Why did the IGA lose its lease?
But isn't the building fairly unattractive now?
What if we lose this fight?
What about the zoning Amendment to ban chain stores in Neighborhood Business Districts?
What about the Village District designation?
What if Walgreens loses? Can we get our grocer back?
Walgreen's Need for Variances
The Legal Issues
Why doesn't Walgreens belong here?
- The four corners is zoned not as a commercial district, but a Neighborhood Designed Business District. The defined uses for this zone is for businesses who will "primarily serve the local neighborhood." Walgreens' own website says they look for store sites to serve a community of 20,000 people. In our opinion, they are looking to bring greater traffic into our area from people who did not travel here to purchase groceries at the IGA. An increase in traffic is a definite possibility, and then they would not be serving the local neighborhood.
- In a Neighborhood Designed Business District, there are very specific types of retail stores that are allowed and many that are not. While the selling of "drugs," is allowed, the selling of electronics and furniture is not. Walgreens sells many items which are not allowed in this zoning district.
- Walgreens insists that "Retail is Retail," and that they do not need to apply for a "change of use" permit. This "retail is retail" argument could be made then if the Love shack Adult Video store or a Penthouse Boutique wanted to lease the space. Do we really want the TPZ to use one broad definition of retail?
Why did the IGA lose their lease?
- The IGA was a successful business that offered to pay the landlords' asking price for a lease renewal. Why did the landlord turn this down? Noone knows, but it was their perogative to make that business decision, and every business decision has its own set of risks.
The building is ugly now, wouldn't it be better if Walgreens came in and fixed it?
- Walgreens could build a tasteful new store, or they could have it look like their new store on Villa Ave. Is it worth taking that chance?
- The building IS unattractive, but if you drive through Greenfield Hill's Village, you'll notice that without the awnings,
the attractive trim colors, the carved wooden signs, and the landscaped area, those buildings are not much better. If
the new tenant, with our support, were to purchase some awnings, plant some trees abutting the building, and get a nice looking
wooden painted sign, the area could be equally as quaint.
If we fight Walgreens and lose, will we sacrifice any negotiating power as to what the site looks like?
No. We can appeal the decision of the ZBA, or we can approach Walgreens to negotiate our concession and cooperation, along with the community's aesthetic desires for the site. Walgreens needs our support to change the store in ANY way; they can choose to battle each point or work together with the community.
What about the Amendment or the potential designation of a "Village District."
Walgreens submitted their variance requests before the Amendment was passed, and therefore are automatically grandfathered out of the Amendment's ban on formula/chain-stores. The premise of designating certain areas of Fairfield as "Village Districts" is great, but it is still being studied by a task force, and so we are many months/years away from that.
What if Walgreens loses their Appeal?
Walgreens could sub-lease to a different tenant, as they have done before at other sites. Walgreens could attempt to get out of their lease with the Lotsteins. We are working to gather a list of potential tenants for either Walgreens or the Lotsteins which would enhance the quality of our village, and stay within the definition of a Neighborhood Designed Business District. We are not looking to dictate which tenant comes in, but help the property owners find a suitable tenant for the existing zoning laws.
Can we get our grocer back?
Glen Rega has supported this neighborhood in many ways, and seems very willing to return.
In the 1950's, Gran Central Market at 1280 Stratfield Road applied for and received a variance to use the space to the left of the store for parking. It is zoned as retail AND residential. Gran Central received their variance from the TPZ, but unusually, it was granted to Gran Central alone. Usually variances are given to a space, not a tenant, but in this case, the variance was ONLY to apply for the use of Gran Central Market. In order for Walgreens to make use of the left parking lot, they need to get the ZBA to allow that that variance apply to them also. One thought against allowing this variance transfer is that the original user, Gran Central, was allowed the variance because they brought a particular service (groceries) and value to the neighborhood. Walgreens does not bring that same service, so the variance should not apply to them also. Secondly, if this type of variance was found to be illegal, then it should be thrown out completely, requiring Walgreens to re-apply for a legal variance that is tied directly to the property.
-The Parking Variance as explained above, which unfortunately the ZBA allowed them the parking variance based on the fact that the old variance was illegal.
-The Change of Use request, insisting that "retail is retail," and that they should not have to apply for a "change of Use" in front of the TPZ. The ZBA felt that a Walgreens WAS a change of use, and now Walgreens must go before the TPZ on this issue.
In a neighborhood designed business district, "RETAIL IS NOT RETAIL," as there are very specific types of retail businesses are allowed in that space. Whereas "drugs" are allowed, electronics, clothing, and film processing ARE NOT ALLOWED.