Legal Fight Over Walgreens' Attempt to Open on Stratfield Road Heads to Appellate Court in Two Weeks

Walgreens' years-long effort to replace a neighborhood grocery store on Stratfield Road in Fairfield - which led to neighborhood picketing and vows to boycott the pharmacy giant several years ago - enters a critical phase in two weeks.

Town Attorney Richard Saxl said Thursday that Walgreens' appeal of a Bridgeport Superior Court ruling will be heard in the state Appellate Court in Hartford on April 26. Walgreens had appealed decisions by the Town Plan and Zoning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals but lost in Bridgeport Superior Court.

"The cases were consolidated. It's only one argument, and it's scheduled for 2 o'clock on the 26th," Saxl said. "There's a lot of chips on the table."

Stratfield residents have opposed Walgreens' attempt to replace Stratfield IGA Supermarket because they believe the chain would diminish the character of the neighborhood and would draw more traffic than a business designed to serve the immediate neighborhood. Saxl said Walgreens' lease with the Samuel Lotstein Realty Co. in Stamford, which owns the 1280 Stratfield Road building, did not include any "zoning contingencies," meaning Walgreens was unable to break the lease if its application to open in the building was denied by zoning officials.

Land records identify the lease as lasting 20 years, from Sept. 1, 2006 to Aug. 31, 2026, with two 10-year renewal options after that at Walgreens' discretion. Saxl said Walgreens' rent for the space is $400,000 a year; a representative at the Samuel Lotstein Realty Co. wasn't available Thursday afternoon to say if the company's been collecting that rent.

Meanwhile, the building, which is at the highly-visible intersection of Fairfield Woods Road and Stratfield Road, has become somewhat unsightly, with flaking paint on an exterior wall and soaped-over windows.

But Saxl said he doubts the building will remain vacant for another 15 years if Walgreens' legal options are exhausted, saying Walgreens would probably try to sublet the building to another tenant.

Saxl said Walgreens' appeal is based on the belief that town officials' approval of CVS' application to open in a neighborhood business district by Jennings Road and Black Rock Turnpike in Fairfield warranted an approval for Walgreens to open in the neighborhood business district on Stratfield Road. But Saxl said, "A lot of things Walgreens does is not allowed in a Neighborhood Designed Business District." Some of the merchandise that Walgreens sells isn't permitted in neighborhood business districts.

"They didn't consider it to be a permitted use," Assistant Town Planner James Wendt said of Town Plan and Zoning Commission members, adding that commission members at the time believed Walgreens' application didn't comply with the purpose of the Neighborhood Designed Business District, wasn't in harmony with the neighborhood, and wouldn't preserve and protect property values.

Saxl said it would probably take several months for the Appellate Court to reach a decision, though he indicated it could take longer. He said the Appellate Court, unlike the Superior Court, does not have to decide a case within 180 days after a hearing and that Appellate Court justices also take the summer off.

Saxl said Walgreens, if it loses at the Appellate Court level, also could appeal to the state Supreme Court. "The Supreme Court doesn't have to agree to hear it unless the Supreme Court wants to significantly differ from what the Appellate Court had to say. They don't take that many cases," he said.

Walgreens could try to convince town officials to let them open a pharmacy on Stratfield Road again, but Saxl said the hurdle is even higher now than it was several years ago. After the Town Plan and Zoning Commission rejected Walgreens' application to open at 1280 Stratfield Road, the commission changed its regulations in neighborhood business districts to prevent a "formula business" - meaning a business substantially identical to five or more stores - from opening in those districts, Saxl said.

"They would be in a significantly impaired position should the town prevail once again," he said.