By Alan Small

January 25, 2003

The Concerned Homeowners of Greenwich (CHG) believes that the Town of Greenwich Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) seems to think they alone know what is best for the community and their vision does not seem to include treating homeowners fairly.

CHG was organized in 1998 when the P&Z enacted what many homeowners believed were unfair and unconstitutional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) amendments. That group of homeowners appealed the amendments in court while at the same time proposing numerous proposals to P&Z to address the problems created by FAR, all of which proposals were denied by P&Z. In April 2002, the 1998 FAR regulations were declared “null and void” by the Stamford Superior Court. Now, on January 7^th, 2003, the P&Z has reenacted virtually identical regulations.

How can they expect a different outcome when the FAR issue has gathered increased interest in the community since 1998? Many more homeowners, mostly those on conservation or nonconforming properties, seniors and young families alike, realize that FAR unreasonably restricts their ability to improve their homes and in so doing directly impacts property values. These concerned homeowners have asked only for fair treatment under any amendment proposed. Is that too much to ask?

In 2002, the FAR issue was named by the “Greenwich Time” newspaper as the seventh most important issue to the Town behind such notable issues as the Skakel trial and the beach lawsuit. While those other issues reached a climax and ended, the controversy over FAR continues. This is due largely to the unwillingness or inability of the P&Z to listen to public sentiment and represent the interests of taxpayers and homeowners.

The P&Z, itself, had the ability to defuse this situation and develop a reasonable and fair alternative to the FAR, addressing the legitimate concerns of homeowners in Town.

The majority of speakers at the public hearings spoke against the reenactment of the amendments as did the Conservation Commission. Members of the Representative Town Meeting (RTM) Land Use Committee asked the P&Z to consider alternative proposals. The RTM itself voted by a two to one margin to approve a resolution requesting P&Z rethink the regulations. The resolution asked P&Z to take a step back and define the problem and develop fair and equitable regulations that support the property values of every homeowner in town. It has been demonstrated that the loss of property value to a large segment of homes could cause tax shifting to other homeowners of between $350-$600 per year. Why would the P&Z members want to enact a proposal that could take property value from many homeowners and increase taxes for others when a fair and reasonable solution could be found if proper analysis was accomplished? As anyone who has attended any of the public hearings on the FAR will attest, the P&Z members seem to feel they are above criticism and do not have to listen to or represent the public.

Once the P&Z reenacted the amendments, they became effective upon publication on January 14^th, 2003. From that date, there is a time limit of fifteen days to file an appeal. The only alternatives to homeowners to preserve their property rights and values is to appeal the regulations to the courts or to just let them go into effect and hope that reason will prevail. If the past is any guide, reasoning with the P&Z is at best an exercise in frustration. Filing a lawsuit is the only rational alternative. The appeal of the 2003 Floor Area Ratio amendments will be filed within the statutory time limit and will continue to divide the Town of Greenwich from the very homeowners and taxpayers who pay the bills. Similar disagreements have led to such historic acts as the Boston Tea Party and other civil disobediences in an effort to change government that is overly burdensome.

The appeal will be based on constitutional and statutory arguments that property rights and values are being taken in an arbitrary manner by the P&Z; that the members were biased; and that they had predetermined the outcome. P&Z regulations, by statute, must substantially advance the general health and welfare of the Town; support the general health, welfare, and property values; be rationally related to the goals set for them; and not increase the level of nonconformity significantly. Violations of all of these requirements will be described in the legal appeal.

Since the P&Z can take your property rights and values, it seems to follow that the members should be accountable to the public. If there is an agenda within P&Z to stop or curtail development or renovation of homes in Town, then that should be considered a conflict of interest with their statutory duties. The Town Charter should be changed to require that the members of P&Z be elected (as well as possibly other boards and commissions in Town). Meanwhile, the P&Z Commissioners who come up for reappointment should be excused from their duties and replacements found. Term limits have also been proposed as a means of causing turnover in Commissions to prevent the concentration of extreme power in a small group of people.

Why would the P&Z reenact the FAR amendments in the face of significant public disagreement with the proposal and little documentation on the record to support its effectiveness? For the P&Z to reenact virtually the same FAR regulation and expect legal challenge as the means of determining whether the regulations are proper is a misuse of the public trust and funds and border on negligence. It seems that if a proper analysis was done up front then fair regulations could be developed and homeowners would not be facing loss of rights and property values. That is the job that should be done by the Commission and the staff that they have available to them to develop “appropriate” regulations. If they are not willing to do a proper job that respects the opinions of the public and even the RTM, then it does not seem the P&Z members should be sitting in a position of authority.

Where do we go from here? The legal appeal will cause homeowners to have to again pay for legal defense to protect their rights and to also pay for the Town to defend the P&Z who enacted a regulation that many in Town do not think is effective. The Town legal defense policy of defending against suits without regard for the merit of the case should be reevaluated.

Further, if the FAR amendments are thought to be such a great solution to the undefined streetscape problem, then a mailing should be sent from the Town to every homeowner to describe the impact on property rights, values, and tax shifting to allow the taxpayers to decide in a referendum on FAR itself whether the benefits warrant the expenses.

We believe that the homeowners have already spoken on this issue at the FAR public hearings and through the Representative Town Meeting and that the P&Z still has the opportunity to rescind the FAR amendments and begin a new phase of community understanding and involvement.

For more information on the Floor Area Ratio and the Concerned Homeowners of Greenwich please see www.greenwichfar.com or call 622-1250.