March 5, 2018
To: Ms. Rebecca Mucchetti, Chairwoman, Planning & Zoning Commission
Dear Rebecca,
s you can imagine, last Tuesday night’s meeting was very frustrating for me. I had to sit there silently while my concerns in regard to Special Permits were not fully understood. If I was permitted to speak, there may have been a dynamic discussion of the issues. Instead, my thoughts were quickly dismissed – maybe even interpreted as ignorant. I understand that it was not a public hearing, but maybe the procedures could be more relaxed and an individual could be invited to speak. Although I appreciated our meeting in October, an opportunity to speak to the entire Commission appears to be crucial.
The following further explanations would have been given if I was given the opportunity:
- Private Clubs in residential zones should be non-profits – I understand the Commission was hung up on Day Cares and Museums as being commercial and permitted; but the point is that Day Care is far different. It’s an extension of schools and serves the families in the community. Private Clubs are for anyone from any town who will pay a membership fee and can be a commercial intrusion into a neighborhood when it doesn’t serve that neighborhood. Residents prefer commercial operations in business zones. I realize that you understand this sensitivity and opened a discussion to define “commercial” but Adam immediately ended that discussion by saying it would be dangerous to define “commercial”. It’s disappointing that the entire Planning & Zoning department is more concerned with getting pigeon-holed instead of coming up with meaningful resolutions to residents’ concerns. It’s not acceptable to keep sidestepping needed change just because it would be difficult to do it properly.
- Recreational uses should be those that do not require the construction of facilities - the Commission was concerned about ballfields with dugouts, etc. being non-conforming. I was referring to major construction. My point is that in residential zones, a structure like a stadium should not be allowed just because it’s a recreational use. Obviously, the type or size of structure would have to be defined.
- If a Special Permit use in a residential zone materially changes the property, applicant must provide business plans that support long-term financial viability - the comment from Mr. Katz was that he didn’t care if someone lost money on their investment; you did not think the Commission had the authority to request the information. My point is that the financial failure of a project such as that proposed by the not-yet-existing Ridgefield Winter Club could leave a 12,500 sq. ft. clubhouse with facilities inside that are not conducive to other uses, a house for a Zamboni, bathrooms and a snack bar, a residential house, an ice rink with extensive underground tubing, a 10,000 gallon fire cistern and a huge parking lot – all abandoned. What would happen to a property that is created for such a uniquely-defined use? At some point, we need to be practical. It seemed that most weekends this winter it rained or snowed. How can an outdoor rink be skateable enough to be worthwhile for Private Club members? Why even join? Ignoring financial viability has greater consequences for a Ridgefield Winter Club application than for a Front Porch Farm Bed & Breakfast application.
- Special Permit applicants must disclose organization ownership and management - the Commission assumed the applicant would be an LLC and the owners could be researched on the internet. While corporation information is available online, LLC’s are not required to disclose information so you may never know who is behind a project. Additionally, what if the LLC or corporation was not formed until a permit was granted? Would we find out after a hearing that there is a conflict of interest with the ownership and a Ridgefield official?
Sincerely,
Jeff Hansen
cc: Robert Cascella, Joe Dowdell, Timothy Dunphy, Joe Fossi, George Hanlon, John Katz, Charles Robbins and Mark Zeck