RIDGEFIELD – The attorney representing the former owner of the historic Red Rooster Pub on Danbury Road pointed out Tuesday night that a proposed Planning and Zoning Commission moratorium on multi-family developments could not affect his client’s application to build a 20-unit apartment building on the pub’s site.
Attorney Peter Olson, who represents Ljatif “Tony” Ramadani, was one of the last speakers at a PZC hearing at East Ridge Middle School to talk to the commission about its proposed amendment to its regulations that would add a temporary and limited development moratorium on any applications that include multi-family residential housing.
But his comments really didn’t have anything to do with whether he was for or against the proposed change. He wanted clarification on what such a change would mean to any outstanding applications that include such housing.
“Many attorneys have spoken tonight have tried to tell you what the law is and want you to follow it,” Olson said. “First, in the last paragraph of your (proposed) regulation you said the moratorium will apply to applications that are in process or pending. I strongly encourage you to delete that.
“The statute 8-2h is in direct conflict with that language. That section of the statute says that new regulations do not apply to pending applications. Of course, my client is interested because he has a pending application.”
Ramadani’s development calls for demolishing the 1870 building that houses the former pub, which recently closed, and replacing it with a 20-unit multi-family apartment building.
The 43 Danbury Road property was greenlit by the town’s Inland Wetlands Commission for an application to redevelop the pub building on Oct. 24, 2024. On Jan. 7, Ramadani and his attorney presented a state 8-30g affordable housing application to the PZC. The commission approved a motion to receive the application, schedule a site walk for March 2 and set a public hearing for March 4.
Meanwhile, 1,207 people have opposed the demolition of the building and the affordable housing project, according to a petition on change.org. The petition cites the historical significance of the building and its charm for the town as well as increased traffic and safety concerns the proposed affordable housing apartment complex could bring to the area.
Attorney Olson also pointed out that the PZC’s proposed moratorium needs to explicitly say it would not apply to affordable housing developments as covered by the state 8-30g law.
“To follow up on whether this regulation applies to affordable housing applications, you need to be very clear that it does not,” Olson said. “The statute – the affordable housing appeals act – cannot be avoided by you as a local zoning commission simply by saying that you don’t want to follow it.
“Although you say you want to portray this as not taking a position on this (8-30g), by doing so you are taking a position. If you don’t state specifically that it does not apply to affordable housing applications, you are leaving applicants and potential applicants in a situation where they have to seek clarification about what the intent of this moratorium is.”
As for whether the proposed moratorium amendment could impact pending applications, PZC Chair Robert Hendrick said he was clear about outstanding applications.
“We have a legal duty to process applications that come into us,” Hendrick said. “This moratorium that we have in front of us is not final. It’s not approved.”
