Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission voices skepticism about broad LBR zoning change proposed to allow large fitness studios
Summary
An applicant proposed a text amendment to allow larger fitness studios and expanded accessory food sales in LBR zones; commissioners raised concerns about class sizes, parking, and the proposal’s townwide impact and suggested special permits or narrower rules rather than a blanket change.
A petition to amend Greenwich’s LBR zoning to allow fitness studios and related accessory sales drew extensive questioning from the Planning & Zoning Commission, which expressed concern that a broad text change could create parking and traffic problems across multiple neighborhood commercial corridors.
Attorney Casey O'Donnell presented the intent: to allow boutique fitness studios (yoga, Pilates, small classes) with limited accessory food preparation and sale. Commissioners repeatedly noted the specific property cited for the proposal — an 18,800‑square‑foot retail building — could accommodate many more users than the applicant’s stated class sizes, creating enforcement and parking risks. Several commissioners and a nearby property owner’s attorney recommended either limiting the amendment, requiring a special permit for new buildings, or retaining the 2019 approach that allowed fitness uses only in existing buildings with documented vacancy.
Attorney Mario Capola, representing a local property owner, submitted a written objection arguing the 2019 change was narrowly intended to revitalize underutilized existing buildings and that increasing accessory uses to 25% of floor area (up from 10%) would “no longer be accessory” and conflict with the town’s POCD objective that LBR centers serve nearby residents rather than draw customers town‑ or region‑wide.
Commission guidance to the applicant: provide an analysis of where the amendment would apply across LBR1/LBR2 zones, a parking/trip study or site‑specific parking analysis, and clearer limitations on accessory food service; consider limiting the change by square footage, hours, or applying special‑permit review to new buildings.
What’s next: The transcript records the pre‑application discussion and requests for additional materials; commissioners signaled they will expect a more detailed, townwide analysis before considering a text amendment.
Representative quote: “If 25% is a problem, 10% is adequate,” said one commissioner summarizing concerns about accessory uses.
