Greenwich Homeowners in Conservation Zones
|
|
|
REBECCA S. BALIKCI 18 Carissa Lane Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 April 24, 2002 Greenwich Time 20 East Elm Street Greenwich, Connecticut 06830
Letter to the Editor: Now that the Stamford Superior Court has struck down the FAR amendments that were adopted in 1998 by the Planning and Zoning Commission (the “Commission”), homeowners in this Town must speak out and be heard whether they think FAR is working or not. In my opinion, FAR is not working. In theory, FAR can be a valuable zoning tool
and the Commission’s goal of limiting bulk and the building of so-called “McMansions”
in our Town is laudable. However, in our Town
many lots are nonconforming in their zone. The
application of the current FAR limitations across the board for each zone is only fair
with regard to conforming sized lots in their zone.
FAR provides an undue and disproportionate bonus to owners of oversized lots
in their zone. The reason McMansions are
still being built in Town is that oversized lots exist in every zone. FAR also creates many other problems, not the
least of which is the severe and disproportionate limitation on FAR for conservation zoned
and other undersized lots in Town as well as the difficulties and restrictions it places
on young families who need to grow in their homes. Despite the many complaints and proposals heard by the Commission from homeowners and despite the Commission’s promises in 1998 to address the unfavorable and unfair application of FAR to conservation zoned and undersized lots, nothing has changed, except that the regulations have become more strict and more convoluted. Now I am extremely disheartened to read the legal notice in the paper for the meeting of the Commission on May 7, 2002. It’s the same old FAR that they think they can ram down our throats again before homeowners have a chance to even realize what has happened. The Commission should use this opportunity to finally make a change and correct a mistake made by them in 1998. The Commission must not pass the same old FAR regulation without addressing and correcting the grossly unfair and disproportionate penalty borne by conservation zoned and undersized lots. At the same time, they can eliminate the “bonus” owners of oversized lots enjoy. The Commission must tailor the application of FAR to differing sized lots, oversized as well as undersized. As much as the Commission appears not to want to do this, that is the only way FAR can be applied fairly. Otherwise, the Commission should not adopt FAR again and instead should adopt coverage limitations or other zoning tools to limit bulk, such as more stringent height and setback requirements, and give up on FAR. Homeowners should demand on it! Please do not allow the Commission to pass the same old statute with all of its problems. Now is the time for the residents of Greenwich to be heard! FAR does not work! We need a new solution to solve the problems of bulk and overbuilding in Greenwich. We do not need the same old FAR. Every homeowner should attend the meeting on May 7th. Rebecca S. Balikci |