Planners refuse to rezone

Affordable units proposed on Turner Road hit a snag

RIDGEFIELD — Developers planning to build a nine-unit affordable housing project on Turner Road were recently denied a request to rezone their lot, despite claims that the land was left unusable by construction of the nearby Turner Hill development.

Attorney Bob Jewell, on behalf of GRC Property Investment and Development LLC, a group of the parcel’s original owners, has told the Planning and Zoning Commission that the farm road, which is on the Danbury line north of Turner Road, is technically on the books as a town road.

The development team wants to build a multifamily housing development on the parcel under the state 8-30g affordable housing law, Jewell said.

Under 8-30g, builders can get around local zoning laws, so long as they agree to set aside 30 percent of the new housing units built as affordable housing.

Jewell said Assessor Al Garzi raised the prospect of an affordable housing development to Jewell’s client, who wanted to reduce the 1.2-acre property’s tax liability.

“Essentially this is a leftover parcel,” that was not purchased as part of the Turner Hill development, and therefore not rezoned, Jewell explained, adding that because the lot is in the Corporate Development District it was essentially left unusable by rezoning for the Turner Hill project.

“The interesting thing is the minimum lot size in the CDD zone is 20 acres, and the setbacks in the CDD zone are 100 feet. So you basically left a property that was un-develop-

able,” he said.

But the commission didn’t seem to have an appetite for rezoning the land for residential use.

“I find changing a zone more objectionable — the end result might be the same but I don’t see why we should change the zone to accommodate,” said Commissioner John Katz.

Jewell said because the parcel is not zoned for industrial use a developer could successfully build under the state’s 8-30g affordable housing law as the lot stands today.

He said Tom Beecher, the commission’s legal counsel, advised that rezoning the lot would allow it to match the surrounding residential zone.

Rezoning to two-acre residential, however, would mean the roughly 1.2-acre lot would be out of compliance with the town zoning regulations.

Planning and Zoning Director Richard Baldelli pointed out the lot is already out of compliance as part of the corporate development district, which is supposed to be at least 20 acres in size.

Rezoning to two-acre lots, as Beecher advised, would at least bring the small parcel closer to the town regulations.

Katz argued that leaving the zone as it stands could mean “8-30g wouldn’t apply.”

Jewell said the burden of proof would be on the commission.

“The burden on proving that it’s an industrial zone where residential uses are not permitted is on the commission, just like everything else under 8-30g,” he said.

Jewell suggested he might also be able to get the project built under a variance he received to put a residential home on the lot.

Baldelli said that if the project goes to an appeal, the litigation might be “longer and more complex” because of the CDD zone.

The commission members, however, indicated this month that they would rather have the applicant come in with a development application than just give the rezoning request the green light.

“The interesting thing is the minimum lot size in the CDD zone is 20 acres, and the setbacks in the CDD zone are 100 feet. So you basically left a property that was un-developable.” Attorney Bob Jewell