[{"_1":2,"_136":-5,"_137":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112,124],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6065794,"mediaKeyId","3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8","parentId",3195077,"title","Votes at a glance: Planning & Zoning actions, Feb. 25, 2025","audioSeconds",9200,"startMs",80000,"endMs",9280000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8&start=80&end=9280","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8/thumbnail_80000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6065794/Connecticut/Votes-at-a-glance-Planning-Zoning-actions-Feb-25-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6065794-09b2c81e427c4a6dbb7ae418c7ce510f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771034333&Signature=o15MVdNdg~kpPs-RIGNFEHyR3T1WxRn7dyXfU33iMrYb0EQJZFNtNK6puVCueKs9YdmVwkiKcwEjyqbCQUOSkdtUmjFIxSh3DfEf-7sRpJDtL9MA0C5FSPxrhAIyl1QLZ28WlokHer9mFR14WARgUxOqUnycqb9m7uEagdpC7EdlGx3Hceis6dZVCJmoIrOSKYyHWCg-NCc1-Fmk-sLKWAfIu-HjmOC9NB3ukLsO76h3PdTHGiC~9bVl4YRS-xE8s8GUUgLxNJFnesx9WcJul9D9V6qpo2b0Sa8oXbCuyYEouXc8yQQmILr7yaEtEw4TRyAxzQdX1Xaf1lG3Y7eEsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town Council of Greenwich, CT","date","2025-03-01T00:00:00Z","article","The Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission recorded the following formal actions and votes during its Feb. 25 meeting (items and file numbers shown where available):

- Text amendment (PLPZ2024‑638) to clarify timing of Affordable Housing Trust Fund payments and allow limited clustered attachments — APPROVED 5‑0.
- Zoning map amendment (PLPZ2024‑379) to rezone 154.53 acres from BEX‑50 to BEX‑50R — APPROVED 5‑0.
- Final site plan & special permit (PLPZ2024‑410) for 1 American Lane, 98 units, wastewater plant upgrades and related site work — APPROVED 5‑0 (conditions require DEEP and DPW approvals before a zoning permit).
- Lot‑line revision / confirmation: 44/46 Cherry Valley Road (PLPZ2024‑463) — APPROVED 5‑0; applicant to address expired sewer permit items prior to zoning permit.
- Confirmation that 0 Eggleston Lane and 23 Eggleston Lane are separate and distinct zoning lots (PLPZ2025‑005) — APPROVED 4‑1 (Alban opposed); staff to require recordable map notes and DPW drainage conditions prior to development.
- Final site plan & special permit for Field Club of Greenwich padel pre‑application moved to ARC for lighting/landscape review; later P&Z actions required for final approval (pre‑application comments issued).
- Final site plan & special permit for 38 Field Point Road (Chabad) — APPROVED 5‑0 with tree‑protection and parking‑agreement recommendations; outstanding fire comments to be cleared at building permit.
- Final accessory structure special permit (18 Close Road) — APPROVED (conditions: revise height/landscape plans to staff satisfaction).
- Final coastal site plan & special permit for 280 Otter Rock Drive (new single‑family dwelling in coastal/flood zones) — APPROVED (conditions to submit soils & erosion control and DPW sign‑offs).
- Modification to previously approved coastal site plan & special permit at 1 Smith Road (Friedheim) — APPROVED with phasing and tree‑protection conditions; soils/erosion plan required prior to zoning permit.
- Final site plan & special permit at 909 North Street (conversion/rebuild reducing units from 4 to 2) — APPROVED; DPW and conservation comments addressed; health department approved septic permit for the proposed configuration.

Several items were continued as pre‑applications or required additional ARC/HDC, DPW, or fire‑department sign‑offs prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Commissioners recorded votes individually on the public record for each motion.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission, February 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal motions and outcomes from the Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Feb. 25, 2025.","taxTitle","Town of Greenwich, Fairfield, Connecticut","taxId",80074,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6065802,"Planning commission approves expanded Chabad center site improvements at 38 Field Point Road",4287,4060000,8347000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8&start=4060&end=8347","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8/thumbnail_4060000.jpg","/articles/6065802/Connecticut/Planning-commission-approves-expanded-Chabad-center-site-improvements-at-38-Field-Point-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6065802-c98356609f27e8d58d7cea6248729d01/orig.mp4?Expires=1771034333&Signature=eSCg2T258LS7c0tgxUu9KaU9INip6I8-DQMKv3L35V49VGGcitrpNR7NW33z1sCoXszWunZCG1hoWiCVpieT89TNyOIpR6SVEFcUccBlSGhg6Qn-ozm5cPRu~89OI6wHPneB5eivuA6GxuLBNoVg7bmQ-OMgutONGF7F4huZhXWOqCXG2EhezSPgso~~rGgsxNiIsaohFlkOMlMDvuTmhSQL1IkxFSY-Lb19QCe2hF4TA20bkcdazTg0Fc46eOUprSNTPoV6NPHeWxeIVIwtuAyIShiVVXTI24wIlelf2k~NjcO5XoRhYOzytGBSxtlgtD6Y5O25xthbOzxEZexPQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning & Zoning Commission approved Feb. 25 a final site plan and special permit for the Field Point Road Chabad center (PLPZ2023‑461) to expand portions of the religious building, install site lighting, update landscaping and drainage, and make related site improvements on the 30,360 square‑foot parcel.

The commission’s staff summary states the property’s prior approvals and notes that conservation, ARC and DPW reviewed the proposal and supplied comments; wetlands review determined no further action was required. The record contains comments from the health department about food‑service licensing — the health department advised that if the proposed kitchen serves the public it may require a separate health‑department approval.

Commissioners approved the application with conditions: protection of on‑site trees for the duration of construction, a recommendation that the applicant pursue private or off‑site parking agreements to help alleviate a nonconforming parking condition, and an overall instruction to resolve remaining staff and interdepartmental comments. The commission also recorded that outstanding fire‑department questions would be addressed through the building‑permit plan review process.

The applicant had submitted a signed acknowledgement of P&Z staff comments.","The commission approved final site plan and special permit changes for the Chabad Center at 38 Field Point Road, including an addition to the religious building; staff noted outstanding fire‑department questions to be resolved during building permit review.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6065806,"Field Club of Greenwich seeks two padel courts; neighbors and conservation staff request more drainage and bird‑safe glass details",580,3924000,4504000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8&start=3924&end=4504","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8/thumbnail_3924000.jpg","/articles/6065806/Connecticut/Field-Club-of-Greenwich-seeks-two-padel-courts-neighbors-and-conservation-staff-request-more-drainage-and-birdsafe-glass-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6065806-02cab5925c8c8316af016b64469f6867/orig.mp4?Expires=1771034333&Signature=kDU-kNQYmdtHmTOejhApW0vNCVmgO3ac2KCq5wTocnJm8eJQlklmj50O95oX6beaFXFBjE9v-iJbKM~ncK8xwMyvYoTtPgaOSOmCUnVg6kdVnE2T85bN0AAOSzfKBMaai0LR~ZDk-e4bSJ8pKOfKlOPvGgShy5rivLiJqML1QZVRbHNl3N1LLYLJk1o321swxlAEl5V1vf5n1XqclXSY4OPWsyVvTolHerOxsil~FpuuPuh8LcnGtrDjxgxr2koZ75vawyaazxKJ~YeDEaIPi9Ye9KP6XTOjppGFYYkXKNceOdFXorzh9RhcRJaHH~uurPLOtku3jJDfEzNwl3TSlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Field Club of Greenwich presented a pre‑application Feb. 25 for two new padel courts, an extension of spectator decking and related landscaping and drainage on its 11.1‑acre campus at 276 Lake Avenue.

Bruce Cohen, counsel for the club, described the courts as approximately 66 by 33 feet each, surrounded by glass walls and surfaced with a play surface commonly used for padel. The commission and staff noted that the project had been reviewed by ARC and conservation staff and that DPW had raised drainage comments; the club has submitted a drainage exemption and a conditional plan showing infiltration designed for a 10‑year design storm.

Commissioners asked for additional information on several items before formal application: whether the porous or artificial turf court surfacing and underdrains could be designed to manage larger storms (a request to explore increasing attenuation to a 25‑year design storm), documentation that the proposed lighting scheme will comply with town lighting regulations and will be timed to shut off with existing approved site lighting, and a maintenance and operation plan for porous surfaces. Several commissioners also asked the applicant to provide a phonometric (noise) analysis showing typical padel play levels and how they compare with town limits, and asked the club to consider specifications and films to reduce the risk of bird strikes on the transparent wall panels.

Conservation staff asked that Norway spruce specified for screening be replaced by white spruce (or other species preferred by conservation staff), and the conservation chairman urged the club to coordinate plantings so new trees have the best chance to thrive. The club said it would work with its landscape architect to provide an updated planting list and would discuss drainage and porous‑surfacing maintenance with its engineers.

Commissioners also asked whether the club could provide data on relative capital and operating costs of padel vs. other court types for future applicants; applicants agreed to explore and to return with more detailed engineering, materials samples and a DPW‑approved drainage plan before a formal submission to P&Z.

No formal vote was taken; the project will proceed to ARC for detailed review of lighting and landscaping, and then back to planning staff and the commission with the requested engineering and materials information.","The Field Club of Greenwich presented plans for two new padel courts at its Lake Avenue campus. Commissioners and staff praised the concept but asked for more information on noise, drainage (possible 25‑year storm attenuation) and bird‑strike mitigation for the court’s glass walls.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6065810,"Commission, HDC and neighbors press developer to revise Greenwich Avenue project’s facade and materials",850,3550000,4400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8&start=3550&end=4400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8/thumbnail_3550000.jpg","/articles/6065810/Connecticut/Commission-HDC-and-neighbors-press-developer-to-revise-Greenwich-Avenue-projects-facade-and-materials","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6065810-de837ef5c1e6197cc649b72dae63fd38/orig.mp4?Expires=1771034333&Signature=YQtXg6vDh6QpFOpbdui3099EWYvcQ5awzJ2SUoDnqeAl3MkevreYdHpz9rZJWOARGkyUqOMHoo5UuPTAdqBR35xozJmC90H3sL9yVEoKA2s4fmgJdQtVscSe7Sw2KMoCdFcKGoyKRVgd46EjA7ONAFRachFwfRc83E2JhoJdgT18gkuSrRCwcRQPZmA3gXv7CtdJWsta6vSFLTnPpwDlinvDlS8qXSIw8BgH5mSRLi~J~tZ6yBa3kHcvnpJFJQKcdyoRagSrUzX1fYVojQwqIIiFFl-gaqGW-cLT7eylzPdY~OJ3GRwOR2cZCVyxeizejNMWaJOiYCbW3JNQYZB7qw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposed mixed‑use project at 240 Greenwich Avenue drew extensive design scrutiny and a demand from the Planning & Zoning Commission that the developer and Historic District Commission (HDC) refine the building’s façade, materials and streetscape treatment before returning for a final decision.

Applicant 240 GA LLC presented plans for a project that would add an HO (historic overlay) designation for the bank building at 240 Greenwich Ave and construct a new 12‑unit residential building with two levels of below‑grade parking and roughly 2,500 square feet of additional office space in the existing bank structure. The developer emphasized prior iterations and meetings with the Historic District Commission and neighbors; HDC provided a conceptual endorsement and asked the applicant to return with more detailed renderings and preservation easement language.

Commissioners and several members of the public raised consistent concerns: the new rear building’s brick massing and darker materials do not sufficiently reference the limestone and rounded fenestration of the historic bank façade, the West Elm streetscape needs more cohesive street‑tree and landscape planning, and the parking/traffic equation requires clearer documentation. Commissioners said they wanted more visible reference to the protected front building so the new building reads as part of the same campus rather than a separate modern object.

Traffic consultant Steve Cipolla of Hardesty presented trip‑generation estimates. He reported that the proposed 12 residential units would generate a small number of vehicle trips in a single commuter peak hour (roughly five peak‑hour trips after transit proximity credit) and that the project’s on‑site parking plus contract spaces would satisfy the commission’s parking calculation under CGBR rules for buildings over 15,000 square feet, but commissioners asked for a clearer parking table showing how spaces are allocated to residential and commercial uses and which off‑site spaces the developer will rely on.

Architect Kevin Molnar and the applicant’s team told commissioners they had worked with HDC on proportions and materials and had provided HDC with field visits and mockups. Commissioners asked for additional visuals, materials samples and three‑dimensional street sections showing how the new building aligns in height and rhythm with the bank and adjacent buildings on West Elm. Several commissioners asked staff to circulate a short written list of the commission’s design concerns to HDC and to the applicant before the next submittal so the applicant can respond directly.

Neighbors including the Harborview condominium association told the commission they had negotiated toward a settlement and expressed conditional support for the revised plan. Commissioners asked for clearer phasing, a parking allocation table, DPW and fire‑department sign‑offs, and additional detail on street trees and long‑term maintenance of landscape elements before the commission schedules a final vote.

The commission did not take a final vote and instructed applicant and HDC to refine design details, return with clearer parking documentation and provide requested engineering sign‑offs; staff agreed to gather prior commission decisions on the front/rear building line and FAR practice to inform the next review.","Developers of a proposed mixed‑use project at 240 Greenwich Avenue received conditional endorsements from the Historic District Commission but commissioners and neighbors asked for design changes — more reference to the protected bank building, softer materials and clearer parking and traffic commitments.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6065815,"Town staff and attorneys clash over whether brief common ownership merged Eggleston lots; commission confirms lots remain separate",2245,1515000,3760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8&start=1515&end=3760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8/thumbnail_1515000.jpg","/articles/6065815/Connecticut/Town-staff-and-attorneys-clash-over-whether-brief-common-ownership-merged-Eggleston-lots-commission-confirms-lots-remain-separate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6065815-08d38fff249b30dbe6fa240cdd088ac9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771034333&Signature=IurR2pqiCP9wCAeoTxgTGKfV07Y-nfTulvatYU6yo0n3deol8x2-oQnOqti-wUZNuIUYGMbiIPdJtaZSON0t13RnaBH0GXFrBoVrvdmWuSGTFtCYI42dTUXIPk2tz5i3Kjka8rKKPX2DZJDZEZlV9Pu6PV74ZqtfKTuW8PLytVkJXvqm-TOugfN65CivWY-Tf8-Eg47QOMOQkTX5w68E0pe2fJmTfdxhixeGW4s8A0BFzUl8QL5soJzlp0jb6JW4r1nUI27HCcSqyhCeo0krKwkD8pJlhZn4tWNiqr2bhA0yUX0am-4jlk3q~uGbk-yXXPQGbtJTnDsNgeLYas7uAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission on Feb. 25 confirmed that 0 Eggleston Lane and 23 Eggleston Lane remain two separate and distinct zoning lots, concluding a contested application that prompted legal arguments about the town’s merger rule and recent Connecticut law.

The applicants sought a confirmation that the two properties — one a vacant lot (0 Eggleston Lane, ~9,111 sq ft) and one a waterfront lot (23 Eggleston Lane, ~11,842 developable sq ft) — are separate zoning lots in the R‑12 zone. The applicant’s counsel, Lisa Feinberg, told the commission the two lots had been separately owned for more than a century and were not intentionally conveyed into common ownership; she cited Connecticut Public Act 17‑39 and related statutory language she said requires an owner’s intent to abandon a legal nonconformity.

Opposing counsel Mario Coppola, representing a neighboring property owner, urged the commission to find an operational merger under the town’s regulations: he argued that the two parcels were conveyed into common ownership for roughly three and a half years (November 2019 to February 2023) and that under the town’s merger provision and Connecticut case law a presumption of merger applies when adjoining land is held in common ownership. Coppola told the commission that the town’s merger rule does not include an explicit intent test and that, as a practical matter, many municipalities omit an intent requirement to avoid difficult post‑fact inquiries.

Commissioners and staff discussed U.S. Supreme Court precedent referenced at the briefing (Murr v. Wisconsin), state statute changes in 2017 and relevant Connecticut case law. Patrick Tracy, staff counsel, advised commissioners that Murr was narrow and did not resolve whether intent must be considered; other commissioners noted Connecticut authorities that treat intent as a factor in merger analysis. Feinberg presented evidence that a drafting error in a 2019 deed was corrected by a subsequent quitclaim deed and affidavit, and that the properties have been taxed separately; she argued that there was no intentional conveyance to common ownership.

After hearing the legal arguments and public comment from neighbors (including a resident at 12 Eggleston Lane and a series of email letters), the commission found that the submitted information showed no intent to merge the parcels and that the application did not constitute a subdivision or resubdivision under the town’s subdivision regulations. The commission imposed conditions for future development — including compliance with DPW drainage standards at the time of building permit and a requirement to return for final site plan review prior to any redevelopment of the lots — and added a standard note stating the confirmation does not guarantee future developability.

The motion confirming the lots as separate and distinct passed 4‑1 (MacRae, Yeske, Lowe, Wells voted yes; Alban voted no). The record notes conservation and DPW memos on drainage and wetlands and a health‑department memo approving a septic permit to construct a new centralized sewer disposal system.

The lengthy public and legal exchange on Eggleston focused on how local regulations interact with state statutory changes and case law; several commissioners asked staff to compile prior commission decisions and transcripts interpreting the town’s “front and rear building line” and FAR rules for future reference.

Commission action: motion to confirm the properties are separate and distinct zoning lots (PLPZ2025005) — approved 4‑1. Conditions: submittal of recordable map notes clarifying the finding and return to P&Z for any future development review.","The Planning & Zoning Commission confirmed two Eggleston Lane lots are separate zoning lots after a lengthy legal debate about whether a short period of common ownership in 2019 created a merger under local rules and state cases.",{"_33":125,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":126,"_41":127,"_43":128,"_45":129,"_47":130,"_49":131,"_51":132,"_53":133,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":134,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":135,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6065819,"Planning commission approves 1 American Lane zoning changes and final site plan for 98-unit development",387,113000,500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8&start=113&end=500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3195077-c77282e7b23d06f882c3ffb8f77390b8/thumbnail_113000.jpg","/articles/6065819/Connecticut/Planning-commission-approves-1-American-Lane-zoning-changes-and-final-site-plan-for-98-unit-development","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6065819-81c19c3f932a6bb3fad1a58ffdffa4f9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771034333&Signature=lDzVO0J~6~QRYXDNBYPEotHDl1VQxd33DB8F0xv2MG5bIgprXjgHrk7p1cS1UOh0I52MC7AG~bZp-6PdgIHysBxlF0Z2a2lIUQrW1uaHUtbePbqnaimwk2zv~6DeGmTLyQpCu6kT7zW3Vil0B0cI5Rzj7325yUBdlqcoVBRdkE5iRuzz3jhFUbmYGpmi6K8gSsDVktPTqAp8oz27bAtYJWKJrJ~LhwaM7XZr8Vk9Ankthx3J2MUnQdEdtygwOs9OWJXjaY15eJemRkHCn-LXWVMGz22ARbfmgdwPne-lxtuY~AQHqRVnxgr-RGzQtSZ~CdmBfqlTr8rmdqEJdtxYBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Greenwich Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously Feb. 25 to approve a trio of applications from the 1 American Lane applicant: a zoning text amendment, a zoning map amendment and final site plan and special permit for a residential development on 154.53 acres in the BEX‑50R zone.

Commissioners approved a zoning text amendment (file PLPZ2024‑638) that clarified timing of payments to the Town’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and allowed up to 3% of proposed units to be attached groupings of four or five units. Next the commission approved a zoning map amendment (file PLPZ2024‑379) rezoning 154.53 acres from BEX‑50 to BEX‑50R; staff noted WestCOG had commented that the proposal was inconsistent with the regional plan of conservation and development, but the commission found the change consistent with the town’s 2019 Plan of Conservation and Development guiding principles and objectives.

Finally commissioners approved the final site plan and special permit (file PLPZ2024‑410) to construct 98 residential units, upgrade the on‑site wastewater treatment plant, expand a conservation easement, install stormwater management and landscaping, and make a contribution to the Greenwich Affordable Housing Trust Fund in lieu of constructing some units. The commission’s approval included conditions requiring the applicant to secure full state and local approvals for wastewater treatment plant upgrades before a zoning permit is issued, to return to the commission if required changes exceed what the applicant has represented, and to submit an open‑space declaration acceptable to planning staff and the law department for recording on the town land records.

The commission’s staff summary records state that the project will require Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) approvals for the wastewater plant expansion and that the New York City Department of Environmental Protection reviewed and raised no concerns about impacts to the New York City drinking‑water watershed. The commission also noted wetlands agency approvals (permits dated 06/2024 and 01/27/2025) that include conditions requiring returning to the wetlands agency for review of detailed construction plans affecting the wastewater treatment facility.

The motion to approve the site plan and special permit included multiple standard conditions: final landscaping and drainage revisions to address DPW and consulting‑engineer comments, showing three school bus stop locations on the final plan per the public schools superintendent, meeting generator noise and fuel‑supply code requirements, returning to ARC electronically to close previously noted design bullets, and securing all necessary state and local permits for well relocations and wastewater upgrades prior to zoning permit.

Commissioners Alban, MacRae, Jones, Lowe and Yeske voted in favor of each application. The file notes record the commission’s finding that the intervenor’s environmental claims did not demonstrate unreasonable environmental harm within the commission’s statutory authority and that any remaining concerns tied to state permits or other agencies would be addressed through conditioning and through those agencies’ reviews.

The approvals are conditioned on the applicant obtaining required DEEP and other state permits for the wastewater treatment plant; the commission’s staff memo also lists outstanding DPW drainage and traffic comments that must be addressed before issuance of a zoning permit.

The commission recorded its votes on the record: the text amendment passed “5‑0,” the zoning map amendment passed “5‑0,” and the final site plan and special permit passed “5‑0.”","Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission voted to approve a zoning text amendment, a zoning map amendment and final site plan/special permit for a proposed 98‑unit development at 1 American Lane after addressing interagency permitting and wetland concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Planning & Zoning actions, Feb. 25, 2025

Planning commission approves expanded Chabad center site improvements at 38 Field Point Road

Field Club of Greenwich seeks two padel courts; neighbors and conservation staff request more drainage and bird‑safe glass details

Commission, HDC and neighbors press developer to revise Greenwich Avenue project’s facade and materials

Town staff and attorneys clash over whether brief common ownership merged Eggleston lots; commission confirms lots remain separate

Planning commission approves 1 American Lane zoning changes and final site plan for 98-unit development