Greenwich debate grows over oversized accessory units at Cherry Valley property

The Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission continued its hearing on a proposal to expand an existing employee cottage and add a large accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 66 Cherry Valley after a contentious discussion about scale, precedent and legal risk.

Tom Tessy, representing the applicant, argued the renovations would comply with the town’s special‑permit standards for accessory structures and said the project team has documented the property’s long, complicated zoning history. “When you look at the accessory structure, you take a look at the particular structure,” Tessy told commissioners, saying the cottage and proposed ADU would be “compatible with the zone” and would maintain a subordinate appearance when considered in context.

But the proposal drew forceful objections from neighbors and from attorney Mario Capola, who represents a nearby resident. Capola said the cottage and garage expansion would dramatically increase the degree of nonconformity and could amount to an impermissible expansion of a pre‑existing nonconforming use. He warned the plan would effectively create three separate dwelling units on a property where that use pattern would not be permitted in the zone. “Approval here would result in the use of three dwelling units on the property,” Capola said, urging the commission to treat the legal consequences cautiously.

Several commissioners said the sheer size of the proposed accessory buildings — one accessory structure would grow from about 1,900 sq ft to roughly 3,000 sq ft, and a garage would expand to about 4,000 sq ft — pushed the proposal well past the assistant’s intent that accessory structures be subordinate and incidental. Commissioner comments focused on both the individual massing of the units and their cumulative size relative to the main house, with concern that approving the plan could create an outsized precedent for large external ADUs in Greenwich.

Commissioners asked the applicant to return with alternatives that reduce the scale of the external ADU and reconfigure the accessory uses to make them clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling. Tessy offered several possible design options — including relocating living space off the garage or redistributing programmatic elements — and said the client was willing to work on revisions.

Attorney Capola also asked commissioners to review whether the cottage is a lawful pre‑existing employee dwelling, and whether enlarging it would constitute an unlawful expansion rather than an allowed intensification. The commission’s legal and staff teams will examine the town’s regulations and the case law submitted by the parties.

No vote was taken; the commission continued the application to a later meeting to allow the applicant time to submit scaled‑down designs and to give staff time to review legal questions and precedent. Commissioners said they will expect a revised plan that addresses both the individual scale of each accessory building and the combined footprint relative to the primary residence.