Greenwich Homeowners in Conservation Zones

Read Bud Dealys Columns on Greenwich Issues and Real Estate

Homeowners Deserve Better Than Faulty Calculations Used to

Support Floor Area Ratios Enacted in 1998

On March 27, 2000 a zoning amendment proposal was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission by the Concerned Homeowners of Greenwich to change the Floor Area Ratio section of the regulations back to its values prior to changes made by the Commission in 1998. There are several reasons for the requested amendment. The biggest reason is that it appears that some data on approximately 3356 homes in Greenwich was left out of the calculations of FAR used to support the 1998 proposals. The FAR’s enacted based on this faulty information may have impacted the value of homes in Greenwich adversely.

The data that was left out of the calculations has the potential to alter the FAR of an individual home by up to 50 percent. This could have significantly altered the statistics used by the Planning and Zoning Commission to support the tightening of FAR regulations. In addition numerous examples have been documented to show that the "FAR Research Methodology", described by the P&Z as guiding their calculations, was not followed accurately. A large degree of nonconformity may have been created by this use of faulty calculations. This impacts individual homeowners by increasing the number of homes in town that cannot add even a small amount to their home to meet their current family needs. Many homeowners have described this exact problem: of not being able to finish a small area in their basement or slightly enlarge a family room. This is exactly the problem that was described by Karen Feeney in a recent letter to the Greenwich Times. We are not talking about megamansions here, we are talking about families trying to make a home more liveable for their everyday needs. This directly impacts property values because if a home cannot be altered a potential purchaser may pass it by to choose one that can be improved. Further, it may cause dislocations in neighborhoods because families are faced with the requirement to move to meet their growth needs rather than expand a home slightly at reasonable cost. Have we progressed so far that we do not concern ourselves with the family character of a street in town and only the undefineable architectural "character"? Our town should be family friendly and strive to meet the needs of its homeowners and taxpayers.

The Planning and Zoning Commission at the 1998 public hearings described its FAR calculation efforts by describing how over two years were taken and software purchased to allow interaction with the assessors database. As a taxpayer, I question if this was time and money well spent when data was left out that was readily available on the assessors database and should have been included to meet the definition of FAR. The Commission was questioned at the 1998 public hearings on the accuracy of the calculations but chose not to investigate the issues raised by knowledgeable citizens.

There are also other issues regarding the process of approving the 1998 FAR amendments by the P&Z that have raised questions of the methods used. These relate to appropriate notification of the public hearings and whether CT Statutes were followed.

The Floor Area Ratio issue brought out strong feelings in many homeowners at the public hearings on the subject in 1998. Most people would agree with the general goals of protecting the character and environment of Greenwich. Whatever opinion someone may have on FAR’s we trust that they would want any changes implemented to be based on accurate data and analysis. Without this they are arbitrary selections. The RTM was referenced as having instituted a sense of the meeting resolution that the FAR’s be studied by the P&Z. We believe that implicit in that request was the belief that the study calculations would be made correctly. Does the RTM condone a faulty process being used to meet its requests at significant taxpayer expense? The Planning and Zoning Commission should be responsible for ensuring that data and calculations used are suitable for its purpose. In this case, it appears, that standard was not met.

This proposed amendment will probably be scheduled for discussion at a public hearing on May 9, 2000 and we ask that all interested citizens attend to discuss the proposal and to send the message to the Planning and Zoning Commission that as taxpayers and homeowners we deserve better.