An owner of Main Street commercial buildings is appealing the Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision last month to allow for a neighbor to convert offices upstairs into apartments.
P&Z’s decision regarding 87 Main St., a brick structure known as the “Bank Building” that used to house Thali restaurant, was “illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and capricious” as well as “in abuse of the powers vested in” the Commission, according to a complaint filed Oct. 18 on behalf of Cody Real Estate LLC.
Specifically, the complaint said, P&Z’s approval violates local zoning regulations and state law, was based on inadequate reasoning and will lower the plaintiff’s property value.
Referring to a proposed new access door on the 1911-built structure, the Commission “failed to consider the threat to public health and safety associated with the proposed access door on the southeastern corner of the Subject Property because the access door as proposed dangerously opens into a right of way used for vehicular traffic despite feasible and prudent alternative locations for the access door that would not dangerously open into a vehicular right of way.”
Plans for the project submitted by New Canaan-based James Schettino Architects show a new entry door on the southern face of the building at the easternmost corner. The plans call for creation of four dwelling units on the second floor of the building (three one-bedroom apartments and one studio) as well as an elevator.
Terry Spring, a principal with the plaintiff Cody Real Estate LLC, had raised concerns during P&Z’s Sept. 24 meeting. There, she noted that the access road between Cody’s buildings and the bank building provides access to both properties, and voiced concern about the location of utilities. Prior to voting unanimously in favor of the application, P&Z conditioned the approval on not allowing any mechanical or utility equipment along the south side of the property where the access road runs.
According to the complaint, filed by attorney Liam S. Burke of Fairfield-based Russo & Rizzio LLC, the plaintiff “is particularly aggrieved” by P&Z’s approval and “the resulting negative impact of the proposed project upon the fair market value and use and enjoyment by the Plaintiff of its property.”