To the Editor:

If approved, the 30-unit, 3.5-story building and 61 parking spaces would replace a single-family residence along the Recreation Center’s walking path.

Currently, only two SF homes are visible on this tranquil path. I believe adding 30 additional residences will ruin the appeal.

To overturn a residentially zoned parcel in exchange for $185,000 in tax revenue is bad math.

The proposed area contains and is adjacent to “wetlands.” Ridgefield’s HD admits there are drainage issues here. Grading the three-acre parcel toward the path and wetlands is going to worsen drainage. More drainage issues will require more work for our Highway Department and more taxpayer money.

Traffic swells every day on Danbury Road. Imagine 60-plus additional cars residing here and then their moving trucks, delivery trucks, visitors, emergencies, construction, etc. Any additional accidents mean more work for Ridgefield’s police, fire and highway departments.

That $185,000 is quickly disappearing.

With an estimated 60-plus new residents in this neighborhood, will we need street lights, parking lights and walkway lights? Traffic signals? Sidewalks? Emergency exits?

Living in Ridgefield is not a human right. I would love to own a private jet — but I can’t afford it. You won't find me trying to convince Ridgefield on why building a tarmac for a more affordable jet-sharing program makes sense.

Changing existing zoning codes and wetland regulations is a slippery slope.

Without clear means of maintaining an “affordable” unit’s affordability over time, units can become “non-affordable” units.

A box of mini cupcakes in town costs $18, without disposable income and an expressed need for housing subsidy, these residents will not be supporting Main Street businesses.

Turning residentially zoned areas into apartment buildings will chase away those who moved here for schools, privacy and Main Street.

So I ask, can we put this elsewhere in Ridgefield?

Joann Zettl


Tanton Hill Road, Oct. 1