On Tuesday the Greenwich Planning & Zoning commission turned down an application at 91 Cherry Valley Road to demolish an existing house and build a large structure with a large indoor athletic facility and modest size dwelling unit attached.
The single family lot is in the RA4 (four acre) zone.
Over a few months, the commission expressed concerns about the use of the property and how it would fit with the definition of a single-family dwelling.
The commission went back and forth on the design of the building, ultimately deciding it represented an accessory type use without a primary structure, not meeting the zoning regulations as far as the intent of a single family zone.
The applicant was required to go before the commission since the residence was proposed to be in excess of 150,000 cubic feet. That requires approval of a Special Permit and Site Plan.
The proposal included a first floor 5,280 sq ft “Rec Room,” a 725 sq ft Gym, 2 bathrooms, a golf simulator, 2,336 sq ft great room, and 1,485 sq ft 2-bedroom living area with two bathrooms on the second floor. The kitchen was proposed to be contained in the 1,485 sq ft living area which would have been approximately 13.7% of the FAR of the total structure. There were patios and a parking court proposed, but no garage.
The structure was proposed to be located on approximately the same footprint as the original 1950s house.
According to the Assessor’s office, 91 Cherry Valley Road from Estate of Gloria Van Norden to CherryvalleyRd6 on Aug 28, 2024 for $3,700,000.
Rendering of proposed structure to replace single family house at 91 Cherry Valley Rd. James Schettino Architects, New Canaan.
A letter May 16, 2025 to P&Z chair Alban, Eric Brower AICP, representing the applicant, said the use of the residence would be for relatives to stay and for children to use the “rec room” for sports, specifically lacrosse, and that space could eventually be used for automobile storage.
Brower wrote, “Referring to Section 6-5(a)(18) Dwelling Unit shall mean one or more rooms in a structure which room or rooms is (are) arranged, designed, used or altered for one family, said room or rooms containing a kitchen and a bathroom with bathtub and/or a shower, a toilet and sink.”
He added, “A clear black and white reading of this Regulation and an examination of the proposed floor plans confirms that the proposed structure is in fact a single family dwelling.”
The applicant has said the recreation room would not be used for any weddings or crowd-generating activities, nor as any kind of private club. The limited on-site parking would be self-regulating and only support a proposed single-family use with no overflow parking.
Brower’s letter noted the owner and family own adjacent land and proposed to use the site as a house for grandparents to live and interact with children and friends.
“Determining that this dwelling which includes a rec room in excess of 1,200 square feet is something other than a single family dwelling such as a club use or wedding venue, etc. presumes that zoning violations will occur,” Brower wrote.
Since the May 20, 2025 P&Z meeting, the applicant made revisions including reduced grading and reduction in amount of fill, as well as a reduction in number of trees proposed to be removed from 50 to 30.
The applicant included in their materials a real estate advertisement for a 200-year-old mid-country barn that had been converted to residential use at 490 North Street.
On Tuesday, the commission discussed a motion to approve the application with several whereas clauses including that the site not to be used by the owners or loaned to third parties for any commercial purposes, including but not limited to use as an event venue or for organized or tournament sports, and amplified outside sound would be prohibited.
But the vote to approve with conditions failed, 4-1, with Arn Welles, Mary Jenkins, Peter Lowe and Anne Noel Jones voting no. P&Z chair Margarita Alban voted yes.
From there a motion to deny was discussed and amended. It including references in regulations about what is normally considered a residential activity.
‘The commission notes that the purpose of requiring special permit review on athletic facilities in excess of 1200 sq ft is exactly to make sure that the residential character is kept and that 6-17 is respected in this regard, because, clearly, we know because we see this issue all the time, and we normally thread the needle,” Alban said.
Ms Jenkins agreed. “Particularly given that under circumstances like this where the proportions are so much greater than 1200 sq ft.”
The motion to deny passed 5-0 with Welles, Jones, Jenkins, Lowe, and Alban seated.