UPDATE

Appeal Your Property Taxes by 3/20/03 Click the Tax Appeal button on the left side to go to sample appeals. 

FAR Appeal Filed 1/29/03

To Challenge Reenactment of FAR

Why Do We Have to Do This Again?

Read the 2003 Appeal

P&Z REINSTATED the FAR 1/7/03

In the Face of Homeowners Opposition and the RTM Resolution asking for development of an "equitable regulation that protects the property values of every homeowner" the P&Z voted for the FAR.  The FAR enacted is not equitable and does not protect property values.  Why doesn't P&Z feel it needs to listen?  The P&Z is statutorily enabled to enact legislation to protect the general health, welfare, and PROPERTY VALUES.  Yet they are willing to ignore this statutory duty for a personal agenda that does not reflect the opinion of the average homeowner.  The P&Z also has no information to show the FAR was working over the years from 1998 to 2002 in any way intended.  A letter from Diane Fox stating that P&Z does not collect this kind of information was put on the record of the public hearing.  Why would they enact a regulation that by many accounts is not working?  Is this good government?  Let your Selectmen know.     

The RTM Approved the

RTM RESOLUTION

At its Dec. 9th meeting

by a 2:1 vote.

Review the Financial Impact that may add $350 to $650 per year to your property tax bill.

DEC 10th P&Z Held Another Hearing on FAR.  We asked them to WITHDRAW the current proposal, in light of the RTM vote.

The P&Z closed the hearing and are talking in the media like the RTM vote was of no import.

It appears they will attempt to reenact the FAR in early January.

ASK FOR FAIR FAR

It seems the P&Z not only doesnt want to listen at public hearings it doesnt want to listen to the RTM.

Read what Bud Dealy has to say on the FAR issue and other Greenwich matters.

Most Speakers Stated Opposition, Yet Both L. Stone and D. Fox Stated Only 2 People Stated Opposition to the Conservation and Nonconf Proposals.  Were They At the Same Hearing?  Do They Hear What You Say?

ON APRIL 19^TH, Stamford Superior Court ruled the F A R regulation enacted in 1998 NULL and VOID.

May 7th, 2002 P&Z Proposes to Amend FAR Regulations by REENACTING Same Old 1998 FAR's.

May 14th P&Z Withdraws Application to Reenact FAR Regs based on old 1998 FAR. Read the Letter of Withdrawal from Diane Fox stating the Commission wants to reevaluate conservation and nonconforming lots before amending the FAR.

August 2002

P&Z  Proposed to Reenact the SAME OLD 1998 FAR's without modification during the SUMMER when homeowners were away on vacation.   Then again WITHDREW their own proposal.  Read the Withdrawal statement from Louisa Stone here.

Now in November the P&Z has made

MINOR modifications to the SAME OLD

1998 FAR and want to pass it again!

Write to the P&Z, Town Hall, 101 Field Point Road and tell them

FAIR FAR or NO FAR

Let's Fight this Tyranny Together

Join NOW

Who Are We?

Why Did We Become a Group?

At the public hearings Oct. 20th and Nov. 10th, 1998 it became apparent that the Planning and Zoning Commission was not listening to the people presenting dissenting views on the FAR issue.  We felt that by grouping together we would be a voice to be listened to.  Members gathered over a thousand petitions in four days asking the P&Z to reasonably delay the vote and study the issues further.  The P&Z ignored our request.  Since then our group has grown through word of mouth. 

In April 2002, immediately after receiving Judge D'Andreas decision to declare the FAR amendments null and void the P&Z scheduled another hearing to attempt to enact the exact same regulations.  At the public hearing the P&Z Commission again had the appearance of not listening to Greenwich taxpayers.  The vast majority at the hearing expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal and requested it not be enacted until modifications are made to give fair treatment to nonconforming and conservation properties.  Loss of property value was described by many homeowners. 

We believe that as taxpayers we deserve to have a voice in legislation that will impact us.  For the Planning and Zoning Commission to not be willing to listen to us is frustrating.  For them to cavalierly enact legislation that could subject the Town of Greenwich to significant legal liability is a double slap in the face. 

What Happened?

The P&Z Commission passed the new FAR regulations on Nov. 17th and published them as a legal notice on Dec. 1, 1998.  They became effective Dec. 2.  This was over the voices of taxpayers asking for answers on nonconforming lots, conservation zones, attics and basements usefullness in the calculation, effect on taxes and other items.   

What Can We Do?

A legal appeal was filed in 1998 atStamford Superior Court to attempt to reverse the regulations.  In April 2002 the decision issued to reverse the amendments and declare them null and voide.  Planning and Zoning attempted in May 2002 to pass the same amendments (without modification).  On May 14th, 2002 the P&Z withdrew their own application and a letter from Diane Fox explained it as being due to their desire to reconsider the FAR for nonconforming and conservation zones.  In July 2002 we were made aware that the P&Z was submitting THE SAME 1998 FAR AMENDMENT AGAIN.  This was again withdrawn by the P&Z.  Why do they keep submitting and withdrawing proposals?  For an organization with planning in its name does Planning and Zoning have a strategy or are they just bootstrapping the future of Greenwich?  We think a detailed study of the issue is neccessary before any further proposals are made.  NOW in Nov. 2002 the P&Z is proposing minor modifications to the same old 1998 regulations.  Are they even listening to the public?

Further legal appeals may be neccessary.  Robinson & Cole of Hartford, Stamford, and Greenwich, CT have been retained as our attorneys.   They have significant national exposure in litigation of zoning issues and have given us excellent advice on building our legal case.  Further actions to reverse the decision are planned.

How Can I Help?