There was a burst of activity on Wednesday afternoon in the 183 Ridgefield Rd. story, with a late-breaking application filing by the developer of the property. Following events that resulted in the rescission of a controversial age restricted zoning regulation, the developer yesterday submitted an application for NEW age restricted zoning regulations. The regulation the developer is proposing would still allow age restricted zoning on Ridgefield Rd.–but is modified to limit such zoning to a shorter stretch of the road, and to larger land parcels.
AROD Zone Change Application Withdrawn
First, Casey Healy, the attorney for 183 Ridgefield Rd., LLC, the entity owned by real estate developer Jim Fieber, notified the Planning and Zoning Department that his client was withdrawing a pending application to change the zoning for the embattled 183 Ridgefield Rd. property from two-acre residential (R-2A) to age restricted overlay district (AROD).
That notice was sent at approximately 12:30 p.m..
The application withdrawal was expected to occur, following events over the last five weeks when a “fatal defect” was discovered in the way the P&Z Commission put into effect the regulation it adopted creating potential AROD zones on three major Wilton roads–Westport, Danbury and Ridgefield Roads. Town counsel Ira Bloom had informed town officials that because the P&Z department had published notice that the regulation would take effect on the same date the regulation took effect, rather than before the regulation became effective, case law would prompt any CT court to void the regulation.
CT law specifies that such notice needs to appear in a newspaper in advance of the regulation taking effect to give members of the public time to review and possibly appeal if so desired.
As a result of that “fatal defect,” Bloom recommended the town rescind the AROD ordinance, which P&Z commissioners did at their meeting on Monday, July 10.
Rescission of the regulation effectively made the zone change application from 183 Ridgefield Rd., LLC no longer valid under any appropriate town ordinance–the regulation on which it depended no longer exists, and so Healy withdrew the application Wednesday.
In his letter to the P&Z Commission, Healy cites “the Commission’s failure to comply with the Connecticut General Statutes” on the way adoption of a regulation should be noticed.
The letter also states that, “Nothing in this letter is intended to or should be construed to waive any claims arising out of the Commission’s or its agents’ failure to publish notice that complied with Connecticut law.”
GOOD Morning Wilton reached out to both Healy and representatives of Fieber, but was told “No comment.”
New AROD Zone Change Application Filed
Then, at approximately 3:50 p.m., a zone-change application was delivered to the Planning & Zoning department from Healy’s office, seeking to restore the AROD regulation that was adopted in Nov. 2016–with modifications. According to the cover letter, Healy says the modifications are “based upon public comment made” about the regulations.
The modifications that Healy proposed are:
- Limit an AROD development located on Ridgefield Rd. to a smaller section of the road, namely between Danbury Rd. and the intersection of Ridgefield Rd. and Drum Hill Rd..
- Increase the minimum acreage requirement from three acres to 5 acres.
- Decrease the maximum development density from three units to two units per acre for properties located on Ridgefield Rd. or Westport Rd..
- Provide a minimum of 100 feet of building setback along the frontage of a State of CT designated scenic road
- Decrease the maximum allowable building coverage from 20% to 15%, and the maximum allowable site coverage from 40% to 30%.
Presumably, the modifications would sharply limit the number of properties that could be developed under the AROD regulation and is likely seen as a compromise concession by the developer. Beyond the application, the applicant–183 Ridgefield Rd., LLC–and representatives for Fieber declined all other comments.
Whether the most recent conceptual drawings submitted during the prior regulation’s hearings and approval process–showing 16 units–would still fit what is now proposed, is unsure. The developer’s spokesperson said that, “no conceptual drawings are being submitted at this time.”