Asked where the Greenwich Reform Synagogue project stands, Sandy Soule of the building committee, replied on June 30, “GRS is still looking at next steps, so my letter of June 9 continues to represent us.”
On June 9 Soule said, in a letter to the editor, “Our synagogue plan speaks for itself. We have gone above and beyond in good faith to address the neighbors’ concerns. We think we can become a positive, constructive part of the neighborhood. We are certain we will be good neighbors.”
View of 90 and 92 Orchard Street in Cos Cob from the sidewalk. Credit: Leslie Yager
The minutes from the ZBA minutes for the June 11 meeting were posted on the ZBA web site. Portion that refers to GRS as follows:
Appeal of Greenwich Reform Synagogue, 92 Orchard Street, Greenwich for special exception approval to permit the construction of a new Synagogue and associated site improvements on a lot located in the R-12 zone.
It was RESOLVED in a 2-2 vote that said appeal be denied on the following grounds. After due consideration, the Board failed to find that the special exception standards as provided by Sections 6-19, 6-20 and 6-94 of the Building Zone Regulations had been met therefore the appeal was denied.
Mr. Larson made a motion to continue the appeal in order to further review application materials and materials submitted at hearing. Messrs.’ Ramcharandas, Rogozinski, Kirkpatrick and Sullivan voted against. Having failed to receive 4 affirmative votes the motion does not carry.
Mr. Rogozinski made a motion to deny the special exception appeal which was seconded by Mr. Sullivan. Messrs. Rogozinski and Sullivan voted in favor of the motion while Mr. Ramcharandas and Ms. Kirkpatrick voted against, Mr. Larson abstained.
Having failed to receive 4 affirmative votes the motion does not carry.
Mr. Ramcharandas made a motion to approve the special exception appeal which was seconded by Ms. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Ramcharandas and Ms. Kirkpatrick voted in favor of the motion while Messrs.’ Rogozinski and Sullivan voted against, Mr. Larson abstained.
Having failed to receive 4 affirmative votes the motion does not carry and the appeal is therefore denied