August 28, 2007
Two acre lot-size minimums, in an old suburb …
The disturbing results of minimum lot-size requirements are myriad. This week, the Appellate Court of Connecticut ruled that a landowner who planned to tear down an existing house and build a new one could not do so, because the property did not meet the zone’s minimum lot size. (Field Point Park Ass’n v. Planning and Zoning Comm’n of Town of Greenwich (App. Ct. Conn. 2007)) The court held that the zoning commission had improperly included, in its calculation, a portion of the lot under a private road that serves the surrounding community; without this portion, the lot fell just short of the two-acre requirement. (Two-acre minimums in Greenwich, an easy train ride to New York City!)
Among the oddities of the Greenwich ordinance are that homes in the area zoned as RA-2 must be set back at least 75 feet from the street, unless the street is especially narrow, if which case the setback must be greater! I guess that the ideas of “high density” and affordable housing haven’t yet traveled their way out to Greenwich (median family income: over $120,000) …
August 28, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Two acre lot-size minimums, in an old suburb …:
Ah, yes. Regulatory requirements for exceptionally low-density development.
Indeed, even more than single, separate use zones, these mandated big acre/low density regs are the primary local law drivers of unsustainable growth patterns.
Posted by: Chad Emerson | Aug 28, 2007 7:48:10 PM