Greenwich Homeowners in Conservation Zones

Read Bud Dealys Columns on Greenwich Issues and Real Estate

Recommendations On Floor Area Ratio Regulations

I. THE ISSUE

            The Town of Greenwich is faced with a complex dilemma in attempting to modify its house size zoning regulations. Residents and Town administrators want to regulate and manage the construction of homes that appear disproportionate to their neighborhood streetscapes.  In striving to achieve this goal, the town must also preserve the homeowners' inherent right to protect and improve the quality and value of their property through the ability to rationally renovate and expand their homes.  The statutory ability for the Planning and Zoning Commission to regulate is based on supporting the general health, welfare, and property values. All must be balanced, using complete, accurate analysis, and an open process, to ensure that an appropriate regulation is reached that will meet the goals set for it.  Homeowners and Town Officials at all levels should agree to work together for the benefit of Greenwich.  

            To date, however, the emphasized solution has been the amendment and extension of the floor-area ratio regulation (FAR) by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).   Although well intentioned, FAR does not appear to solve the problems it was supposed to address.   Many residents still complain about the changing streetscape of Town by the introduction of larger homes and others complain about being severely limited in their ability to meet the changing needs of their families by adding on to their homes.  Still others find the inclusion of attics and basements to be overreaching and an invasion into their use of space inside their homes.  Homeowners decry the loss of value to their homes and owners of conservation-zoned and undersized lots bear a disproportionate burden of the loss. 

Yet, we believe that a solution exists and, by working together to reevaluate the issue, that a benefit will follow.

II. DEVELOPING A SOLUTION

a. WITHDRAW THE PENDING PROPOSAL.  P&Z should withdraw its currently pending proposal regarding FAR for many reasons.  There has been no information collected or presented by P&Z during the period when the FAR amendments were in effect to demonstrate that they were working to improve the streetscape.  A regulation that has not been working should not continue to be promulgated. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that FAR has a significant negative impact on some property values, for instance conservation-zoned and undersized lots. 

P&Z should also remove from their regulations the attic and basement definitions enacted in April 2002.  P&Z itself has recognized that attics and basements have little impact on streetscape and the impact of those definitions on nonconformity was not evaluated by P&Z prior to enactment and is believed to be very large.  While an exemption for basements was offered, few if any homes qualify for the exemption due to building code requirements (see attached diagram). 

b. PANEL OF EXPERTS AND A NEW PROPOSAL.  It is recommended that a fresh approach be taken to analyzing the difficult issue of the impact of large homes on streetscape through the use of knowledgeable consultants facilitating a panel of local land use experts, architects, engineers, P&Z staff, and homeowners to provide advice and solicit testimony on this issue and to draft regulations that would be presented to P&Z for its consideration and approval.        

c. DEFINE THE PROBLEM.   The first step in addressing any challenge is to define the problem.  This is where any new approach of a panel should begin: in a broad-based analysis of how and why some larger homes seem to impact streetscape and whether it is different by zone or area.   The definition should be sufficiently concrete to allow for follow-up measurement of the effectiveness of any new proposal.   Concrete goals for a regulation should be set using the definitions and information learned from analysis of the problem. 

d. ANALYSE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Any proposed solution should be projected into the future based on past patterns to demonstrate how effective it will be, what the impact will be on property values, and what degree of nonconformity will be created.   This analysis must be completed prior to selection of a best solution and enactment of any regulation.  Loss of value and increased nonconformity should be minimized according to the statutory requirements that relate to P&Z.  

e. FOLLOW UP.  Provision must be made for collecting information after a new regulation is enacted, for periodic comparison to the goals, to ensure that it is working as intended and allow for modifications if it is not.  This must be viewed as an ongoing process and not a single step to be overcome. 

III. CONCLUSION