By Gretchen Webster
WESTPORT — A seven-foot-tall wall erected in front of a Mayflower Parkway mansion — built improperly in the town’s right-of-way — must come down, the Board of Selectwomen ruled Wednesday.
A waiver sought from the selectwomen to allow stone-and-fencing structure to remain in place was denied out of concern that it could set a precedent for other private property owners to encroach in the town’s rights-of way — despite the $150,000 estimated cost to move it.
The owner of 18 Mayflower Parkway is listed on town records as Perky Pelican LLC, and was not represented at Wednesday’s meeting.
Land records, however, also indicate the property was sold by NBC News anchor Craig Melvin and his wife, Lindsay Czarniak, a broadcast sports reporter, to the Perky Pelican LLC for $5.05 million in 2021. It is not clear if Craig and Czarniak still own the property through the LLC, since state records do not identify the owner and list only its agent as a Westport accountant.
Attempts to contact Melvin and Czarniak were unsuccessful Wednesday.
“I have no comment” on ownership of the property, said Westport real estate attorney Jay Klein, who represented Luis Castaneda, the landscaper who built the wall.
Klein was hired by Castaneda, of First Step Landscaping in Norwalk, to present Wednesday’s request for a waiver of the town’s policy on encroachments on town property, which if approved would have allowed the wall to stand.
Klein told the selectwomen the wall encroaches about three feet onto town property, but contended it does not interfere with utility connections and does not pose any health or safety issue.
“It was a mistake to put it where it is,” Klein said of the wall, which was built in 2021. But “we believe there is good cause” for the town to grant the waiver allowing the structure to remain in place, the lawyer argued.
Town staff and the selectwomen did not agree.
“I have examined this and it is encroaching five feet on town property,” said Keith Wilberg, town engineer. “It’s on town property and it shouldn’t be.”
He said he was sorry about the high cost of moving the wall, but didn’t want approval of an encroachment on town property to set a precedent, especially when a mistake was made even though the owners reportedly had a survey done before the structure was built. “We could have a neighbor saying, ‘I want a wall like that,’ ” Wilberg said. “I can’t in good conscience approve this.”
Assistant Town Attorney Eileen Lavigne Flug also did not recommend approval of the waiver. Allowing the wall to continue encroaching on town land could “set a precedent for the rest of the road — and the rest of the town,” she said.
Selectwoman Andrea Moore said she, too, worried about setting a precedent.
“I understand mistakes happen, but I do hold professionals to a high standard,” said Selectwoman Candice Savin, referring to the landscaper. “I don’t think it rises to the level of granting a waiver.”
After First Selectwoman Jennifer Tooker agreed with her fellow selectwomen as well as the staff recommendations, the board voted unanimously to deny the waiver.
After the meeting, Klein declined to comment about future actions by either the owners or landscaper, or the prospective removal of the wall.
“I have no comment on the matter outside of what was discussed at the meeting,” he said.
Freelance writer Gretchen Webster, a Fairfield County journalist for many years, was editor of the Fairfield Minuteman and has taught journalism at New York and Southern Connecticut State universities.
So now the town is worried about setting a precedent? For several years the town has signed off on closing down streets and parts of streets (RR place, Church Ln.) and has allowed the building of monstrous homes and apartments (think N. Kings Hwy. and Wilton Rd.) and the blue wrapped house at Old Mill. and countless other huge homes crammed onto tiny lots. But all of a sudden they are taking a stand on this. I hope the powers that be will reconsider and issue the waiver to “Perky Pelican”.
Such a hard one.. esp if is it really was a mistake.
But without doubt every 5’ encroachment will now be one legal.
As it should !
If they get it I want it !
As I should !
So correctly one for all !
The location of the town road right-of-way (which includes the shoulder area between private property lines and the edge of pavement) varies significantly everywhere in town.
The fulcrum issue is this: Is the encroachment likely to inhibit the Town’s ability for future road widening purposes or the instillation of utilities or sidewalks?
If not, it’s hard to justify the Town’s stand in this matter. If the greater concern is the need for some punitive action to discourage other property owners from willfully building 7 foot stone walls in the Town right-of-way, a fine could serve that purpose.
In some cases, the Town has granted encroachment waivers based upon legal agreements requiring the removal of the impediment immediately upon the request of the Town.
Given the cost of constructing stone walls, I find it hard to believe that any property owner would deliberately locate a 7 foot high stone wall outside the property line.
In my experience, locational errors come down to hiring the company with the lower price, which often comes with a general lack of knowledge of property lines, rules and requirements.
As stone walls and fences less than 8 feet in height are NOT subject to local permits, there is no check and balance process to guard against the the current predicament.