Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies rezoning request for 84 Cogniwog Road over environmental, character concerns
Summary
The Town of Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5‑0 to deny a zoning map amendment that would have rezoned 1.998 acres at 84 Cogniwog Road from RA‑2 to R‑12. Commissioners cited inconsistency with the POCD’s environmental and community‑character objectives and local topography and drainage risks raised by neighbors.
The Town of Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission on Jan. 21 denied a zoning map amendment that would have rezoned approximately 1.998 acres at 84 Cogniwog Road from RA‑2 to R‑12.
The applicant’s representatives, including Rachel Orsi, argued the property’s character and several historical permits and an expanded sewer connection showed the parcel is aligned with nearby R‑12 lots and that rezoning would cure existing nonconformities and preserve options for future subdivision. Christina Warner, senior planner with SC Miner, said the proposal would make the lot and existing structure conforming in the R‑12 district and could enable future subdivision only through a separate, later application.
Neighbors and commissioners pushed back. Fado Lane resident Mark Gilder said the portion proposed for rezoning is steep and drains directly to nearby homes and roadway, recounting past flooding events and arguing that upzoning the slope “would accelerate water flow and erosion” and remove a protective layer of RA‑2 zoning. Multiple commissioners questioned whether a sewer connection or the appearance of surrounding lots alone justified a map amendment, and several raised the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) objectives on conserving natural resources and protecting topography and neighborhood character.
After discussion, a motion to approve the rezoning failed. The commission then adopted a motion to deny the zoning map amendment on the grounds that the application was inconsistent with POCD guiding principles to sustain and improve the natural environment and to preserve community character. The motion to deny passed on a 5‑0 vote.
The commission’s decision noted the parcel remains predominantly RA‑2 (roughly two‑thirds of the lot) and that the existing RA‑2 nonconformity is marginal (about 87 square feet). Commissioners said those facts, together with steep slopes, drainage concerns and the POCD’s priorities, weighed against changing the zone at this time. The chair said the rejection preserves the town’s ability to require a full engineering and subdivision review if and when a separate subdivision application is ever filed.
Next steps: The commission closed the hearing on the application Jan. 21 and entered its finding of inconsistency with the POCD in the decision letter. The applicant may refile a different application or pursue a new approach, but any future subdivision would require separate review.
