|
|
The 1.33 acre unimproved lot, located next to Bed, Bath & Beyond's parking lot, is sandwiched between Kings Highway on the east and Kings Highway Cutoff on the west. Approximately two-thirds of the small property is located in the Designed Industrial District. The remaining one-third is in a Residence B district.
The lawsuit notes that a steep incline prevents any practical access to the industrial portion from Kings Highway Cutoff, so the only other access is through the Residence B portion of the property, which is not allowed by zoning regulations.
"Therefore, absent a change of zone, two-thirds of the property will lay fallow and undeveloped as that portion of the property cannot be legally or practically accessed," said the suit.
The suit, signed by attorneys Charles J. Willinger Jr. and Diane M. Lord of Willinger, Willinger & Bucci of Bridgeport, points out that the properties to the north, south, and west are a mix of commercial and industrial, and the property to the east is in a Residence B zone with a mix of single and multi-family residences.
The suit notes that the property's location, surrounded by industry and retail, would make a traditional Residence B development inappropriate.
On the other hand, industrial use of the property is not practical given the amount of unused industrial property in the Town of Fairfield and the vehement opposition of the neighbors, the suit said.
"A canvassing of the neighborhood reflected that the residential neighbors were opposed to the property being developed with anything other than a residential development," said the suit.
The proposed development had the "unanimous support of the neighbors who appeared and spoke in favor of the application ... at the public hearing," the suit said.
The development would enhance property value and not negatively impact traffic, according to an unchallenged traffic expert supplied by the developer.
The suit notes that the denial of the application by the TPZ is "confiscatory and contrary to law in that it constitutes a regulatory taking of the plaintiff's property, and deprives the plaintiff of the use of the property, inflicting "grave and irreparable financial and economic losses."
As a remedy the suit asks that the court either order the TPZ to grant the application, or enter judgment that the plaintiff's property has been inversely condemned and award damages. The suit also asks the court to provide costs as provided by law, and any other relief that it deems appropriate.
On June 9, only Commissioners Russ Green and Bryan Le Clerc voted in favor of the application, while Chairman Seth Baratz, Richard Jacobs, Jim Kennelly, Beverly Goodkind, and Patricia Jacobson voted against it.
A reading of the minutes of that meeting gives vague reasons for the denial, such as that conditions do not reasonably indicate the need for the proposed change, or, "It hasn't been demonstrated that it would serve the general health, welfare and safety of the Town of Fairfield," or "It would not serve to protect property values in the neighborhood." No more specific reasons are given.
However, a Minuteman article on June 18 says that Kennelly questioned whether approving 2- or 3-bedroom units would overload the town's schools and services.
Chairman Baratz noted, "I don't think they have enough parking, but they do have enough according to our regulations."
Kennelley indicated that if they said, "No" to the developer they might get something that was a better fit for the neighborhood.
