Owner, Would-Be Developer of Roger Sherman at Odds Over Inn’s Future

Though he has filed the necessary paperwork to appeal the Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision to deny a redevelopment plan for the Roger Sherman Inn, builder Andrew Glazer is in no position to do so, the property and business owner said.

According to Nes Jaffre, Glazer had been contract purchaser of the property under an agreement that ended Feb. 28.

“We do not have any contract with Andy and he has no business at all doing anything regarding this property,” she told NewCanaanite.com. “I am spending all my efforts and time building this business, and really this has got to stop.”

Meanwhile, Glazer in an Op-Ed published in NewCanaanite.com, conceded that he needs the Jaffres’ support to pursue an appeal in earnest. That said, Glazer wrote, the appeal represents “their last chance to retain any sense of the value of the property that I was going to pay.”

“I will be required to convince the owners that their interests are served either way by taking the appeal,” he said in his Op-Ed. “But the only way to maintain any chance for achieving the value of their property as they see its worth will be to get this appeal filed and win.”

Jaffre said she is eager to continue building the momentum and wide customer support that the Roger Sherman has gained since it faced the prospect of closing for good earlier this year. The restaurant is open six night per week (dinner service starts at 5 p.m.), is closed Mondays and offers a Sunday brunch buffet with bottomless Bloody Mary’s and mimosas.

“We will be opening for lunch on the porch some time after Mother’s Day and I’m in here panting the ladies bathroom myself,” she said.

Glazer in his appeal, filed by attorneys at Stamford-based Carmody, Torrance, Sandak & Hennessey LLP, said his application met standards laid out in the New Canaan Zoning Regulations and has precedent in the Maples Inn (his own development) next door.

P&Z in denying the application “acted arbitrarily, illegally and in abuse of the discretion vested in it” by misapplying the town’s zoning regs and failing to support its decision with the record before it, according to the appeal.