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.