Floating zone, anyone? It’s worth a look.
Plans for redeveloping the Elms Inn property as a residential village have been withdrawn and will be resubmitted as a floating zone, a concept that’s sometimes controversial. In this case that basic idea — all the specifics aren’t public yet — seems sound, should be considered, and might be worthy of broader application.
A floating zone is a regulation that isn’t anchored to a spot on the zoning map, as most zones are, but exists in the regulation book as a possibility. Property owners may apply to use the regulation to develop their land — if it meets a list of criteria specified in the regulation.
In taking this tack, the Elms owners seek to solve some of the problems of developing their property under the town’s multifamily regulation, while preserving the historic buildings on the site and the look that greets passersby on Main Street.
They’re also following the advice the consultant hired to review technical aspects of their original proposal for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
And while Elms developers are focused on their own site and appear to want to keep the discussion there, consultant Nicole Burnham of Milone and MacBroom outlined a broader vision.
“We understand that The Elms is a unique property where its current use may be economically obsolete and the change in land use may be deemed by the commission to be beneficial for the town,” she wrote. “It is likely that a similar argument could be made for several other historic properties on Main Street where a change to some other use would improve the economic viability while maintaining the character of Ridgefield.”
It went unsaid, but part of the economic picture she describes is the pressure from the recent spate of high-density development proposals around north Main Street under the state’s 8-30g affordable housing statute.
Having a floating zone that creates a controlled means toward some kind of apartment or condominium development, while preserving older buildings — and perhaps with an “affordable” component, at less than the state’s 30% requirement — might be means to relieve some of the seemingly relentless push toward uncontrolled high-density development.
And that’s an argument for giving a floating zone proposal serious consideration, despite the concerns the concept sometimes stirs up.