Greenwich Homeowners in Conservation Zones

Read Bud Dealys Columns on Greenwich Issues and Real Estate

Item 3 December 9, 2002 Call             PRESENTED TO RTM FINANCE COMMITTEE

FLOOR AREA RATIO

As you know, the resolution of Item 3 is related to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) issue in Town and seeks to clarify the 1998 sense of the meeting resolution previously passed by the RTM that requested that “appropriate” floor area ratios be enacted by Planning and Zoning.  The current resolution requests that the Planning and Zoning Dept use basic problem solving techniques, treat homeowners fairly and equitably, and satisfy their statutory responsibilities in attempting to enact any new regulation.  An important part of the resolution is the request that the P&Z act in a fiscally conservative manner.  This refers to at least three areas of concern from a financial view: 

Legal Expenses- Greenwich has already spent between $50-100k to defend the prior lawsuit on the FAR and by proposing to enact virtually the same amendment (with minor modifications) one can reasonably conclude that these actions will commit the Town to additional legal expenses of a similar amount.  While that may be the intent of P&Z is this what the taxpayers and homeowners of Greenwich want?  Would they rather we not lay off one teacher rather than defend the P&Z in a questionable legal battle?  It seems that by acting reasonably the P&Z could avoid significant legal expense to the Town.

Decreasing the Grand List and Shifting of Tax Burden-   An opinion of a CT certified appraiser has been placed on the public hearing record describing significant loss of property value to nonconforming and conservation zone properties if the current FAR proposal is passed.   I appealed my 2001 revaluation based on the prior FAR enactment and the Town decreased my assessed value by $52,500 (so it appears the Town agrees that property value will be lost).  The P&Z stated there are approximately 4900 nonconforming and conservation properties that could be impacted.  If all of these properties lost similar amounts of property value or up to $250,000 (which is a conservative estimate as many would probably lose much more) then the Grand List could be reduced by approximately $257,250,000 and up to $ 1 Billion.  The impact of this could be an increase in the Mill Rate from 10.43 to approximately 11.00.  This would potentially shift this tax burden to the remaining 10,000 properties at an annual cost of $250 to $650.  I think you can see that compared to Public Act 490 which was going to shift the taxes of 100 or so properties and cost each homeowner around $30 the tax shift due to the FAR would be much larger. 

Potential Taking of Property Value Should loss of property value be demonstrated as a taking in a court of law the Town could be subject to damages. 

Homeowners should be allowed to make the decision if the goals being attained by the FAR proposal are worth the additional taxes and loss of property rights prior to such a change being imposed upon them by a Town Commission.  It would be quite difficult for a homeowner to determine if the FAR would work in any manner intended because while the FAR was in practical effect from 1998 to early 2002 the P&Z collected NO information to demonstrate that it was meeting any goals set for it.  Many people spoke at a recent RTM Land Use Cmte workshop on regulating house size and described their opinion that large houses continued to be built in spite of the tighter FAR.  So this proposal has not been demonstrated to work and people will have to shoulder an increase in tax burden or a loss of property value to allow it to be reinstated.  It does not seem that this outcome is in any way “appropriate”.  We ask you to support the current resolution which requests that the P&Z act in a fiscally conservative manner, define the problem, develop an equitable regulation, and meet its statutory responsibilities prior to proposing to amend the FAR.