Politics & Government
Concern Over "Green" Land Use Proposal
Residents expressed concerns about the so-called "Green Areas" proposal during a P&Z public hearing Tuesday night.
A divisive proposal that would require Greenwich homeowners to leave a portion of their property undeveloped drew wide criticism as well as some support at a Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing Tuesday night.
If approved, the so-called "" would mean that lots of 7,500 square feet must leave 35 percent of that space unpaved and undeveloped. Advocates of the restrictions say they're designed to yield a "greener" Greenwich, and that preserving open space—even in small pockets—boosts property values.
Here's a rundown of what some pro- and anti-Green Area residents had to say during the hearing.
Find out what's happening in Greenwichwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Anti: Penalizing R-6 Zone, especially Byram 2-families residences
Lawyer John Tesei said the restrictions would represent an “assault” on the so-called R-6 zone (7,500-square-foot lots). According to Tesei, working families in areas such as Byram would be unduly penalized, and even forced out of town.
Find out what's happening in Greenwichwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Town Planner Diane Fox said P&Z initially proposed a 50 percent requirement for green areas in the R-6 zone, and had already dropped it to 35 percent. According to Fox, many towns in Connecticut have imposed much stricter residential building coverage limits in relation to lot size, including Darien, Fairfield, West Hartford, New Canaan, Norwalk and Wilton.
Anti: Garages constructed in front of homes
Engineer and land surveyor, Tony D’Andrea said that the restrictions may prompt some to minimize driveway length, which could mean garages would be relocated to the front of homes.
Anti: More underground garages and rooms
Some complained that residents might drive their construction underground in order to preserve the appearance of "Green Areas" on the surface—a move that could defeat the purpose of the proposal. Under the proposed new regulations, underground rooms would be permitted if constructed under just 3 feet of friable fill.
P&Z Assistant Director Katie Blankley responded that currently these rooms are allowable if built just 6 inches underground.
Pro: A shout-out to water quality
One advocate of the proposed Green Area minimums, Jack Stoecker, president of Mianus River Watershed Council and member of the Byram Area Watershed Coalition, said that the proposed regulations are “a small step in the right direction. He offered “a plug for water species and water quality,” explaining that at 12 percent impervious surface cover, water species and water quality both begin to deteriorate.
Stoecker said that the watershed area in western Greenwich is wider than the Byram River and likewise of the Mianus River in eastern Greenwich.
"The two meet and form an aquamarine necklace around Greenwich” with flow to the south, he said. Stoecker encouraged P&Z to proceed with the regulations in order to “hold off the demons in terms of degrading water quality” in Greenwich.
Flash Flooding: Are the restrictions enough?
Old Greenwich resident Candace Garthwaite said that since 2007, her home has suffered serious flash flooding that can only be attributed to development in her neighborhood. She condemned the lack of investment in storm water infrastructure.
“I am not convinced this is enough,” Garthwaite said of the proposed regulations.