Daily Archives: April 26, 2005

Two very nice properties on the open house tour today. 31 North Porchuck ($3,495,000) is a contemporary that needs (a lot of) work, but the views are incredible, as shown below. 18 Dingletown is just a nice family house – reasonably priced, I think, and with a great yard. Worth checking out.

Comments Off on

Filed under Uncategorized


18 Dingletown Road. $2,495,000 Posted by Hello

Comments Off on

Filed under Uncategorized


View from 31 North Porchuck Posted by Hello

Comments Off on

Filed under Uncategorized

Al Small, creator of Concerned Homeowners of Greenwich, emails regarding the status of their suit against Greenwich concerning FAR regulations:It was scheduled to finally come to trial on May 11 but has been delayed again. So we’ll have to see when it is next assigned. Should be soon. It takes a while just to go through the procedures. Our last case took from 1998 to 2001 and this one 2001 to 2005 just for procedures. I have been meaning to put the briefs up on the website but havent gotten to it yet. …
Also now watching the P&Z with their clever disguise of major policy change as mere “housekeeping” and “definition changes”. They will be hearing 75 changes tomorrow night as a continuation of a prior hearing with too much to go through. A big item you may want to tell your clients to watch is the deduction of any water body over a certain size from lot area for FAR purposes. Anyone who has a pond or other water on their property could lose if this one is passed. I have had calls from homeowners who stand to lose 1,000 sq. ft. buildable area if this is passed. Also proposed change from grade plane measured at ten feet out from foundation to add measuring next to home and if “at any point” more than x feet would have to include basement in FAR. The bldg inspector said this could preclude underground garages and french doors out to a patio. They are doubling up on regs because they are again not working and the P&Z just tries to layer one reg on top of another until homeowners and architects are left rolling on the floor crying. No sense doing it correctly the first time, instead just heap regs on top of regs until no one knows what they can do.
Also watching the lot split definition that was passed by RTM recently that appears to be illegal in it violates town charter 101c (procedure for amending subdivision regs) and other general statutes possibly.
Lots going on and trying to keep up with it all.

Comments Off on

Filed under Uncategorized