poor quality are improved. 72 (5) coordinate the monitoring and enforcement of Federal, State, and local water quality laws by tlie formation of a local Coastal Water Quality Committee made up of representatives from the Norw'alk Health Department, Marine Police, Department of Public Works, Conserva- tion Commission, Norwalk Pollution Abatement Committee and others from appropriate State and Federal agencies. (6) Establish a public education progra to disseminate information about the implications of clean water and water pollution control as rela.ted to marine and human communities. (7) Protect and enhance freshwater wetlands and water courses especially the Norwalk River, Five Mile River, Betts Pond Brook, Farm Creek, and Roton Brook which flow into Long Island Sound and thus effect/impact natural coastal resources by requiring minimum setbacks, erosion and sedimentation controls, and vegetative buffering. (8) Fstablish an acquifer protection program in accordance with recommendations in SWRPA's Guide to Ground Water & Acquifer Protection-Norwalk (July 1980). Goal II Protect the natural coastal resources as unique biological areas which serve as habitats for plant and animal life. objectives (1) Protect unique natural coastal resources by securing conservation easements or through fee simple acquisition. Easements should be sufficient width to ensure that coastal resources are not impacted by upland development, Resources which should be protected are: a) tidal wetlands (designated and undesignated) b) rocky shores c) cobble beaches d) mud flats e) island archipelago (2) Support the protection of Norwalk's waters and marine habitat as the physical base for the commercial fisheries industries (mollusks, finfish, lobsters) and as a unique environmental and economic base in Long Island Sound through the establishment of municipal ordinances and state statutes. 73 (3) Establish wetland or conservation areas through zoning or transfer of development rights to protect tidal wetlands or critical islands. (4) Manage-the Norwalk islands to promote their use as critical habitat for native and migratory bird species for indigenous plant and animal species, and as major recreational/open space areas. Prohibit uses which will have adverse impacts on the island's natural coastal resources. V, g. gig 1AJ 04 Diamondback Terrapin 74 Is I have suggested treviously-, the Islands should be protected by the Federal government like'the National Seashore (C,-:,De Cod) rd Fire IFland. Designation by the government would protect C. ildlife and birdlife and would make the islands available to visitors . . . The m6mrorv of Manresa is still clear. They l romised us cheap power and low taxes. Look what we have. There ould have been other uses. Bud Tulin, may 26, 1981 It is the responsibility of the City to buy land: if land is not purchased for open space it disappears land costs increase rapidly placing more pressure on the vacant land which remains alternative plans should be prepared using creative concepts deeds, easements, creative zoning . . . Jane Egbert, May 26, 1981 Veterans-Park is surrounded by water on three sides, yet has never en dedicated to water-related recreation. Ball parks do not need be near the water. The park should be for all people to enjoy. Bud Tulin, April 27,. 1981 'There are limit's to future capital budget expenditures specially in view of the plan to move into a new city fall, consequently we should not expect any significant additions to the Recreation and Parks Department capital udget for 3-4 years; however, we should move forward towards opening some private beaches". Larry Church, February .23, 1981 I'le must acquire Chimmons and Sheffield Islands" Robert Johnson, February 23, 1981 e need to open the shore to public access, educate the people, Ind preserve the waters surrounding the islands. The 1.1aritime Center will serve as a vital education center to inform the ublic about the beauty of the Shoreline". Skip Crane, February 23, 1981 'Itreet-end parks should be left to the discretion of neighborhood associations". I Robert Burk, 'February 23, 1981 75 PARKS/OPEN SPACE, WATERBASED RECREATION, AND PUBLIC ACCESS Goal I Develop a.management plan for Norwalk's coastal area parks. Objectives 1) Develop a plan linking--Calf Pasture Park, Shady Beach, and Taylor F.@rm, three municipally owned tracts on East Norwalk by: a) developing a cohesive pedestrian network linkin the three facilitieg, @This network would require the removal of some chain link fencing which currently restricts pedestrial movement between any two tracts. b) developing a bike path stretching from Veterans Park to Calf Pasture Park. Linkage with the Norwalk River Linear Park/Bikeway would permit bicycle travel from the East Norwalk shore to the central business district, inviting more users to the city's coastal parks. c) developing a vehicular.2arking plan to eliminate abuse of Shady Beach and Taylor Farm. Parking areas should be limited within Shady Beach. A stretch of parking could be developed on Canfield Avenue. d) encouraging the use of mass transit by providing year round service to these East Norwalk city parks. e) develop a range of year round activities at Shady Beach and Calf Pasture Park to encourage year round use of these facilities. f) develop a boat rental franchise and sailing school at Calf Pasture Park or Shady Beach. 2) Endorse the Veterans Park Master Plan as the guide to the park's future development. The plan is particularly commendable as it provides a waterfront promenade/passive recreation area, protect fragile coastal resources, and provides ample water-based recreation opportunities (boat- ing and fishing). '76 3) Improve city stre et ends as physical and visual access points to the waterfront. Street end facilities should be designed to attract neighborhood or district use (with pedestrian or bicycle access) rather than city wide use (with motor vehicle use). Street end areas could be granted or responsibilities vested with interested neighborhood groups. These groups could create, manage, and maintain neighborhood park areas as has been done by the Marvin Beach Association in East Norwalk. 4) Explore creative techniques which encouIrage public/ private management of municipal parks. a) secure franchises to provide/operate boat rental sailing school, and res.taurants at Calf Pasture Park, Veterans Park, and the Landfill b) establish a public/private cooperative venture to operate the proposed Harbor Center at Veterans Park. 5) Secure right of first refusal to purchase key waterfront clubs-if they become available. These clubs could be developed as parks with specific management and use criteria so that impacts on surrounding coastal resources and neighborhoods are minimal. Clubs to be considered include: Roton Point Club, Wee Burn Country Club, Shore and Country Club, and Ascension Beach Club. 6) Improve existing municipally owned and managed district and nei&hborhood parks a) Irving C. Freese Park reorient toward the water .b) Mill Pond - provide walkways, benches, and appropriate planting c) Woodward Avenue Park - reorient toward Village Creek wetland 7) Reserve the Landfill's shoreline area as a city water- front park. Require a vegetative buffer between the park area and the turnpike. .8) Endorse the use of the Mathews Park Master Plan to guide development. 77 3.) Fndorse the use of the Norwalk River Linear Park/ Bikeway Plan to guide development along the river's east bank. Goal II Manage and expand the public's coastal area open space reserve. objectives 1) Develop an open s2ace land acquisitionplan identifying coastal areas for inclusion in-Norwalk's reserve system. The plan should: a) identify and prioritize areas for potential land acquisition b) establish a revolving land acquisition fund using. the CranburY Park and 1-95 bond funds for the purchase of priorityparcels as available c) establish linear green belts along the Norwalk and Five Mile Rivers Areas which might be included in the plan are: a) Rowayto - Roton Point Beach Club, Hart Property, Five Mile River wetlands. b) South Norwalk - Manresa/Harborview wetlands', Shorefront Park wetlands, Reed-Putnam wetlands, Wilson Cove wetlands, Village Creek wetlands, Wilson Avenue peninsula c) East Norwalk - Marvin Creek wetlands, Canfield/ Shorehaven wetlands, Canfield Avenue peninsula d) Norwalk Islands - Chimons, Sheffield, and other islands as appropriate 2) Develop a management plan for Taylor Far , Norwalk's largest coastal open space reserve. The plan should: a) link Taylor Farm to adjacent coastal area parks (Calf Pasture Par7k-, Shady Beach) with a coherent pedestrian network; 78 b) establish a parcourse to attract more users to the site while concentrating use impacts c) establish an internal trail_system to attract more users to the site while concentrating use impacts d) permit the area of Taylor Farm near 5pruce Swamp to revert to a meadow which could serve as a suitable wildlife breeding habitat. The meadow could be maintained by annual mowing. 3) Develop a management plan for municipally owned islands (Shea, Grassy, The Plains, Little Ram). 4) Secure rightoffirst refusal to purchase tidal wetlands and critical island areas as they become available. :11 111 Secure the establishment of private coastal area open space reserves ectives 1) Secure conservation easements and dedication of land and tidal areas to the Norwalk Land Trust, Nature Conservancy- Connecticut Chapter, or other private land conservation trusts to protect Norwalk's unique coastal resources. These land and tidal areas should be of sufficient width to ensure that coastal resources are not impacted by adjacent shoreline development and provide limited public access. The following areas are recommended for such reserves: a) tidal wetlands (designated and undesignated) designated - Farm Creek, Wilson Cove, Village Creek, Mianresa/Harborview, Charles Cove, Shorehaven/Canfield Island undesignated - Five Mile River, Shorefront Park, Reed- Putnam, Singer Propett@, Charles Creek, Veterans Park, Marvin Creek b) rocky shore - Bell Island, Norwalk Islands, Wilson Cove (west) c) cobbl beach Shea Island, East Norwalk south of Cove Avenue d) Mud flat Veterans Park, Shorefront Park, Five Mile River, Marvin Creek, Canfield Island, Village Creek 79 - e) island archipelago - 18 Norwalk Islands 2) Establish wetland conservation areas through zoning or transfer of development rights to protect tidal wetlands (designated and undesignated) and critical island areas 3) Use the tax assessment concept of Public Act 490 (An Act Concerning the Taxation and Preservation of Farm, Forest, and Open Space Land to give tax incentives to private property owners to maintain and protect coastal area lands a) of natural, scenic, and historic value, b) enhance preserves, or c) promote orderly urban or suburban develop- ment. These open space areas are crucial in developed communities as they provide the opportunity for leisure and recreation in natural settings, a relief from the man-made environment. GOAL IV Improve public access to Norwalk's coastline Objectives 1) Support-the a2propriation of public and private funds-to establish walkways, roadways, and promenades immediately adjacent to the waterfront especially in areas of mixed use development in areas along upper harbor, South Norwalk waterfront, and Five Mile River Harbor. 2) Secure public access easements to increase opportunities to reach Norwalk's coastline. Easements should be obtained: a) along the west bank of the Norwalk River to create the Norwalk River Linear Park/Bikeway b) along the west bank of the Norwalk River to create a linear walk.south of Wall Street to Shorefront Park c) along the Five Mile River to create a linear exten- sion from Pinkney Park to Rowayton Community Beach d) alo ng the perimeter of designated and undesignated tidal wetlands 3) Secure right of first refusal to purchase any privatel owned tidal wetlands (designated or undesignated) 80 4) Seek cooperation with Connecticut Light and Power Company in managing organizing study groups which visit the Manresa Island tidal wetland. 5) Secure dedications of waterfront parcels as a reasonable' condition of development at appropriate locations'. 6) -Develp2 a municipal land acquisition 2Ian to: a) identify and prioritize coastal areas for potential acquisition (based on physical and visual access) b) organize a park acquisition fund so that purchases can be rapidly completed when land parcels become available Key coastal tracts which provide access to the waterfront include: a) Hart Property - a 10 acre designated tidal wetland/ upland area on Farm Creek; adjacent to Kulze Preserve and Landgon Property; largest undeveloped tidal wetland in Rowayton b) Roto Point Club - a private club located on the waterfront; largest privately owned open/beach parcel in Norwalk;' club said to be in financial trouble; if developed zoning permits construction of 100 condomi- niums; acquire to create a city park c) Norwalk Islands - minimally developed island archi- pelago.with unique coastal resources and critical wildlife habitats; acquire Chimons Island (heron rookery) and Sheffield Island (historic lighthouse); determine which if any other islands should be acquired d) tidal wetlands - (desIgnated and undesignated) acquire parcels as available e) Wilson Avenue Peninsula - acquisition of peninsula and wetland in Village Creek f) Canfield Island Peninsula - acquisition of peninsula and tidal wetland adjacent to Canfield Island Creek 7) Establish linear walks, beltways, and greenbelts along the Norwalk and Five Mile Rivers. Endorse the Norwalk River Bike Plan and the Veterans Park Master Plan. 81 force the law. someone with teeth. ""4e need more ability to enr To have an ef-f-ective harbor management plan requires su-n-port, authority . . . We should also T3rovide special moorings or do docka-e facilities for transient vessels'." John Deware. August 4, 1981 '@,7e could fill Cove Marina three times over. As for the South Anchorage Basin, it is not desireable since it is so far from land and exposed to south winds which produce some really rouah weather. The most imDortant thing is to keep the harbor dredged. Once an area is dredged it is clean." James Gardella, August 4, 1981 It is the responsibility of the Harbor Master to oversee the safe and efficient use of the harbor and to enforce all boating regula- tions. In Norwalk Harbor, there are long strings of moorings, many illegally lying in the federal channel. With a Harbor 114anage- ment Plan we mi-ht establish a thoroughfare and expand the anchor- age basin There is good public access at Veterans Park where permits are issued to residents at no charge and to non-residents on a fee basis ... There are deeded public rights-of-way which. extend into the harbor basin-at the ioot of Second, Third, and Fourth Streets although the last of these is clocked by a concrete abatement. Don Relyea, April 27, 1981 "A Harbor Management Plan, such as the one developed for Stonington, Haine and NewDort, I Rhode Island, if developed in the public interest could help determine what should be allowed. Among the criteria for such a plan: 1) Since general revenues are used to maintain navigable waters these waters must be accessible to all 2) Free, unimpeded navigation along channels and waterfront facilities must be provided to accomodate commerc.e 3) Mooring space must be open to all on equal terms 4) 'Facilities for transient boats should be provided to accomodate visiting boats. The community must establish a system of priorities which consider local needs, and benefits . . . The plan must be well reasoned and avoid the bank-to-bank mooring plan now practiced on the Five "Hile River". Fichard Roach, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, April 27, 1981 3Z Goal V Promote and manage waterbased recreation activities while minimizing impacts on the coastal environment Objectives 1) Expand the municipal marina at Veterans Park making moderately priced boating op@ortunities available in accordance with the Veterans Park Master Plan. Such a facility should not be designed to compete with existing marinas and boatyards but rather to complement these private operations. The municipal marina's design should be based upon existing facilities (launch- ing ramps, slips, parking) with ammenities such as additional slip , launching ramps, a Harbor Center, and a marina core as.proposed in the Veterans Park Master Plan. Slip assignments should be made on a lottery basis so that all interested users have an equal chance of obtaining @pace. User fees should be adequate to maintain the municipal facility and contribute to Harbor Master funding. Also apply for an annual allotment of moorings from the Harbor-Master to be operated and maintained by the Veterans Park Marina. 2) Establish additional locations for public boating facil- ities (boat rental/launcbing) at Calf Pasture Beach, Veterans Park, Manresa Island, and at appropriate city street ends. 3) Establish a public dock for transient and commercial slips at Veterans Park in accordance with the Veterans Park Master Plan. 4) Seek cooperation from the Army Cor2s of Engineers and other federal agencies to ensure that Norwalk's exist'- ing federal navigation channels are maintained. 5) Qoordinate recreational boating activities by oreparin a Harbor-Management Plan for Norwalk Harbor and the Five Mile River Harbor.. These plans should designate perman- ent and transient mooring basins, specify tackle require- ments and rental and use procedures, establish strict operational regulations (speed, water skiing, fishing, waste disposal), and require licensing of water scooters, hydroplants, and other similar vehicles, 'The plans should be enforced by the Harbor Masters aided by Norwalk's marine police division. Management of the Five Mile River Harbor must be coordinated by the Five Mile River Commis- sion and the town of Darien. 83 6) Establish a permanent, fulltime Harbor master position for Nonvalic Harbor. The Harbor Master will be charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Harbor Manage- ment Plan, coordinating port activities with state regulatory agencies and the Army Corps of Engineers, working with the proposed local Port Authority, and minimizing conflicts between recreational and commer- cial boating users. The position could be funded with revenue from the municipal marina. 7) Measure intensity of boating use throughout the harbor. Restrict growth of 'recreational.boating in already congested areas. Promote fulfilling the recreational boating potential of underutilized areas. 8) Encourage the development of new commercial marinas and boatyards and private wharfs (for the use of the owner) in areas less sensitive to boating impacts. 9) Establish a recreational boating education program to instruct users in the appropriate.use ofmotor and sail boats, good maintenance practices navigation, and laws of the city's Harbor Management Plan (e.g. power squadron courses at Calf Pasture Beach). 10) Require annual inspections of boats for safe and efficient engine and equipment operations (gas and oil leaks, high exhaust levels). 11) Establish activity zones where environmental impacts are low. Establish strict regulations regarding speed, activities, and size of wakes near sensitive or critical coastal areas. Regulations should address activities including powerboating, duck hunting water skiing, and windsurfing so that these and other water activities can be conducted safely. They should be developed in cooperation with state and federal regu- latory agencies. Goal VI Endorse plans for the Norwalk Maritime Center to be housed in the Norwalk Fabricators building in South Norwalk as a major educational, scientific, and recreational facility. objectives 1) Support the appropriation of public and private funds to develop adequate su@port facilities including esplanades, greenbelts, marinas, and fishing piers adjacent to the *i4 _14.1411-1 _41ettter and at Veterans Park, 0 84 2) Develop contingency plan for the Maritime Center should the original goal of a major institution not be.realized 3) Restudy location of Maritime Center Parking Garage on the waterfront with preference being given to an upland site 4) Enlarge the concept of a Maritime Center to the entire waterfront by encouraging visitors to the Center to see and experience the diversity of Norwalk's working water- front including the Oyster Industry, the marinas, the port, tidal marshes, and the Islands. NORWALK MARITIME CENTER 85 J. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Redevelopment Agency mu@t look toward reusing waterfront property. do we tear old buildings down? We go to Europe to see old buildings. In Europe engineers design roads to go around buildings. However, here we tear them down. Americans have a mentality which states "new is better". New is not better. It is time to consider adoDtive reuse - a bank in an old Victorian home, a doctor's office 19th century Revival building, and apartments in a piano factory. The Norwalk Redevelopment Agency has prepared publications - tools for Historic Preservation, How to Preserve, and Revitalization of South Norwalk. Valle Fay, May 26, 1981 @/Y AIRW Maine Lumber Schooners 86 SHORELINE APPEARANCE, URBAN DESIGN,, AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Goal I Protect unique visual resources of the coastal area with effective desian criteria. Objectives 1) Establish general coastal design guidelines using the Long Island Sound Study Fs design criteria to supplement Norwalk's coastal site plan review process. More specific guidelines such as those established for the South Norwalk Historic Design (Washington Street Urban Design Study should be established for areas with unique design qualities (e.g. Hour Square, Bell Island, Rowayton Avenue). Guidelines should address: Building setback, height, mass, silhouette, and image; shoreline covering and plantings; earth forms; access and approachways; signs and site furniture as related to specific site analysis. Planning and Zoning staff should coordinate use of the Al guidelines with the project owner, architect, developer, and/or builder before review by the Commission to ensure the best possible design on a specific site. 2) Use open sDace-preservation tools to enhance and main- tain Norwalk's shoreline appearance (see Parks/Open Space, Waterbased Recreation, and Public Access). 3) Establish waterfront zones dedicated primarily to water- based activities that cannot be reasonably located inland. Each zone type should have specific design criteria based on shoreline features, topography, and existing land uses. 4) Incorporate the design review criteria of the Washington Street Design Study, Norwalk Historic Preservation Plan, and South Norwalk Revitalization Plan into coastal site plan review, 5) _Secure scenic and visual easements to the water@s edge using existing streets and undeveloped view corridors 1 throughout Norwalk's coastal area. 6) Establis coastal areas with-distinct and valuable views by a) zoning waterfront height regulations which permit high rise development only in predetermined areas but which generally reduce or step down maximum height allowances closer to the waterfront 87 b) require minimum buildin& setbacks on the water's ri edge but exempt water dependent uses (marinds, T boatyards, commercial port facilities, commercial fishing facilities). Base regulations on the Long Island Sound Study's design criteria and individual site character. 7) Establish standards to visually bufferland improve indus- trial and commercial storage areas (petroleum, asphalt, sand7gravel, fisheries) transportation links, and utilities located on the waterfront. Standards should require appro- priate landscaping, painting, upkeep, and design in accor- dance with standards in the Long Island Sound Study. 1_71W Provide economic incentives to encourage maintenance of visually attractive facilities. 8) Improve city street ends'as important public visual access points. Improvements could include development of small parks, launching ramps for small boats, and fishing piers. .'9) Encourage the preservation and creation of special places on the waterfront with strong visual interest (eg. Tallmadge Brothers Oyster House, Sheffield Island Light- house, Maritime Center, and improvements at Veterans Park). 10) Use the Long Island Sound Study's guidelines in conjunc- tion with coastal site plan review to orient development toward the waterfront in the coastal area. 11) Encourage development of appropriate scale of Landfill, Reed-Putnam, Railyards Site subject to design review and with minimal impacts on coastal resources. Goal II Protect coastal area landmarks which are of historical, architectural, archeological, or paleontological importance. Objectives 1) Establish a process for identifying_coastal zone structures which are historical landmarks as part of the coastal site plan review process. The process 'should consider the importance of historical sites, structures of architectural significance, industrial sites, and archeological sites. Norwalk's Historic Resources Inventory and Historic, Preservation Plan should be used as guidelines. .2) Update the Historic Resources Inventory to include all coastal zone landmarks of historical, archeological, or architectural significance. 88 3) Develop a municipal informationprogramto relate historic preservation and coastal area management programs. Owners of historic structures should be educated on the subject of historic preservation, adaptive reuse, funding options, and tax abatement programs. it is better to discuss historic preservation and/or adaptive reuse with an owner before an application for changing these structures is filed with Planning and Zoning. The program might include general information and technical assistance workshops. 4) Develop protective ordinances to preserve the architectural historical character, and aesthetic quality of buildings and districts in the coastal area. Ordinances should include sign ordinances, design criteria, and visual appearance standards (landscaping, painting, maintenance, turfing, etc. . . . ) in accordance with the criteria of the Long Island Sound Study. 5) Establish historic districts under Connecticut General Statutes (CGS sec. 7-147a) to protect and preserve these unique areas. Districts and buildings which should be designated include: Taylor Farm, Hour Square, Bell Island, Haviland-Elizabeth Streets area, Butler Street area,, Ice- House Factory, and R&G Corset Factory. 6) Study the potential of economic incentives to encourage .preservation and adaptive reuse of Norwalk's coastal area landmarks. 7) Investigate ways to preserve many of Norwalk's coastal buildings which reflect the community's water-based industry and history remnants of the past which should not be lost. Buildings include Radel Oyster House and Incerto House. 8) investigate the possibility of securing facade easements to protect Norwalk's coastaL landmarks and provide some tax advantages. 9) Revise demolition T)trmit procedures to require public hearinjzs and review by Planning and Zoning Commission before any building in the No-k@7alk Historic Resource Inventory is demolished. 6--j s9 !-A IV. OTFPORTUTNITY AREAS /DEVELOPTI-1ENT SCENARIOS Rowayton Avenue D. Roton Point C. Wilson Cove D. Villaae Creek E, Manresa Island F. Water Street G. Landfill-Washington Street-Railyards H. UDper Harbor I. Cove Avenue J. Canfield/Shorehaven/Cove 'Marina Norwalk Islands 7.7 Ot F4w Whv Dock.your, office @4y e H'Arb Plaza to boat doce PUU 90 IV. 0 Dortunit Ar-as Devrlo_pmert ScenarioF coas'Cline of -1-7orwalk has been divided ipto eleve Opportunity areas- those areas which may undergo'rapid change and for whic@ clear develop- ment policy is needed. They provide a vehicle for further refinement I the goals and objectives presented in the previous section. They also, and most importantly, provide the basis for decision-making. 0 The opportunity areas need to be understood in terms of the existing situation: coastal resources, coastal land uses-, and in terms of their potential for future development. Current zoning often does not protect land uses. For example current zoning allows: - All of the remaining parcels of land on Rowayton Avenue to be developed as office 'buildings and condominiums, displacing all of the r.emaining boatyards and marinas - Roton Point Club in Rowayton to be developed with over 100 units of multi-family residential units - Replacement of the Wilson Cove Yacht Club with single R family houses on 12,500 sq. ft. lots if the club were ever destroyed by fire or natural disaster or abandoned - Massive development of 8-story office buildings along 0 Water Street from Burritt Avenue to Washington Street 0 displacing the numerous boat clubs, marinas, boatyards, oyster industry, and port facilities - Similar massive office development on the upper harbor (see above) - Development of office, commercial and multi-family residential development or Cove Avenue - Development of large scale.hotel, office, or condominiums ?t Cove Mdrina and the Ascention Beach Club. - Development of all of the Canfield Island tidal wetland for single family residential development, and - Development of all of the Village Creek tidal wetland for heavy industrial use. Development potential is often quite different than current Innd use as these examples clearly illustrate. Therefore, one scenario WbiCh Will be presented for each area is the maximum develoT.3ment allowed by current zoning. T.-rhile such examples may seem far fetched they, in 'fact represent the current development policy of the City of 1-Torwalk and'the basis on which such land is valued. They represent an anticipated "development right" which landowners claim as part of their investment in the land. The second andl in some cases, third scenarios illustrate develop- ment options under different zoning concepts or, in some cases with public aquisition or transfer of development rights. By illustrating alternatives for development in"each of the oppor- tunity areas we hope to provide a basis for decision-making at the local level;the framework of each decision can be evaluated in terms of its scale, density, impact, and level of public improvement. Three opportunity areas: Roton Point, the Upper Harbor, and Cove Avenue have been studied in detail. Illustrative site plans have been prepared showing how development might occur under three different zoning/land tise alternatives. At each step in the process of approving this plan the development scenarios will be used as the basis for decision making and Will determine the ultimate plan. The development alternatives are a more detailed reflection of the goals and objectives of the State of Connecticut's Coastal Area Management Act and the goals and objectives for Norwalk's Coastal Program in the preceeding section. The following sections describe the eleven coastal opportunity areas and the development scenarios. A. Rowayton Avenue (Goals & Objectives: Al,A4,B2-1B4,,_P,51L1l,D2 Ilie signs of rapid land dse change are already readily apparent in the Business Number 3 Zone of Rowayton Avenue. Office buildings and multi-family residential developments have replaced traditional water dependent land uses leading to the elimination of four boat- yards and the transfer of slips and moorings from commercial boacyards to private o@Tnership. The alternative matrix shows three options for the Rowayton Avenue Eusiness District: 1) Business Number 3 Zone A 2) '.1arine Com-mercial Zone 3) Desian District Zone 0 92 Alternative No. 1 Business No. 3 Zone The assumption of the Business No. 3 zone scenario is that develop- ment would proceed up to the full limit allowed by, zoning and each landowner maximizing his/her profit. This would lead over- time to the total elimination of all remaining boatyards. Slips and moorings would become much more exclusive in use and available ity. Traffic and Darking impacts would reach saturation and beyond. Environmental impacts could be severe. Future dredging of the harbor would be jeopardized because of the lack of a commercial port, commercial fishing, or public boating facility. The provisions of the zone which were enacted in 1980, would however insure the preservation of water views by mandating an aggregate side yard of 40% of the lot width. Parking requirements would continue to require most if not all of the land devoted to parrking lots, leaving little area for landscaping or waterfront amenities. Alternative No. 2 Marine Commercial Zone The marine commercial alternative would establish a firm policy towards protecting the remaining existing boatyards and commercial fishing establishments. Permitted uses would be limited to marinas, boayards, commercial fishing, sail 1ofts. boatbuilding and repair, and related commercial uses. It would make the existing neighborhood commercial, office and residential uses non-conform- ing; i.e. they could remain, but would not be allowed to expand. The major disadvantage to this zone is the extent to which exxist- ing development rights would be curtailed. Modifications of the marine commercial zone, however, might allow transfer of develop- ment rights to upland parcels. It might also be modified to allow office and residential uses, but only by special permit. Alternative No. 3 Design District Zone A Design District alternative would create a flexible zoinging district on the waterfront under which a wide variety of land uses would be permitted, but all of which would be,subject to specific design controls including waterfront setbacks, require public access to the waterfront, waterfront visual easements, sign controls, architectural review, and other standards for landscaping and site amenities. The result of this zone might not be much different than Business No. 3 Zone - the eventual elimination of all water dependent uses. However, by allowing more flexibility in mixed land use on single parcels it might be possible for individual boatyards to conduct year round activities which would generate suffficient income to compete with other land uses. The ideas of Lee Hartog regard transfer of development rights and transfer of off-street parking to community parking lots east of Rowayton Avenue could be incor- 0 Rowayton Ave. Alternatives For Type of Use Impact of Development Development Permitted Scale Beneficial Adverse Publir Improvements Alternative #1 *Commercial 2 stories -30 ft. -increased office -could lead to -Improvement of Roway- a Office 35% coverage- construction would elimination of ton Ave. -elimination of Business #3 create jobs, taxes water depen- curb cuts, improve Sign- (existing zoning) -increased residen- dent land uses age, plant street trees, Purpose: to Residential 26 units/acre: tial construction -would increase new sidewalks encourage a Family would add to supply traffic. impact -Creation of centralized wide variety of 35 units/acre: of housing -could weaken parking lots under private business uses elderly -waterfront proper case for U.S. or municipal control ties have high re- Army Corps -Public access points to development paten- dredging of waterfront tial. harbor. -Dredging of the harbor Alternative #2 Boatyards 2 stories -30 ft. -would remove (see above) *Marinas 35% coverage - development Marine Assoociated ag. side yard =40% -would help assure value of water- Commercial commercial minimum that future uses on front land water depen - the waterfront are -could lead to Purpose: To dent land water dependent further des - encourage only uses -positive commit. tructfon a( marine related ment to boating coastal resour- uses on the and fishing on ces. waterfront Five Mile River -would be strong argument to con- tinue Army Corps dredging of harbor. Alternative 3 -All uses per- -All uses: -Does not reduce -No clear direc- mitted *step back' height development tion for future Design District -Minimum de- controls or view rights except to land use Purpose: To sign controls: preservation enhance and pro- -could lead to a encourage a *landscaping requirements tect views of water concentration mixture of land public access maximum height -Allows mixed land of office and the required along *bulk use residential waterfront with waterfront and *floor area ratio: -Would create, development a consistent to waterfront minimum water - over time, a and the elimi- set of design from street front setback design unity nation of most Standards except if except for water water dependent water depen- dependent uses land uses. dent use *transfer of devel - -would weaken *signs, colors, opment rights case for Army materials, possible Corps dredging architecture subject to review shoreline appearance & design" Long Island sound study stan - dards to apply Buffering surrounding properties when uses are incompatible 93 15 Roton Point (Goals Objectives: Al,B2,C2,C4,C5,D1,D2) Roton Point is the site o-E the former Roton Point amusement par!,-., a large regional waterfront commercial enter-orise similar to Rye .Playland in Westchester County. The site is now occupied by -the Roton Point Club, Bayley Beach (6th District Park), and the T@Teeburn Country Club. Roton Point is zoned "B,Residence" which permits single family housing at a density of one dwelling unit per 6,250 scuare feet of lot area or approximately 7 units per acre. In the D'Residence Zo@Lne, Planned Residential Developments are also per-. mitted at a density of one dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet of lot area or approximately 9 units to the acre. While the Weeburn Club Dayley Beach are not likely to change, the Roton Point Club is likely to change' and the following alternatives reflect three scenarios for Lhat 13 acre waterfront site. e Alternative 1: B Residence Zone Under the "B Residence Zone" Alternative it has been assumed that at some future date the landowners of the Roton Point Club would exercise their right to develop to the maximum permitted under existing zoning. This would result in 120 units on 13 acres in a Planned Residential Development- probably under condominium ownership. The club building and boathouse could be integrated into the development and used as year round recreational buildings. The beach and boating facilities would probably be reserved for the exclu- s1ve use of" the condominium owners, but a public walkway and fishing pier could be incorporated into the site plan. Alternative 2: Public Park This alter-native describes the scenario under which the City would purchase the Rotan Point Club and worlo-ing cooperatively with the Sixth Taltina District retain the area as a waterfront park and recreation area. Parking for 250 cars would limit usa,'re to that number and summer controlled entry could be rec,ulated throuah the use'of stickers or gate attendants. The estimated purchase price of over $2 million would be a major nroblem in this alternative. Funds could be raised through the sale of other park land such as the Gillies Lane site, Federal and stnte oner. space Funds, city ozorkland. acquisition funds, and through private contributions. 0 94 Alternative 3 Waterfront Hotel/Conference Center This alternative would require an amendment to the B Residence zone allowing waterfront hotels and conference centers by special permit. The assumption here is that the Roton Point Club would be purchased by a large corporation which would develop the property for an 80.000 square foot conference center or hotel. The existing buildings could be retained and used for banquet hall, meeting rooms, end beacb houses. The hotel would contain a restaurant open to the public and public access to the waterfront fishing pier would be provided. C. Wilson. Cove (Goals & objectives: A1,Bl,C5) Wilson Cove has several smaller issues at stake. The Morland property is a beautiful rocky slope with four historic structures, but the potential for much greater development under the A Residence Zone. The newly enacted Conservation Development Zone 118-410 would allow cluster development of this site thereby allowing the historic structures and natural land features to be preserved as much as possible. The Wilson Cove Yacht Club has 100 slips and upland winter storage and repair facilities. The zoning, however, is A Residence Zone under which zone boat clubs are not permitted. * Alternative 1: A Residence Zone If the existing zoning were retained, the Wilson Cove Yacht Club would remain a pre-existing non-conforming use - meaning that it could remain but could not expand and if it were ever destroyed by fire or natural disaster it could only be replaced by single family homes, or a small cluster residential development. * Alternative 2: A Residence Zone - Boat Clubs by Special Permit This alternative would make boat clubs a special permit use in the A Residence Zones, thus allowing such uses to exit expand and rebuilt if the conditions of the special permit are met. Such a category would also apply to the Norwallk Yacht Club which is also in Wilson Cove in, the AAA Residence zone, the Shore and Country Club which is in a B Residence zone and the Sprite Island Club which has a facility in the AAA Residence Zone. 0 For Development Permitted Scale Beneficial Adverse Public Improvements Alternative #1 1 Family 7 Unit/acre -would provide -Would remove -road improvements B Residence Zone PRD 9 units/acre needed housing large amount of Pine Pt. Rd., Ruton Av (existing zoning) -could be designed open space -sewer drainage improv- to incorporate -would add to traf- ments historic structures fic on narrow -mass transit improve- and natural fea- local roads ment (wheels route tures -scale of condo extension) -would add to tax could be out of base character with -could include lim- surrounding ited Public access development -would further limit public access to beaches Alternative #2 Park & Year-Round -would provide new -could have sub- -road improvements Public Park Open Space Waterfront park, major public beach stantial traff ic Pine Pt. Rd. Roton Ave (existing zone to and watertront impact on local -Park improvements(on- remain) park on Western roads going rather than large coastline ot -capacity limited single capital outlay) Norwalk would need some -mass transit improvements form of regulat- (Wheels route extension) in a attendance -non-tax produc- ing, but would account for some new jobs Roton Point Alternatives Impact of Development For Development Type of Use Scale Beneficial Adverse Public Improvements Alternative #3 Corporate 150 rooms, -would provide low -would further -new road along old trolley right of way B Residence Training Ctr. tennis, boat- intensity commer- limit public -other road improve- Zone- or Luxury ing facilites cial use of proper- recreation on ments: Pine Point allow water- Hotel-Confer- indooor recrea- ty waterfront Roton Avenue front hotels, ence Center tion facilities -high quality improve- -would add to -mass transit immprove- corporate train- meeting rooms, ments traffic on narrow ments (wheels route ing centers. conference -would return most local roads extension) clubs by special facilities. if not all of land permit value to land -scale of develop- owner ment might be -tax and job produc- out of character ing -some limited public access could be provided in the form of walks to beach from Bayley Beach parking lot or limited annuai memberships, or limited public use Alternative #4 Private Club (B Reen/Water Private water- 15 paved Would continue private Landowner could front Club) front' 90 lawn waterbased recrea- develop up to 120 Purpose: to Clubs by special tional facility units of housing continue the club permit only -would limit intensity unless club or use of the proper - of use other purchased ty as a waterfront -some facilities could development recreational club be open to public on a right facility limited basis e.g. sail- -year round club ing school, swimming would require pool additional struc- -year-round recrea- tures. Winter tion facility: possible traffic. indoor tennis, swim- ming. 17 C2 N FE -P !N-arw-a ZAt.-LO .2LO YOA7- --Sl-,nFZAC-a ->Se r S V -62 SCA A @5WIMMINL@ @ w WA Ilk Jkb 4*ANAGS@" IOTON POI N-7 LANDUSE ALTpKNATIV r- -Lvr@CN ACID,-, k<,N 140 PE mar@ R'-- !;,OjTrs 1r-i A. -77 PAP C3 6 vr;Y@i r It If 1&J'Lo'Nm. 71 MnRA@e -*Ift BCW, 'BSTA;RArr7 C@ /INN tWILx. PClt.K C=IJT-!@.&@ J* Z VLLEY BALL C,::'VWr5 ?V-Mf(, ARMA--, - -in S,,A- A -5L,P @.AR,NA -17-5 lei jI 111RE Pl -Ta@r Lar 0- t-LAND j3(.-A4'f 9 E@"TINI@ OMN AIR T@Y%Ljjo@4/ 5-e_xESAp, ROTON FOIN-7 Al-T"F-FINA-MVE .2- ice m K!7 fill 51-@c CIO v---X-5 0 cc, !@-p ViEMIAL- (SZET-5-@N71cN) zs IN ROOMS ANO,5T500 to 40 rilkRK- C-w -,rtu -M@- I 110 ^4.e- /Oe6 F R VA-r. 0 1, 04 'N--10-- 15 'NN r,=M-- =MjSer 0. ?Fs-rAVRANr AND 70W SP 0@ e.,ONmeEN,/-E spv@a, -rH BUILD- .A. 6"KAVML PnACI IzAms- 5LIF-, L@@Wer- tpo 1-Nr_mw6 too c PO 5@w 1b 10 R07ON POINT LA.NDU:5E ANAGS odmokXrION ADD.TION 60IAmr=Re_LAL I.NDUSTRIAL- lAlft @.-' @1@ CLUD PA--ILFry @w lle@ 0 tl@ SWULYTKftAF% 3WW@ tm^- 04 sm wu@ep e-.Rb. 3r-XrMM&l [email protected] CAV-.rM -mms CoWwm CAM tw we" eAw -Wxtw. '-01- Ar 7 t W-4 0@ M@5'@ sea., COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING & ZONING LANE>USF- AL--mi:?,NxT-ivE- NORWALK, CONNECTICUT ItlT 100- Soo 95 Alternative 3: Marine Commercial Zone This alternative would rezone the Wilson Cove Yacht Club for exclusive marine commercial use. This would allow the boatincr facility to be used by the general public, ,,7ould allow other water related activities to occur such as boat sales', boat repair, boat building and boat servicing which would encourage a steady income and permanent water dependent use of the property. D. Village Creek (Goals & Objectives: AI,Bl,B2,Ql,C2,C3,C4,Dl) The Village Creek tidal wetland is one of the largest in Nlorwalk and one of.the most threatened. Its current zoning is "Heavy Industrial". a direct conflict with its classification by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection as a designated tidal marsh. The marsh-is surrounded on two sides by manufacturing industries and junk yards many of which were developed on fill over the past half century. Many of these industri'es have room for expansion without severely impacting the tidal marsh, but the zoning indication that the entire marsh is available for indus- trial development is misleading in view of State and local CAM goals. -e Alternative 1: Heavy Industrial Zone, if the present zoning pattern were.allowed to remain, it would continue to lead to a confusing and inconsistent state and local regulations, and the potential loss of major additional amounts of this wetland. 9 Alternative 2: Wetland Conservation Zone Under this proposal the area designated by the State of Connecticut as a regulated tidal wetland would be zoned as "Wetland Conservation Zonel a new zoning category. The only permitted activities in-this zone would be those permitted by the State D.E.P. without a permit, i.e. farming, fishing and hunting. Such a zone would not greatly reduce development rights, since the State has already -placed restrictions on the wetland. Further, none of the industrial properties surrounding Villa ge Creek have been developed to the full potential of the allow- ance under this zone, i.e. 8 stories and 90% coverage. There is a large untapped development -potential for expansion on the non-designated areas of the industrial. zone. which if property designed to mitigate harmful impacts on the surrounding wet- lands, allows sufficient space for expan.sion and modernization. 96 Manresa Island E _(Goals & objectives: Al,A2,A3,Bl,B2,C2,C3,C4,C5,Dl) Imanresa Island, owned by Connecticut Light and Power division of Northeast Utilities is, in reality, three environments: (1) the oil burning regional electric power plant with its modern barge- loading facility which has coal capability as well; (2) a large flat open area which was used for fly-ash disposal when the plant was a coal burning facility and (3) the second largest tidal marsh on the Norwalk Coast (the largest being Canfield Island Creek).The zoning classification for Manresa'bears little relationship to the existing situation - all of Mlanresa is zoned for B Residence (single family housing on 6,250 square foot lots or PRD develo'Dments. at a density of 7 dwelling uni .ts/acre. Since this zoning class- ification bears little relationship to existing or potential future land use, it is assumed that it will not be considered further. One approach to Manresa is to rezone it functionally in accordance with @tate and local MM goals. The power plant facility could then be zoned in a "Marine Industrial" or "Heavy Industrial" classification; the fill area as public use-water related implying limited water-orient6d recreational use such as a fishing pier, small boat launch or viewing pier; and the tidal wetland as "Wetland Conservation Zone" (see section describing this zone under Village Creek). F. Water Street (Goals & Objectives: Al,.'@2,A3,A4,A5,Bl,C4,C5,Dl,D2) The W-_,,ter Street area from Burritt Avenue on the south to Washington Street on the north is one of the most interesting areas of the coastal,area because of its close intermixture of land uses, most of which are water dependent marinas, boatclubs, the oyster industry. and three port facilities (sand, gravel, oil). Again, the existing zoning (Heavy Industrial) for this waterfront area bears little relationship to existing land uses. (See development matri.-..) e Alternative 1: Heavy Industrial Zone This zone, once designed for large multi-story factories, if allowed to remain on Water Street, could lead to the eventual elimination of most if not all the water dependent uses and - their replacement by office buildings. The Heavy Industrial Zone allows an 8-story office or commercial building with 90% coverage. Such a complete change in land use up to the maxi- mum allowed by zoning with office buildings replacing traditional marine related uses occurred in Greenwich harbor, Stamford harbor and the Five Mile River harbor in Rowayton. With the immediate proximity to the South Norwalk Revitalization area such an office building boom could very well result as the area 0 becomes more attractive for private investment. 97 a Alternative 2: 1,,Iarine Commercial Zone A marine commercial zone would permit only marinas, boat clubs, fishing industries, and port facilities (see description under "Rowayton Avenue" section). Such a zone would protect the water.dependent uses along the South Norwalk waterfront and would cause the small non-water related industries, service stations and commercial buildings to become non-conforming. Its chief disadvantage is the large amount of development potential that would be lost on the waterfront. Alternative 3: Desi,gTjj@@strict Zone A design district zoning category would allow a mixture of land uses with consistent controls regarding height, bulk. setback landscaping, signs, colors and architectural review. Such a zoning district could result in the same concentration of office buildings as in the Heavy Industrial alternative. Residential and mixed use developments could also result and boat clubs and marinas could develop part of their land and still maintain their boat facilities. /V*!_ @7 low Striped Havi 98 G. Land f ill-1,,-,a L1_1_i_1_1__Z,_tcn Street (Goals&Objectives: Al,3l,B2,Cl,C4,C5,C6, DI,D2) South @,Ior,,,7alk 'Revitalization Area The South Norwalk Revitalization Program, part of which-was funded with Coastal Area Management Funds, provides the basis for future development in South Norwalk. Phase one of the program is well on its way towards implementation. In discussing zoning within South Norwalk, the program states: "Current zoning in the Revitalization Area does not reflect present trends nor does it protect areas from future incompatible uses. . . . Special historic zoning should be considered for this area. In addition. a special waterfront district'should be established along South Norwalk's urban waterfront to replace current Heavy industrial zoning and encourage and control compatible new uses". (South Norwalk Revitalization Program; Anderson'. Notter Finegold). Major new uses shown along the waterfront are the Maritime Center, the Maritime Center Parking Garage, 50 Water Street (retail and commercial use) and a 150 room hotel. A preliminary draft of a Washington Street Design District zone has been prepared. It would apply to the entire historic district and 50 Water Street. The development scenario for Water Street would apply to the hotel conference center which would be possible under alternative 1 (Heavy Industrial) or Alternative 3 (Design District). The proposed Maritime Center parking garage on the waterfront has also been discussed at length. Alternative sites for this garage have been shown on the proposals now being developed for the Landfill Railyards - Reed Putnam area. o Landfill-Reed Putnam Railyards Preliminary plans have been prepared for this area, recognizing its enormous value as a-major development site in the City of Norwalk and the region. The three development plans differ in intensity, however, they all call for a mixture of office, resi- dential and hotel construction with waterfront parks and connect- ing pedestrian spaces. - 99 - The following summarizes the three development options: Alternative I - new office development: 925,000 sq. ft. - hotel conference center: 150-200 rooms - retail commercial: 20,000 sq. ft. - landscaped riverfront park Alternative 2 -new office development: 925,000 sq. ft. -hotel/conference center: 300 rooms -retail commercial: 30,000 sq. ft. -housing: 50 units -landscaped riverfront park Alternative 3 -new office development: 850,000 sq. ft. -hotel/conference center: 300 rooms -retail commercial: 10,000 - 70,000 sq. ft. -housing: 600 units -waterside restaurant -landscaped riverfront park -parking garage for Maritime Center between Ann Street & Marshall Street Landfill, Reed- Putnam, Railyards Alternatives For Type of Use Development Permitted Scale Beneficial Adverse Public Improvements Alternative I office 8 stories/625,000 limited development minimal develop- city assistance Limited Scale sq.ft. with minimum public ment in a highly in land assembly residential improvements visible develop- acquisition & Emphasize public 50 units (town- relocation investment along hotel house) $164,000,000 private does not eliminate rivers edge investment railyard provide long range commercial retail 200 rooms development plan does not provide maintain railyard 50,000 sq.ft. 4000 jobs good interconnec- negotiate new while allowing commercial tion of Reed- rail station & linear development estimated taxes: Putnam and water- pedestrian over- along waterfront $2.9 million front. pass emphasize mixed-use limits high land complete landfill on s parcel basis acquisition costs plan and create site for new office provide sites for limits development housing along water- on landfill provide and main- front tain open space 1887 ADT on remainder of maximize Reed-Putnam landfill site for office, residential & hotel negotiate develop- development ment rights for portion of rail- Develop portion of yard landfill site for corporate office construct on cost sharing basis new road between land- fill and Ann St. Ann/Marshall Street one way loop. Landfill, Reed- Putnam, Railyards Type of Use Alternatives For Permitted scale Beneficial Adverse Public Improvements Development Alternative 2 * 8 stories/625,000 * moderate development * Does not take maxi- * Same as above plus Moderate Scale * office sq.ft. with significant mum development more acquisition (Same as above except public improvements potential of costs of railyard expands taking of * residential property railyard, provides * 350 units highrise * new road along more sites for hous- * hotel and townhouse hous- * $221,000,000 private waterfront ing emphasizes Reed- ing investment * Does not eliminate Putnam Site) * commercial/retail * 300 room hotel * 3,600 jobs railyard * 50,000 sq. ft. * estimated taxes - commercial $3.9 million * limits development on landfill * positive connection of Reed Putnam & Railyard * 2015 ADT Alternative 3 Large Scale * office * 8 stories/900,000 * major development to a * extensive develop- * same as above plus (Same as above-except capacity of site ment on landfill acquisition of entire railyard is * residential * 600 units highrise would require haul- entire railyard, acquired, extensive & townhouse housing * $308,000,000 private ing solid waste to new bridge over development of land- investment suitable landfill railroad, removal fill) * 300 room hotel of landfill, * 4,800 jobs * new bridge over RR excessive traffic * 10,000 sq.ft. would be high cost impact would commercial * estimated taxes 5.1 public improvement require staggar- million ing work hours, * traffic impact ect.. * positive connection excessive on 1-95 of Reed-Putnam rail- yard * 2620 ADT 100 H. Upper Harbor (Goals and Objectives: A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, C1, C4, C5, D1, D2) The existing zonig on the upper harbor consists of "Heavy Industrial" zoning on the western side of the River from I-95 on the South to the Wall Street area on the north. The eastern side of the River is zoned Light Industrial No. 1 and Restricted Business. Upland zoning consists of Light Industrial No. 1, Business No. 2, D Residence and Restricted Business Zones. Despire the zoning classification there are few manufacturing industries within the industrial zone, only King.Industries, Ferro Inc., and the D'Addario asphalt plant. (which is a non-conforming use). The upper harbor is, however, the location of four port facilities (Norwalk Oil, Home Oil, D'Addario, and Devine Brothers) and two other water dependent uses (Maritronics boat storage and marina, and the Norwalk Boat Club). The Heavy and Light Industrial Zones as we have seen in previous sections, allows up to eight story commercial and industrial struc- tures and 90% "Lot coverage. The following alternatives reflect three possible scenarios for this area. (See development matrix). Alternative 1: Heavy Industrial Zone and Light Industrial # l Zone The first alternative assumes that the zoning will remain exactly as it is today, With the continued development pressures and rising values of waterfront 'Lend, the upper harbor could be expected to change over time (5-10 years) to a predominance of large office buildings, replacing the port facilities and the manufacturing industries. An estimated 1.5 million square feet of office space could be constructed under existing zoning reaping large profits to landowners, but having a major impact on Norwalk's coastal development. If the port facilities are eliminated on the upper harbor, action will be needed to protect the three facilities on the lower harbor or the City will lose its commercial port entirely. Additional impacts of this alter- native are illustrated in the illustrative site plan and summar- ized in the accompanying development matrix. a Alternative 2: Marine Industrial Zone This alternative is based on the premise that the upper harbor waterfront which is now zoned "Heavy Industrial" and "Light Industrial # 1" would be rezoned to a new zoning category, "Marine Industrial Zone". The purpose of this zone would be to protect the port activity in the upper harbor from compet- ing and more profitable land uses, i.e. office buildings. It is a zone which would allow as of right, ports, tank farms, boat building and repair, boat storage, and other uses 101 de:c-ined by the State CAM ac.t as "water dependent") but not including office buildings, retail uses, or multi-family residential uses. Incidental or accessory co-Lmrercial uses would also be permitted such as oEfices which are attached to marine industries, warehouses, and convenie-nce commercial uses. The effect of this zone, over time (5-10 years) would be to protect all existing port facilities as shown in the illustra- tive site plan, and to allow for new water dependent industries to locate here. The beneficial and adverse impacts of this alternative are summarized in the accompanying table. Alternative 3: -Design District Zone This alternative is based on. the premise that the upper harbor waterfront which is now zoned "Heavy Industrial" and "Light Industrial would be rezoned to a "Design District Zone". T A. @ I- he purpose of this zone would be to allow a wide variety of land uses, but to require a minimum design standard for each of the uses permitted in this zone. The zone would allow industrial, ccmmercial, and residential uses, but would require. minimum building setbacks, coverage, height restrictions, land- scaping, public access (if the use is non-water dependent) and review. Views of the water would be protected and enhanced through a "step-back" height requirement or a "view scope" visual easement (in accordance with an adopted shore- line view map). Transfer of development rights could also be permitted allowing a property owner on the waterfront to build in. excess of the permitted height if a visual easement is provided or if develop- ment is scaled down close'to the waterfront. Transfer of development rights could also be used to protect a historic landmark or particular-ly valuable open space. The overall scale of developmant in this zone would still be that of an urban, developed shorefront (9:70% coverage, 8 stories) but the "steD height" requirement or viewscope protection would be permitted at higher densities than allowed now (30 units/acre) and, depending on the location7, some very high density high rise towers would be encouraged (see illustrative site plan). limit waterfront develo?ment. Housing would be permitted at higher densities than allowed now (30 units/acre) and, depend- ing on the location, some very high density high rise towers would be encouraged (see illustrative site plan). Under this a!--ernative the major undevelo?ed parcels of land could be expected to develop as residential or office with strong on-site amenities such as promenades, plazas..board- v7alks, piers, mar-;',-nas, etc. Extensive pl-anting, fencing and other buffering devices would be used to separate in compatible land uses. L) r [Af jq IL ILI -!411 47 ri Is'v 7 nA o4a Ali 00, 001 116 ;4-;p 0---( Cixj- IQP - _1 op, 1E iD@ DtLF L3 -mcr, QN, A-- WAW, _--x2m, 67 rLi Ir, J" 94-- 'N A L4 .1 ;r- v- Z;@, cv,@ CIO. Him Xlit l 411 1 1 1 Jv I I: Ci If I- z 8 I T If I- t if it T7- Jn A3 LA I If ;111 Ij ra Ot. 001 V 1A Orv :r t,@q R UPPER HARBOR ALTERNATIVES FOR DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE #1 Heavy Industrial Impact of Development Public (exiscing zoning) Type of Development Scale of Development Beneficial Adverse Improvements Purpose: To encourage * Industrial 90% coverage -increased office -excessive traffic -improvement of East major manufacturing * Commercial 8 stories construction would impact on East Ave. Ave., Wall St., industries and other * Housing (2 Family create 4,200 jobs & Wall St.23,000 Commerce St., Harbor related land uses. only) -Total floor $9,246,000 in taxes added trips per day Ave. essential Area Permitted: -would eliminate -would, overtime, -$426,000 in road re- 1.6 million sq. ft. harmful effects of lead to elimina- pairs upper harbor indus- tion of port from -improvement of mass -Floor Area tries over time upper harbor transit essential Ratio 6 -public access and -waterfront proper- -would require major amenities to upgrade -No Site improve- ties would have commitment to hous- image ments required high redevelopment ing. -Parking: 4,000 potential spaces ALTERNATIVE #2 impact of Development Public Marine Industrial Type Of Development Scale of Development Beneficial Adverse Improvements Purpose: To encourage Water Dependent -90% coverage -would remove water -would expand poten- -improvement of RR primarily water-rela- Industries: - 8 stories front land from tially hazardous bridge over Norwalk ted industries expec- -Total floor area: competing land uses commercial traffic River essential ially port Facilities -ports including 130,000 sq. ft. on upper harbor tank farms, sand - Floor Area i.e. office build- -periodic dredging of & gravel, asphalt, Ratio: 6 ings & residential -would remove de-. uppper harbor necessary coal -Site Improvements velopment value Required -would help assure of waterfront land -improvement of Smith -boat building & future water devel- St., Harbor Ave., repair -Transfer of Devel- opment uses on the -would add 4800 Commerce St., West Ave. opment Rights upper harbor trips per day Wall St. and East Ave., -other "water depen- possible necessary costing dent" land uses -positive commitment $155,000 (see definition) -Parking-770 spaces towards Norwalk's continuation as a port -545 added jobs $830,000 in added taxes ALTERNATIVE #3 Impact of Development Public Design District Type of development Scale of Development Beneficial Adverse Improvements Purpose: To encourage -All uses permitted -all uses: -Does not reduce -No clear direction -Improvement of RR a mixture of land uses development rights for future land use bridge still impor- on the waterfront, with -Minimum design -'step back' height except to enhance tant a consistant set of controls controls or view and protect views -could lead to con- design standards preservation requ- of water centration of office- -Improvement of streets -landscaping irements and residential essential (see above) -Allows mixed land development costing $665,000. -public access re- -maximum height 8 use quired along water- stories -15,500 added trips front and to water- -would create over per day front from street -bulk-90% coverage time and design unity except if water -Total Floor Area: dependent use 406,00 sq.ft. -would encourage -Floor area Ratio: 6 construction of -signs, colors, -minimum waterfront housing to balance materials, archi- setbacks except for office construction tecture subject to water dependent review uses -1300 new jobs -$1,600,000 in added -"shoreline appear- -transfer of develop taxes ance & design", ment rights possible Long Island Sound Study standards to -650 residential unit apply. -Parking: 2,800 -Buffering surround- spaces ing properties when uses are incompat- ible 102 Some port facilities would remain in this alternative, namely Devine Brothers and Home oil - the other port facilities would be replaced by residential and office developments. In this scenario business zoning is projected to remain along Wall Street and extend south to the Arzee Building, Supply building on Smith Street which is shown as a shopping arcade. Other aspects of this alternative are illustrated in the illustrative site plan and the table. I. Cove Avenue (Goals Objectives: Al,A4,A5,B1,B2,Cl,C4,D1,D2) The existence of a strip of Business No. 1 zoning along Cove Avenue from First Street to Fourth Street could lead to rapid changes in this predominately residential street. This has begun to happen with the proposed conversion of T. J. Marina into a multi-familv residential development. (See development matrix) * Alternative 1: Business No. 1 Zone The Business No. 1 Zone allowance of a four-story building and 90% coverage is in sharp contrast with the 1 and 2 family housing on Cove Avenue. As illustrated on the accompanying site plan, the Business Zone could lead to additional office and residential uses displacing the remaining small marinas. * Alternative 2: C Residence/Marine Commercial Zone This landuse/zoning option would place primary emphasis on 2 family residential uses, the predominate existing land use on Cove Avenue. It would. however. allow by special permit only marine commercial uses such as boatyards and marinas. This would establish a bier- archy of land uses with the residential land use being first prior- ity and marine commercial uses allowed only under special circum- stances. * Alternative 3: Marine Commercial Zone This alternative would protect the small boatyards that exist on Cove Avenue and could lead to additional marinas and boatyards at the expense of several of the two-family houses. These alternatives are illustrated on the accompanying illusrative site plans and development matrix. Cove Avenue Alternatives Type of Use Impact of Development For Development Permited Scale Beneficial Adverse Public Improvements ALTERNATIVE 1 Business #1 *Commercial *4 stories & 50 ft/90% -high development -increased traffic -improve Cove Ave., (existing zoning) *residential coverage potential for -development would First St. to handle 26 units/acre: family condominiums, be out of scale increased traffic Purpose: To 35 units/acre:elderly office buildings -with one & two -improve city street- encourage a wide *4 stories job & taxes assoc- family housing ends and Cove Avenue variety of busi- iated with above -would not encour- as public spaces ness uses and -maintains high age marine re- high-density land value lated uses residential -would allow con- -might have nega- developments struction of new tive impact on housing coastal resources: intertidal flats & undesig. wetlands. ALTERNATIVE 2 C Residence/ *1 & 2 family *7 units/acre; -would establish -would remove -improve Cove Ave. & Marine Commer- housing 2-l/2 stories zone in keeping same land value city street ends at cial *marine com- with predomi- -3 acre parcel public spaces Purpose: To mercial *2-1/2 stories nate land use i.e. could be assem- -increased dredging m encourage medi - uses by 90% coverage 1-2 family housing bled for PRD- be necessary with add um density rest- special per- -would allow small altering character tional marina construc dential develop- mit only marinas. boat- of 1-2 family neigh tion. ment and marina *PRD (with *9 units/acre yards but only by borhood. boatyards by 3 acre min. 2-1/2 stories special permit special permit parcel size -would encourage only. only commercial uses which are water dependent -would encourage housing as pre- dominate land use ALTERNATIVE 3 Marine Marine Commercial Commercial *2-1/2 stories -would give highest -would make exist -improve Cove Ave. Purpose: To allow *90% coverage poriority to water ing predominate to handle increased only marinas, dependent uses land use non-con- marina traffic boatyards, and -would encourage -forming -provide off-street commercial fish- expansion of new -would encourage parking facilities on ing facilities. marinas & boat expansion of landward parcels yards. existing marinas and new marinas adversly impact- ing coastal resources. - 103 - J. Canfield - Shorehaven - Cove Marina (Goals & Objectives: A, B, C & D) The pastoral setting of Taylor Farm and Shore and Country Club is deceiving in terms of existing zoning. All if the largest tidal wetland in Norwalk, Canfield Island Creek is zoned for single family housing at a density of 1 house/acre. The wetland which is 99 acres could according to zoning policy allow 80-90 houses, but this zoning is in contradiction to the D.E.P. tidal wetland regulations which permit fill only if it can be shown that it will not irreparably harm tidal wetlands. In order to avoid confusing and misleading policies at the State and local level, it is suggested that the entire Canfield saltmarsh which has been designated as "AAA Residence" be designated "Wetland Conservation" as described in the Manresa and Village Creek alternatives. Cover Marina Cove Marina is zoned Business No. 1 a zone which permits a 4-story commercial building including office, and hotels as well as multi- family residential developments at a density of 26 dwelling units/ acre. The following alternatives have been developed for Cove Marina. * Alternative 1: Business No. 1 Zone The ten acre parcel of land could accomodate a residential develop- ment of 220 dewelling units with 440 parking spaces, an 800,000 sq. ft. office building with 2,000 parking spaces, or a 300 room hotel with 300 parking spaces. The 300 slip marina would likely be a very desireable amenity for any of these developments, but which Would likely become more restricted in usage (slips assigned for exclusive use of condominium owners, office workers or hotel patrons). The present large scale winter boat storage area, boat service and repair, boathouses and boat launching equipment could also be eliminated as the result of this development. The development of a moderate-large scale complex at Cove Marina would be beneficial in terms of providing housing, jobs and increasing the tax base, but the capacity of East Norwalk roads to handle this type of development is questionable. * Alternative 2: Marine Commercial Zone This alternative would "lock-in" the present use of Cove Marina for Marine related uses only. All of the present activities at the marina could be continued and expanded. Accessory uses such as resturants, retail establishments catering to boaters and office space for boat sales and excrursion boats would be permitted. Large scale, non-water dependent uses (such as office buildings would not be permitted ruling out any intensification or traffic or further development. The obvious disadvantage to this alternative is the large reduction of development rights it entails. It is not possible, - 104 - either to transfer development rights to any parcel of land in the vicinity, the East Norwalk area a predominate single family established neighborhood. * Alternative 3: Marine Commercial/C Residence Zone This alternative would allow any marine commercial use as described above under "Marine Commercial Zone". It would also allow by special permit only, multi-family condominiums under the "Planned Residential Development section of the C Residence Zone" or 16 units/acre for a total of approximately 136 units and parking for 272 cars. K. Norwalk Islands (Goals & Objectives: A, B, C & D) * Alternative 1 - Island Conservation Zone We have seen that he two most valuable islands Chimmons (c. 60 acres) and Sheffield (c. 53 acres) are zoned under the Island Conservation Zone for residential development at a rate of 1 house/2 acrea of land or approximately 30 houses on Chimmons and 26 on Sheffield. The main problem with this type of development would be provision of utilities: sewer, water, electricity, and transportation, and the threat such development would pose on the fragile coastal resources on the Islands There would be advantages to such development, however, It would allow dedication of at least 50% of each Island as permanenr open space, and could provide the possibility of a ferry service to both Islands privately owned islands is to limit future building, but not prohibit it altogether. Those islands which have one acre or more of land area are as follows: approximate "island conservation zone" area houses permitted Chimmons 60 acres 30 Sheffield 52.8 26 Betts 14.8 7 Copps 7.9 3 Tavern 5.9 2 Hoyts 3.6 1* Peach 3.5 1 El Hammock 1.7 0 * owned by Norwalk Land Trust and dedicated as private open space z r='A 'L- "F-C- 3 5-er-T 5101L -I.N& @@Ac@-Zr7 7 IV S- --w- -55@- --J' 5 -4t; t",-a t, C-CA.!=YrAL AfKeLA MANAC-.EMF-N-r FRO&KAM 4_@Ovm AVF-@WU`ff- L-ANDU:5r- DEVEL@OPMEZ@47 ALTERNATIVUL 3L)51NE@55 no. 6w SOO ui T, 7 W" 9 1 w w &4 z Z11 ty "Ps UJ t. V fy Ir lu If 'K Pi IL a w Ir i'@ fx T3 Vw - tv-3' V-4 n @FZ@ 7- C3 -rl COASTAL AREA MANA6,EMENT PRO&RAM e-0, v F- AVENUff LANDU6F- DEEVELOPME-NT AL7f-mRNkTlVE- 3 MARINE. C-OMHl=-P-r,(A-L/ Kr=@51DFNIMA( .300 i 2 07. 0-1: r"_11 2@ C', o r c e r, r?lc;ionol ane. local l.- n F ':i a v.- for public acquiFition of Chimmons and c"heffiel-' Islarres, because of their unique open Space value to Long Island Sound. TIT-is- alternative should be considered even though Fe,-@eral anr@ .cta.te open space funding has been reduced. Innovative open sT)ace acquisition technicues such as involvement of t'he Yature "baralain-sFle", an@, COTIServancy an-_' Audobon iocir-tv fundincy, !@l:,,aonin- surplus parklane forthese islanw";S s'houl` be cons J_*--@-_r_-,! . 90, @A ,It SnOvvv Egret @, 111 01111111 3 668 14109 2041