Greenwich Homeowners in Conservation Zones

Read Bud Dealys Columns on Greenwich Issues and Real Estate

                                How Does the Zoning Floor Area Ratio Proposal

Decrease Some Property Values in Backcountry?

This article was published in the November Newsletter of the NW Greenwich Assoc. 

By Alan Small

INTRODUCTION

The Town of Greenwich Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is proposing to again amend the Floor Area Ratio regulations and in doing so may take property value from many homeowners in town.  This may be a direct contradiction of the P&Z’s statutory powers to regulate based on preservation of the general health, welfare, and support of property values.  This proposal will probably be coming to a public hearing in early November 2002 and you may want to determine exactly how this proposal will impact your property rights and values so that you can make your opinion known.  If you are contemplating any construction projects submit your plans to the Building Dept. as soon as possible to be grandfathered under the current regulations. 

WHAT IS FLOOR AREA RATIO?

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) determines the buildable square footage of house that can be built on any lot by dividing the floor area by the lot area in square feet and comparing them to a limit set by the regulation.   The P&Z tightened the Floor Area Ratio regulations in 1998 and enacted FAR in the 2 and 4 acre zones for the first time.  The amendments were declared “null and void” by the Stamford Superior Court in April 2002 (at significant legal cost to Greenwich taxpayers to defend the P&Z).  Since then the P&Z has changed the definitions of how attics and basements are counted toward FAR that has the effect of decreasing the allowable buildable space of a home by 20-30%.  This is because all basements above a certain height from grade (using a complex calculation that requires a licensed engineers analysis at a cost of several thousand dollars) and all attics where someone can stand up were included in FAR.   This compares to just finished attics and basements under the prior definition.  Because of the way the definition of basement is written it is likely that most basements in town are counted at least 50 percent toward the FAR. 

HOW WOULD IT IMPACT MY HOME?

The stated goal of the P&Z in tightening the Floor Area Ratio regulations was to regulate streetscape against the perception of oversized homes.  Most of the complaints about large houses came from the zones near to town (such as the R-12 and R-20).   Many people felt that some limits on house size were needed in backcountry in the two and four acre zones and some homeowners associations spoke in favor of the proposal, but it was anticipated that the amendments would be fairly applied.  No information was provided in advance by the P&Z in 1998 to project that the amendments would have any effect on streetscape.  While the amendments were in place from 1998 to 2002 the P&Z collected no information to demonstrate that the amendments were working as intended.  Many homeowners have complained that FAR is not working as intended yet many other homeowners have complained that they cannot expand their house at all.  Property values on undersized and conservation lots have decreased if they are limited in their ability to expand an existing house.  By comparing what can be built on a one acre property in different zones in town one can see that the regulation is upside down. 

Comparison of Buildable Area on a One Acre Lot by Zone

RA-4                RA-2                RA-1                R-20                 R-12

3131 sq. ft.        4312 sq. ft.        5880 sq. ft.        9801 sq. ft.        13721 sq. ft

This allows larger homes to be built in the zones near town (where house size complaints were heard) and limits the size in the two and four acre zone in a manner that does not make common sense.  With the larger setbacks required in the RA-2 and RA-4 zones why shouldn’t a comparable size home to the RA-1 lot be allowed?  This seems like the worst of all worlds: the smaller zones are still complaining that FAR is not working, the P&Z has NO information showing that it is working, some homeowners cannot even add a small bedroom for a child or parent, and some property values have decreased significantly.  Why would the P&Z continue to propose the same regulation when it is not working and is decreasing property values?

HOW DOES THIS IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES?

In the Town of Greenwich there is a relationship between the size of a home and its selling price.  Appraisers have testified at P&Z hearings about this issue.  A range of home price per square foot can be obtained by analyzing past sales data.  That range begins at $250 per square foot and rises.  One can easily see that a one acre lot in the RA-1 zone can build 5880 sq. ft. compared to a one acre lot in the RA-4 zone having an allowable square footage of 3131 for a difference of 2,749 sq. ft.  Using $250 per square foot selling value the difference would be a value of $687,250 if the property was built to the maximum.  Since only a portion of that value is allocated to the land (we can assume 30%) then approximately $229,083 may be lost by the owner of a one acre property in the four acre zone if the P&Z enacts its FAR amendment proposal.  Does this comply with the P&Z’s statutory responsibility to support property values in Greenwich?  Does this make sense for some homeowners and taxpayers of Greenwich to accept a loss of property value for no defined impact on what was trying to be regulated? 

WHO IS IMPACTED?

One can readily see that young families that may need to add a bedroom, expand a family room, or provide a home office would be directly impacted if the new FAR prohibited them from modifying their home.  Seniors and those close to retirement age are also directly impacted by this issue and many are just starting to understand how the potential loss of property value can effect their funds available for retirement- even if they are not considering construction.  It seems that the floor area ratio issue is far reaching and has a direct effect on property rights and values of many homeowners, regardless of age or status. 

WHERE IS THE P&Z LEADING US?

Since April 2002 the P&Z has proposed the exact same 1998 FAR amendments three times and withdrew their own proposal twice.  The most recent submission on Sept. 17^th included some modifications for conservation zones and nonconforming properties to attempt to appease the growing discontent in the community about the FAR proposals.  The modifications do not go far enough in solving the inequities created by the regulations.  Why would the P&Z submit basically the same proposal three times in five months?  Do they have a clear direction on where this legislation is leading us?  For an organization with planning in its name this would seem to at least indicate a lack of strategy or focus.  The P&Z has refused to answer many questions about the Floor Area Ratio amendments in public.  Do you feel that homeowners in town have a right to answers to their questions about a pending zoning modification?  Should the P&Z be allowed to experiment with our homes?  It would seem that all homeowners and associations should analyze the proposed FAR amendment for its merits and then ASK THE P&Z FOR A BETTER ANSWER.

CAN A FAIR REGULATION BE WRITTEN?

Yes.  It would seem that by first defining the problem accurately that a variety of solutions could be proposed that would address the issue and not cause unfair loss of property values.  It has been proposed that a consultant be used to moderate a panel of local experts, (such as architects, engineers, real estate professionals, and homeowners) to determine what solution may best address the issue.  Studies to determine the impact of proposed regulations could be made that would help to allow homeowners to accurately understand the impact on their home prior to enactment of any modification.  Once implemented any change could be monitored so that if it is not working as intended it could be changed.   Please ask the P&Z to not experiment with our homes and to take a step back and analyze the issue completely prior to enacting any further amendments.  Write to the P&Z and your RTM Members to voice your opinion on this issue.