Age-restricted moratorium is denied

The Planning and Zoning Commission returned to action after six weeks off for the summer Sept. 11 and on the advice of Town Counsel Ira Bloom unanimously denied attorney Christopher Russo’s call from July 31 for a moratorium against age-restricted housing applications on Ridgefield Road.

Russo, acting on behalf of his client, Ridgefield Road resident Vicki Mavis, told the Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting in July  the moratorium should be in place until the commission formally approves a new Plan of Conservation and Development, a once-per-every-10-years task that will be coming up soon.

“It has no applicability, because the regulation has been rescinded,” Bloom told the commissioners, and they said the same in their motion of denial to Russo’s request. The age-restricted zoning regulation was rescinded over the summer.

The Ridgefield Road age-restricted housing issue has been probably the hottest zoning issue of the year in Wilton. Meetings have typically packed more than 100 people each time. Russo and Mavis twice made their pitch for a moratorium. The first time, earlier this year, was when the town had an age-restricted zoning overlay district regulation in place. That regulation was rescinded because of a flaw in the legal notice that advertised it.

Now, without a regulation in place for age-restricted zones, Russo hit the wall.

“Can someone ask for a moratorium on a regulation that doesn’t exist?,” said Rick Tomasetti, a member of the zoning commission, during the deliberations on Sept. 11.

Russo could not immediately be reached for comment Tuesday following the meeting.

Meanwhile, developer James Fieber is seeking to restore the Age-Restricted Overlay District to the town’s regulations. He will have his public hearing Sept. 25 in the Cider Mill School cafeteria.

The overlay request encompasses Danbury Road, Westport Road, and Ridgefield Road from Danbury Road up to the intersection of Drum Hill Road.

In another twist, a meeting will be scheduled in October for an application by Patricia L. Frisch for a moratorium pertaining to the establishment of any type of district or residential districts, including age-restricted districts.

By participating in the comments section of this site you are agreeing to our Privacy Policy and User Agreement

  • Politically Direct (PD)

    Ms. Mavis, Mr. Russo: CT STATE REGS- Chapter 124 Zoning might ALREADY void any Town of Wilton ability to have an AROD there AND void proposed building onto #183. Here’s why:nnQUESTIONABLE DUE TO RIDGELINE SETBACKSnSec. 8-1aa. Ridgeline protection: u201cRidgeline setback areau201d means the area bounded by (A) a line that parallels the ridgeline at a distance of one hundred fifty feet; u201cBuildingu201d means any structure other than (A) a facility as defined in section 16-50i or (B) structures of a relatively slender nature compared to the buildings to which they are associated. n> Height of multi-complexes prohibited on ridges, to protect horizons and underlying rock layers.nnSee at: NOT PERMITTED ON RESIDENTIALnSec. 8-2m. Floating and overlay zones and flexible zoning districts.nNO planned development district SHALL BE APPROVED which would PERMIT A USE or authorize the expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use WHERE THE UNDERLYING ZONE IS A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

  • Chill Kydes

    Bill Kydes (The Wilton Shoemaker) here. Do we believe in private property rights or not?! Either people are free to do with the property they own (as long as it doesn’t affect their neighbors) or they aren’t! The fact that the local government rules must be followed for anyone to develop their own property is a disgusting authoritarian notion. If Wilton had been subjected to this tyranny over the years it would still resemble the small farm it was centuries ago.

© HAN Network. All rights reserved. The Wilton Bulletin, 16 Bailey Avenue, Ridgefield, CT 06877

Designed by WPSHOWER

Powered by WordPress