NEW CANAAN — The largest of three controversial affordable housing developments may have a path forward after repeated rejections from New Canaan officials.
On July 1, the Superior Court of Hartford overruled the New Canaan Planning and Zoning Commission’s rejection of the 102-unit affordable housing development at 751 Weed St., a major victory for the building's controversial developer Karp Associates.
The New Canaan-based firm, led by Arnold Karp, is pushing forward with three affordable housing developments in New Canaan after town officials denied all three.
“It’s disappointing that the town made it such an issue,” Karp said. "Now we’ve got an approval and a go-ahead (on Weed Street), and that’s exactly what we will do.”
Karp Associates Chief Operating Officer Paul Stone said the victory felt like a “symbolic step in the right direction” for housing development in the wake of Gov. Ned Lamont’s veto of sweeping housing legislation following outcry from municipalities, including local control advocates in New Canaan.
More For You
With 31 affordable units included as part of the Weed Street development, the project falls under the controversial state housing law 8-30g, by which towns that do not have 10% of their housing inventory classified as affordable cannot outright deny a development in which 30% of its units are affordable, unless the threat to public health or safety overrides the need for affordable housing.
The Planning and Zoning Commission rejected the 751 Weed St. application for a text amendment, zone change and site plan in November 2022 and a revised and resubmitted version in March 2023, both times citing fire safety, pedestrian safety and stormwater management as its main concerns.
Peter Gelderman, an attorney representing the Planning and Zoning Commission did not respond to a request for comment, nor did commission chair Dan Radman.
In a 98-page memorandum of decision, Judge Edward O’Hanlan refuted all of the claims in the commission’s denial, saying the development plan met applicable fire codes and legitimate concerns, improved pedestrian safety along Elm and Weed streets and followed sound engineering practices in its stormwater management system.
In its denial, the commission claimed the building’s fire safety issues included lack of a third center stairwell for emergency access and insufficient fire department staffing based on testimony from former Westport Fire Chief Andrew Kingsbury.
However, O’Hanlan said the staffing choice of six full-time firefighters was one the town made, not the developer, and the town is able to use both its volunteer firefighters and mutual aid from neighboring communities. He added that recommendations like the stairwell were not required by fire code.
As for stormwater management, the commission claimed “material risks to persons, property and health could be created” because it “may not adequately capture stormwater.”
One of the main issues stemmed from the development plans to increase the size of a pipe that lies in an easement held by a private property owner and not the developer.
O’Hanlan said the commission’s denial over risks that “could” occur was “speculation about unproven events,” which is not the statement of fact needed to deny an 8-30g development.
He took particular issue with the commission’s reliance on an expert hired by intervening neighbors, who claimed the development’s stormwater management system could not adequately address runoff volumes or water quality. However, the judge found that the consultant never provided calculations to support his claims or refute calculations from the development’s engineer Leonard D’Andrea.
O’Hanlan also noted how the developer’s changes to the plan earned eventual approval from Town Engineer Maria Coplit and peer reviewer Joseph Canas.
As for resizing the pipe to accommodate stormwater management needs, O’Hanlan said the easement issue falls outside the authority of the commission. The issue will be resolved depending on the outcome of the homeowners’ lawsuit against the developer.
With regard to pedestrian safety, the commission claimed the developer "refused to make reasonable changes" including building a sidewalk at the developer's own expense between the property and Kimberly Place, saying it would connect pedestrian access to downtown and prevent jaywalking across Elm Street east of the intersection with Weed Street.
The developer agreed to build a sidewalk in front of the building down to a crosswalk that would allow safe access to the sidewalk across the street but asked the town to build the remainder of the requested sidewalk, which the commission balked at.
O’Hanlan said the commission provided “no valid legal basis” to require the developer to build the new sidewalk and called claims the sidewalk would improve conditions or that residents would not walk a few hundred feet to the safe crosswalk “pure speculation." In his conclusion, he remanded the commission remove the proposed sidewalk from the site plan.
Litigation is still ongoing for Karp Associates' other two 8-30g developments.
In April, the court sided with Karp over the proposed 93-unit housing development at 17 and 23 Hill St. after New Canaan's Water Pollution Control Authority denied it, though the case against the Planning and Zoning Commission's rejection is not yet decided.
The developer is appealing the court's decision to uphold the commission's rejection of its proposed development at 51 Main St., known locally as the Red Cross Building.