The owner of five contiguous downtown properties that are slated for redevelopment is seeking to evict a longtime New Canaan ophthalmologist from one of its buildings.
11 Burtis Ave.
According to a complaint filed Aug. 17 on behalf of the ownership company—Ventana 11 Burtis LLC—the tenant at 11 Burtis Ave., New Canaan Ophthalmology LLC, hasn’t paid rent and has lost the right to occupy the premises.
The plaintiff served the tenant with eviction papers requiring the ophthalmologist to be out by Aug. 11, according to the complaint, filed by attorney Colin B. Connor of Fairfield-based Russo & Rizio LLC.
“The time given in the Notice to Quit or the Defendant to move out of the Premises has ended, but the Defendant has not moved out,” the complaint said.
It added: “As a result of Plaintiff’s Notice of Termination of Holdover Tenancy, Defendant’s right to use, occupy and/or possess the Premises terminated at midnight on July 31, 2023.”
According to Connecticut Secretary of the State records, the principal at New Canaan Ophthalmology LLC is a Ponus Ridge man.
The properties around the corner of Burtis Avenue and Cherry Street are owned by variously named limited liability companies that are themselves owned by additional LLCs, all of which trace to a Stratford man who is a founding partner of New York City-based rePlace Urban Studio. According to that company’s website, the firm is serving as architect and developer of “Quartier,” a 70,000 square-foot mixed-use development (see renderings here).
Last November, the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously approved the mixed-use development overlooking the corner of Cherry and Burtis with 25 residential units, located within two multi-family buildings and four townhouses. It also includes “retail space and private courtyards,” according to the rePlace website. (The project had originally come in as a 26-unit development in January 2022, after contiguous parcels at the corner were sold for a total of $6.1 million.)
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff is seeking immediate possession of the property, forfeiture of the defendant’s possessions and personal effects and “such other relief at law or in equity which the court deems appropriate.”
[Comments are disabled on this article.]