Greenwich P&Z adopts zoning changes to comply with state housing law
Planning and Zoning · Meeting of June 23, 2026
Greenwich P&Z adopts zoning rewrite to meet state housing-parking law by July 1. The commission voted 5-0 to amend five sections of its zoning regulations under Public Act 25-1, which allows two-to-nine-unit housing as-of-right in commercial zones and kills parking minimums for developments of 16 units or fewer. Members also approved, 5-0, converting two dental offices at 23 Maple Avenue into apartments and a fabric-covered equipment shelter at Burning Tree Country Club.
Separately, the commission referred a complaint to zoning enforcement over pickleball play at Burning Tree, saying its prior approval covered only tennis: "It doesn't matter if the guy's, you know, if it's one person or 10," the chair said of noise crossing a property line. A pending 2,095-acre conservation and traffic-mitigation district, meant to preserve local parking review in older neighborhoods, awaits state and regional comment before a targeted July 7 vote. An 8-30g affordable-housing case at 129 Hamilton Avenue was continued to July 7 over disputed square-footage calculations.
In the full story:
- Who Was There
- Organizations And Documents Referenced
- The complete report — 4,302 words
Source: the Planning and Zoning meeting of June 23, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.
The Full Article
Postponements
Four applications were postponed before the meeting's substantive business began: Greenwich Street Conservancy's request to convert 376 Stanwich Road from nonprofit religious to nonprofit educational use; 43 Old Post Road LLC's proposal for a six-unit residential development with one affordable unit; 66 Cherry Valley LLC's plan to demolish a garage, add a driveway and accessory dwelling unit, and expand an existing cottage at 66 Cherry Valley Road; and Luis Morocho's application to convert a single-family home at 19 Livingston Place to a two-family use in the R-6 zone. No new hearing dates were announced on the record. Mary Jenkins, a commission member, was seated as the alternate for the evening in case a regular member needed to be replaced for a quorum.
Coleman Business Holdings LLC, 23 Maple Avenue: Decision
Background and stakes: The property's current mix of three apartments and two dental offices dates to a 1990 lawsuit settlement in which the commission approved a stipulation of settlement and a site plan. The applicant sought to convert the two ground-floor dental offices into residential units, a change that still requires special permit approval because it modifies a legal nonconforming use.
The question before the body: Whether converting the remaining commercial space to residential use on the 0.43-acre, R-20-zoned parcel is no more detrimental to the neighborhood than the existing dental office use, and whether it satisfies the site-plan and special-permit standards of sections 617 and 6141 of the town's Building Zone Regulations (BZR).
Substantive content: The plan replaces the southern dental office with a 1,583-square-foot three-bedroom apartment and the eastern dental office with a 616-square-foot one-bedroom apartment. No building expansion, grading, drainage or lighting work is proposed. The applicant will restripe the rear parking area to yield 14 spaces, one more than the 13 spaces specified in the 1990 settlement, plus the single front space designated as a walkway to the rear lot. The Department of Public Works (DPW) traffic division withdrew an earlier requirement for a five-foot ADA-accessible sidewalk along the frontage. Conservation staff, in comments dated June 4, encouraged (but did not require) native plantings, permeable pavement, solar panels and an electric-vehicle charging station.
The deliberation: The item had already been heard as a final site plan and special permit on June 9, and Tuesday's session was limited to the commission chair reading the decision resolution into the record. There was no additional applicant testimony or public comment recorded.
Procedural steps and outcome: The chair read a lengthy "whereas" resolution finding the residential conversion consistent with the underlying R-20 zoning and the special permit standards, then moved approval with conditions: all other 1990 stipulation terms remain in force; no vehicular access is permitted directly to East Putnam Avenue; the retaining wall near East Putnam Avenue must be screened; the common driveway easement recorded by Barbara Coleman in the Greenwich land records on January 2, 1990, is retained with no other access to Maple Avenue permitted; the existing parking configuration is retained; and the applicant is asked to consider the conservation recommendations and address any other outstanding department comments. Commissioner Low seconded. Commissioners MacRae, Low, Yeskey and Jones voted aye, and the chair cast the fifth aye, passing the motion 5-0.
Implications and what is next: The approval closes out a decades-old settlement property for a new residential use; no further commission action is required absent a building-permit or sewer-permit issue.
129 Hamilton Avenue: 8-30g Affordable Housing Conversion
Background and stakes: The applicant seeks to convert an existing two-family residence into a three-family building under Connecticut's affordable-housing appeals statute, General Statutes 8-30g, with the lower level designated as the deed-restricted affordable unit. The town's Affordable Housing Trust Fund had previously declined to vote on financing the project, citing it as premature; Trust minutes show member Bill Finger asked that the project first receive Planning and Zoning approval before the Trust would take it up.
The question before the body: Whether the commission had enough information — particularly a fire marshal "will-serve" letter and verified floor-area calculations — to close the hearing and vote, and, if approved, what would happen to the project's affordable-housing status if trust financing were later denied.
Substantive content: Attorney John Tessier and property representative Joe Pecora returned to answer questions raised at a prior briefing about how "livable" or usable floor area was calculated on each level, including whether a shared mechanical room — containing three water heaters and two HVAC units, measuring 165 square feet — was properly excluded from the basement unit's square footage. The commission chair told Pecora that excluding the mechanical room would drop the basement unit to 932 square feet and pressed for a graphic floor plan showing exactly what space counts as habitable, noting the basement family room and kitchen appeared to lack exterior windows. Commissioner Nick MacRae separately raised a fire marshal-driven relocation of the unit's washer and dryer and an unresolved discrepancy over which direction a rear egress stairway runs.
The deliberation: The chair pressed Tessier and Pecora on what they intended to do if the commission approved the project as an assisted-housing unit under 8-30g but the Trust ultimately declined financing, asking whether they would convert the unit to a "set-aside" affordable unit instead. Tessier said the applicants had not yet decided, prompting a pointed exchange
"That is not how their minutes are phrased." [Undated] — Planning and Zoning Commission chair, disputing Tessier's characterization of the Trust's prior deliberations
"I don't know the answer to that and the bottom line is that the trust was very clear, whether they wrote it clearly or not is not my issue." [Undated] — John Tessier, attorney for the applicant
The chair read directly from the Trust's minutes, which state that Bill Finger requested commission approval before the Trust would consider the application, and that the Trust's definition of "assisted housing" — financial assistance for new construction or substantial rehabilitation — may not cover units that already exist, a separate issue the applicant will need to resolve with the Trust regardless of the commission's decision. Sam Romeo, a member of the public who told the commission he fields regular calls from residents seeking housing and referenced the town's Armstrong Court waiting list, spoke in support, calling the project's scale appropriate for the neighborhood. The commission asked whether an approved 830g unit that later became a set-aside could be designated at 60 percent or 80 percent of area median income; staff said they would research whether a blended rate applies.
Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken. The commission continued the application to its July 7 meeting, with the applicant required to provide the fire marshal's will-serve letter, corrected floor-area documentation, and a stated plan for what happens if Trust financing is not secured.
Implications and what is next: The project cannot close until the will-serve letter arrives and the square-footage dispute is resolved; the outcome will also shape whether the unit proceeds as a state-mandated 8-30g affordable unit or a locally administered set-aside.
Burning Tree Country Club, 120 Perkins Road: Fabric Storage Structure and Pickleball Referral
Background and stakes: The club sought a special permit and site plan approval to build a 62-by-45-foot fabric-covered structure on jumbo concrete blocks within its existing recycling and mulch-stockpiling area, to store seasonal equipment such as snowplows and leaf-collection machines that currently crowd its main maintenance facility.
The question before the body: Whether the structure complies with volume, drainage and wetlands standards, and, separately, whether the club's use of nearby tennis courts for pickleball violates a prior approval specific to tennis.
Substantive content: Representative Tony DeAndrea told the commission the structure sits atop compacted earth used as a recycling area since the club was built in the 1960s, roughly 200 feet from the property boundary and about 600 feet from the nearest homes on Perkins Road. The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency issued permit 2026-018 for related work, including a 150-foot row of green giant arborvitae and a rain garden to filter runoff. Golf course superintendent Steve Wickstrom said the structure would not increase site traffic beyond the current four to eight daily trips golf-course staff already make hauling clippings and branches, a pattern he said has drawn no complaints in his 12 years at the club. Gross floor area on the property would rise from 63,959 to 66,749 square feet; the applicant had not yet submitted volume calculations showing compliance with the 150,000-cubic-foot special-permit threshold.
The deliberation: Commissioners questioned the structure's wind resistance given its fabric construction and open ends, its stormwater drainage toward a rain garden and wetland, and conservation staff's request that it be enclosed to discourage wildlife. Commissioner Nick MacRae and others also probed whether stored equipment would leak fuel or oil onto the exposed earth floor; DeAndrea and Wickstrom agreed to drain fuel from stored leaf-collection machines and work with conservation and wetlands staff on protective measures.
"We did take that into account and the closed end with a vent faces the prevailing winds." [Undated] — Steve Wickstrom, Burning Tree golf course superintendent
Separately, and outside the formal application, the chair raised a discussion-only matter: the club's prior approval for its hard courts specified tennis only, predating the club's adoption of pickleball roughly nine years ago, and neighbors have complained about pickleball noise. Commissioner Mary Jenkins noted that meeting transcripts address tennis and paddle ball but make no mention of pickleball. The commission asked the zoning enforcement officer and the first selectman's office to investigate a possible zoning violation and to arrange a sound test against the town noise ordinance. Tessier, representing the club, said Burning Tree is working with a sound engineer and has not yet heard a formal objection from the single adjoining property owner believed closest to the courts.
Procedural steps and outcome: The commission closed the public hearing on the storage structure with no members of the public speaking, then later in the meeting read and approved the formal decision resolution 5-0 (commissioners Yeskey, MacRae, Low and Wells, plus the chair), with conditions requiring an architect's affidavit on the volume calculation, ARC review of any future lighting, consideration of a fully enclosed structure, and continued coordination with conservation and wetlands staff on fuel-leak prevention.
Implications and what is next: The pickleball referral proceeds on a separate track from the approved structure; any violation finding and noise-ordinance results would come back to the town's zoning enforcement process rather than to this commission directly.
23 Pemberwick Road: Single-Family to Two-Family Conversion
Background and stakes: The applicant is converting an undersized 6,250-square-foot lot from a single-family to a two-family dwelling, with a new garage doubling as a retaining wall for the slope above.
The question before the body: Whether outstanding questions on drainage, tree removal, a decorative stone wall in the town right-of-way, and an energy narrative were sufficiently resolved to close the hearing.
Substantive content: Architect Dipti Shah presented revised drawings distinguishing existing from proposed walls and updated landscape plantings. Engineer Peter explained that a new garage-integrated retaining wall would replace an existing stone wall, while a low side-yard wall obstructing a two-car backout would be removed; a rear wall beneath a mature Japanese maple would remain undisturbed. Michael Finkbeiner, representing the applicant, said four trees encroaching on the building envelope need to be removed as a safety hazard and agreed to mark them on a tree protection plan. The commission indicated support for a Department of Public Works Traffic Division waiver to keep a stone wall along the frontage in the public right-of-way, since it does not block a future sidewalk.
The deliberation: Commissioner MacRae confirmed the retaining-wall design and drainage routing to a new catch basin and swale. Commissioner Wells flagged that the town's Energy Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) called the applicant's energy narrative the shortest it had ever reviewed and asked for a fuller resubmission, offering to share a comparable narrative from 19 Livingston Place and draft town guidance as a model. Commissioner Low pressed on conservation's concerns about impervious coverage and maintenance of proposed porous asphalt, prompting Finkbeiner to push back on a "vacuuming" characterization of upkeep requirements; the chair clarified the real requirement is simply that the surface remain pervious over time, comparing it to septic system neglect.
"I disagree with the vacuuming. It should not be regular maintenance." [Undated] — Michael Finkbeiner, applicant representative
Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken. The Department of Public Works sewer division had not yet issued comments, and the commission asked for a revised energy narrative, tree-removal documentation, and record language confirming the steep slope is well-stabilized by existing plantings before its next appearance.
Implications and what is next: The application remains open with multiple conditions to satisfy before a vote can occur, expected at a future meeting once sewer comments and the additional materials arrive.
Zoning Text Amendment: Compliance With Public Act 25-1
Background and stakes: Connecticut's Public Act 25-1, approved in a special legislative session and signed into law in October 2025, overhauls municipal parking and housing-review authority statewide, with a compliance deadline of July 1, 2026.
The question before the body: Whether to adopt amendments to BZR sections 613, 6101, 6110, 6139.1 and 6155 bringing Greenwich's regulations into compliance.
Substantive content: Planning and Zoning Department staff explained the law makes developments of two to nine residential units as-of-right in commercial zones, subject to a new "summary review" process examining only offsite traffic and parking impacts, with no public hearing permitted for purely residential projects of that size. It also eliminates local parking minimums entirely for developments of 16 units or fewer, and for larger projects caps required parking at one space per studio or one-bedroom unit, two spaces per two-bedroom-or-larger unit, or a lower figure derived from a parking assessment, whichever is least. Section 6110 (commercial-zone housing) and section 6155 (residential parking standards) were amended accordingly. Section 6139.1, the flood hazard overlay, was separately amended to remove an explicit prohibition on modular housing in VE flood zones, while still requiring it meet the same construction standards as other housing.
The deliberation: Commissioner Mary Jenkins, who submitted scrivener's corrections ahead of the meeting, raised one substantive wording question: whether the section 6155 heading calling parking limits for 16-or-more-unit projects "required parking" was misleading, since the number represents a cap the commission cannot exceed, not a mandate applicants must meet.
"Does it make sense to then just delete the word required?" [Undated] — Mary Jenkins, commission alternate
Staff agreed and the commission struck "required" from the heading. Commissioner Wells sought confirmation that the amendments do nothing beyond what the state mandates; staff confirmed no additional restrictions were added, though some sections were reorganized for clarity during drafting.
Procedural steps and outcome: The commission voted 5-0 (MacRae, Low, Wells, Yeskey and the chair) to approve the amendments as amended by Jenkins's scrivener's corrections and the "required" deletion, and set July 1, 2026, as the effective date to match the statutory deadline.
Implications and what is next: The changes take effect town-wide July 1, immediately altering how smaller residential and mixed-use projects are reviewed and how much parking the commission can require.
Zoning Map Amendment: Conservation and Traffic Mitigation District
Background and stakes: The same state act allows municipalities to designate up to two contiguous "conservation and traffic mitigation districts" (CTMD), covering up to 4 percent of town land area each, within which the commission retains authority to review and impose parking requirements that the new law otherwise strips away.
The question before the body: Whether to advance a proposed CTMD map, and how large and where to draw it, ahead of a required comment period from the regional council of governments (WestCOG) and the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).
Substantive content: Staff presented a roughly 2,095-acre district, about 7 percent of the town's land area and under the 8 percent combined statutory ceiling, encompassing about 4,740 parcels centered on East and West Putnam Avenue, Pemberwick Road, River Road, Cos Cob, and South and Sound Beach Avenue in Old Greenwich, plus Route 1 commercial districts, portions of the R-6 zone, and several conservation and planned-unit-development zones. Staff said the district targets neighborhoods developed before the automobile era, with narrow roads, limited emergency access, flood exposure and documented parking and traffic problems, areas that overlap the town's existing Post Road Impact Overlay Zone. Staff noted the study identified roughly 91 million square feet of eligible commercial and multifamily-zoned land against a total capacity of about 108 million square feet, leaving room to expand the boundary later.
The deliberation: Commissioner Mary Jenkins asked whether the district could be expanded to include the area near Greenwich Hospital along Lower Lake Avenue, citing similarly narrow, century-old streets and hospital-access concerns; staff and the chair agreed to incorporate that area before final adoption. Commissioner Wells asked whether one or two districts made more sense; staff said the statute appears to require two districts capped at 4 percent each, even if drawn as practically contiguous, likely divided by a boundary through central Greenwich. Commissioner Yeskey asked how close the map is to the 8 percent ceiling; after a brief recalculation, staff corrected an earlier estimate from "seven and a half" percent to roughly 6.8 percent, leaving additional capacity. The chair noted the map will likely need further revision once the commission's forthcoming affordable-housing growth plan is developed.
"I like what we've done here, though. First of all, it's really good work, and second of all, uh keeping a little bit in our back pocket." [Undated] — Commissioner Wells
Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken. The map cannot be finalized until the 30-to-35-day WestCOG and DEEP comment periods expire; any boundary change would also require re-notice under state statute. The commission directed staff to incorporate the hospital-area expansion and aim to bring the map back for adoption at the July 7 meeting, acknowledging the comment period may not have run by then.
Implications and what is next: Until this district is adopted, the commission has no mechanism to require parking on qualifying small residential projects anywhere in town, including in the flood-prone, congested neighborhoods the district is meant to protect.
Zoning Text Amendment: Planning and Zoning Sign Subcommittee
Background and stakes: The commission's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) sign subcommittee has struggled to reach a quorum.
The question before the body: Whether to broaden eligible membership on the sign subcommittee to include commission and ARC members generally, rather than a fixed smaller panel.
Substantive content: The amendment to BZR sections 6-167, 6-170 and 6-171 creates a "Planning and Zoning Sign Subcommittee" combining ARC and commission members, and — a provision the chair credited to staff as an added improvement — allows two subcommittee members to delegate a decision to staff if a quorum cannot be reached.
The deliberation: The chair called the delegation option "brilliant," saying it eases staff workload without leaving applicants stuck when the subcommittee can't convene.
Procedural steps and outcome: The commission voted 5-0 to approve the amendment (Yeskey, Wells, MacRae, Low and the chair), noting WestCOG found no inter-municipal impact and only minimal, local interest. The chair then moved, and the commission separately voted by voice, to nominate commissioners Nicholas MacRae and Anne Noel Jones as the commission's two representatives on the new subcommittee, after first amending the motion to formally add the nomination to the agenda.
Implications and what is next: The subcommittee should now be able to convene more reliably for sign-permit reviews going forward.
1381 East Putnam Avenue, Pilates Studio: Pre-Application Discussion
Background and stakes: The studio, under new franchise ownership since a 2023 approval, is restricted to 12 people per class with a mandatory 20-minute gap between classes and a 12-space parking allocation shared with an adjoining tenant, Estate Treasures.
The question before the body: Whether the commission would be receptive to raising the class cap to 16 and eliminating the 20-minute gap.
Substantive content: Representative Christine Miller said the studio's 50-minute classes already build in a 10-minute buffer, that the landlord installed eight marked parking spaces for the neighboring consignment shop, including one blocked for years by a disabled truck, and that the studio has instructed customers not to use the neighbor's spaces. She argued Estate Treasures, open fewer hours with fewer visitors, does not need its full 12-space allocation.
The deliberation: Commissioner Nick MacRae noted the studio was already exceeding its 20-minute gap requirement and suggested strict compliance, not a waiver, was the real fix. Commissioner Mary Jenkins agreed, recommending the studio operate within its existing 12-person, 20-minute terms for a period before requesting any expansion. The chair recalled the commission's past experience with SoulCycle and Equinox, saying class members linger and socialize outside rather than leaving promptly, undermining parking turnover, and that zoning enforcement staff has told the commission clients often arrive early rather than risk being late, compounding overlap between classes. The chair also noted a resident of the building, not just the neighboring tenant, has separately complained about parking.
"You'd have to do a lot of convincing about why we would take a straight state treasurer's parking away from them." [Undated] — Planning and Zoning Commission chair
Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken; this was a discussion-only, pre-application item. Commissioners uniformly signaled skepticism and urged the applicant to first demonstrate compliance with the existing terms.
Implications and what is next: The studio was encouraged to consider relocating if it needs larger classes, and was told any future formal application would need to overcome strong commission resistance.
71 Havemeyer Lane, The Charleston: Landscape Plan Revision
Background and stakes: A dispute arose earlier this year after landscaping installed at The Charleston did not match the plan approved as part of a stipulation of settlement; conservation staff and the applicant's landscape architect conducted two field inspections and negotiated a revised planting plan.
The question before the body: Whether the revised plan, dated June 3, 2026, restores the biodiversity and habitat value the original settlement intended.
Substantive content: Attorney Eric Brower and landscape architect Matt Pope presented a plan removing invasive barberry near the Millbank Avenue and Havemeyer Place intersection and adding understory and midstory plantings along the northern property line and Millbank frontage, including two oak trees, six shadbush and a redbud, plus mature streetscape trees.
The deliberation: The chair noted a separate conversation with Conservation Commission chair Bill Rutherford, who said a limited amount of arborvitae is not inherently harmful, while cautioning against the kind of monoculture plantings, including of skip laurel, the commission has seen elsewhere in town.
Procedural steps and outcome: The commission voted 5-0 (Yeskey, MacRae, Wells and Low, plus the chair) to approve the June 3, 2026, revision, with all other stipulation-of-settlement conditions remaining in effect.
Implications and what is next: The applicant is expected to continue diversifying plantings over time per the commission's informal encouragement.
Routine Business
The commission approved the May 27, 2026, meeting minutes by voice vote, with Commissioner Low moving approval.
Commission members present and voting: Nicholas "Nick" MacRae; Low; Yeskey; Anne Noel Jones; Brooks Wells; and the commission chair (surname not confirmed in the transcript). Alternate present, not voting on most items, recused from the 129 Hamilton Avenue matter: Mary Jenkins. Staff in attendance: a Planning and Zoning Department planner referred to as Patrick (surname given inconsistently in the transcript); a staff member referred to as Tracy (no surname given). Applicant representatives and consultants: John Tessier, attorney, representing 129 Hamilton Avenue and Burning Tree Country Club; Joe Pecora, representing 129 Hamilton Avenue; Tony DeAndrea, representing Burning Tree Country Club; Steve Wickstrom, Burning Tree golf course superintendent; Dipti Shah, architect for 23 Pemberwick Road; Michael Finkbeiner, representative for 23 Pemberwick Road; an engineer identified only as Peter, for 23 Pemberwick Road; Christine Miller, representative for the 1381 East Putnam Avenue Pilates studio; Eric Brower, attorney for 71 Havemeyer Lane; Matt Pope, landscape architect for 71 Havemeyer Lane. Public commenters: Sam Romeo, who spoke in support of the 129 Hamilton Avenue application, citing the town's affordable-housing waiting list and Armstrong Court; Rosie Solano, who was recognized to speak on the Pilates studio item but did not ultimately comment. Applicant/owner present to speak: a property owner referred to as Ms. Hill (first name given in the meeting record as Aaron, though this may be a mishearing of Erin), for 23 Pemberwick Road.
Public Act 25-1 — the October 2025 special-session state law mandating the zoning text and map amendments discussed at length. WestCOG (Western Connecticut Council of Governments) — the regional planning body whose statutory comment period is holding up adoption of the Conservation and Traffic Mitigation District map and reviewed both zoning text amendments. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) — agency whose comments are also pending on the CTMD map. Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-30g — the affordable-housing appeals statute underlying the 129 Hamilton Avenue application. Greenwich Affordable Housing Trust Fund — the town body that declined to vote on financing for 129 Hamilton Avenue and asked for commission approval first, per minutes read into the record. Greenwich Plan of Conservation and Development (2019) — cited as the consistency standard for both zoning text amendments and the CTMD proposal. Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency — issued permit 2026-018 for the Burning Tree storage-structure wetlands work. Energy Management Advisory Committee (EMAC) — flagged the 23 Pemberwick Road energy narrative as inadequate and requested resubmission. 1990 stipulation of settlement and site plan (Coleman Business Holdings, 23 Maple Avenue) — the litigation-derived document governing the property's parking and access conditions. Greenwich Conservation Commission — provided comments on nearly every application discussed, and its chair, Bill Rutherford, was cited on arborvitae plantings at 71 Havemeyer Lane.