Footer Featured Widget

P&Z To Weigh Change to Allowable Heights of Retaining Walls

By |

In the past three years, the town has issued 25 permits for retaining walls higher than four feet, including 10 over six feet, though one section of the New Canaan Zoning Regulations outright forbids retaining walls taller than four feet in Residential and Special Zones, officials say. At the same time, another section of the regulations states that retaining walls higher than four feet simply require a zoning permit, Town Planner Sarah Carey noted in a memo ahead of the Planning & Zoning Commission’s regular meeting at 6 p.m Tuesday. 

“It is recommended that we clean up this regulation to take a clear position on the permitted height of retaining walls in Residential and Special Zones,” Carey wrote in the memo, which forms part of the public packet for the meeting. 

“Staff recommends that there be no height limit on retaining walls but rather a special permit be required in certain instances,” she said. The discrepancy—in Section 6.5.B of the regulations (page 153 here)—recently was brought to the attention of town staff, Carey said. In the past three years, the town has permitted retaining walls higher than four feet in Residential Zones, she said, “sometimes administratively, sometimes requiring a special permit.”

“The Commission in 2022 granted at least 2 Special Permits that had proposed retaining walls over 4ft in height in Residential Zones,” Carey said, citing properties on Brushy Ridge Road and Oenoke Ridge. To address the discrepancy, P&Z will consider text amendments to Section 6.5.B.

Government

Town Seeks Public Input on POCD via Online Survey

By |

Town officials are asking for the public’s input in a community-wide survey as they prepare to update the major guiding document for land use decisions in New Canaan. By state law, the Plan of Conservation and Development must be updated every 10 years. In New Canaan, the POCD underwent its most recent major update in 2014. The document informs P&Z “of how we should alter or stay the course” in the appointed body’s decision-making, said Town Planner Sarah Carey. 

She continued: “This is your chance as a member of the public to give us your opinion of: What are we doing well as a town? What do we need to improve on?

Government

Town To Advise on YMCA Landscape Screening After Neighbor Complains

By |

Town officials are reviewing the landscape screening between the New Canaan YMCA and a neighbor, after the latter filed a complaint that the South Avenue organization is out of compliance with its Special Permit requirements. Putnam Road resident Roger Williams said in an Aug. 23 letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission that in nearly 30 years he’s seen the Y grow its program and facility significantly. “What was a successful local YMCA when we moved in has become a very large regional YMCA, especially with the closures of the Stamford YMCA and Norwalk YMCA facilities,” Williams said in the letter. “Each time the Y has requested its expansions, they promised to install landscaping and screening and to maintain both to lessen its impact on the neighbors.

David Rucci

Brookwood Lane Homeowner Seeks Permission To Create Apiary, Vegetable and Flower Farm

By |

The new owners of a 32-acre estate in New Canaan are seeking to use part of the property to farm vegetables and flowers. About 4.5 acres at 82 Brookwood Lane also will be used for beekeeping, according to a revised narrative submitted Aug. 14 on behalf of the property owner—Kensho Trust, which acquired the property for $10.8 million last summer—by attorney David Rucci of New Canaan-based Lampert, Toohey & Rucci LLC. The other 27.5 acres will “remain as woodland, wetlands, meadow and pasture” while two acres “will be kept in cultivation,” Rucci said in the narrative. It continued: “The main focus of the farm will be an apiculture and woodland-grown shiitake mushroom production.

Footer Featured Widget

P&Z Sued Over Rilling Ridge Tennis Court Denial

By |

A New Canaan woman on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the Planning & Zoning Commission, saying the appointed body erred in denying her application to build a tennis court on her property. According to the complaint filed in state Superior Court on behalf of Amy Tucci of 57 Rilling Ridge, P&Z’s denial during a July 26 special meeting was “illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and capricious.”

“The Defendant Commission ignored and acted in a manner that is inconsistent with and violates the procedural and substantive requirements and provisions of the Zoning Regulations, the Connecticut General Statutes and the common law of the State of Connecticut,” attorney Joel Green of Bridgeport-based Law Offices of Green and Gross, P.C. wrote in the complaint. 

P&Z also “failed to make proper findings of fact and failed to identify sufficient or adequate reasons for its actions,” the complaint said. The application and proposed tennis court “fully comply with the requirements, standards and conditions necessary for the approval of the application pursuant to the Zoning Regulations,” it said. The lawsuit seeks to overturn P&Z’s decision and to award legal costs and “such other and further relief as the Court may determine.”

The Commission’s decision to deny the application was itself a divided vote. 

Tucci—who originally had filed an application to operate a boutique commercial gym at home (later withdrawn)—applied to P&Z for a Special Permit that would allow a tennis court to be located within a 150 feet of the street (see page 55 here), and for a second permit allowing for soil disturbance of more than 10,000 square feet of area in order to (page 149). While some commissioners argued that P&Z has approved applications for similar Special Permits in the past and noted that the court is designed to be just 52-by-115 feet (versus a standard size of 60-by-120), others said it’s inappropriate to approve a tennis court in the front yard and found that the application didn’t meet all Special Permit criteria.