The Summer Internship Program is sponsored by the New Canaan Racquet Club.
The applicant behind a proposed 14-unit affordable housing development on Parade Hill Road is suing the town following the Planning & Zoning Commission’s unanimous decision to deny the application.
The Commission voted June 23 to reject the proposal for 30 Parade Hill Road after determining it did not qualify as “assisted housing” under Connecticut’s affordable housing statute, known as 8-30g. Because of that finding, commissioners concluded the project was not exempt from the town’s active affordable housing moratorium.
The proposed development drew concerns from neighbors and commissioners during public hearings over its size and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as traffic, public safety, flooding, noise, aesthetics and screening.
Under Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-30g, developers proposing projects with at least 30% affordable units may appeal local zoning denials under certain circumstances. The law also allows qualifying developments to receive relief from some local zoning restrictions.
In its resolution, the Commission said the proposal did not meet the statutory definition of assisted housing for several reasons. Commissioners found that a state sales tax exemption obtained by the applicant did not constitute the type of government financial assistance required under the law. They also determined the applicant failed to demonstrate that government rental assistance had been secured for the development, noting there was no binding commitment from a government agency, no executed Housing Assistance Payment contract and no legally binding agreement guaranteeing rental vouchers.
The Commission further found that even if rental assistance were eventually provided, it would apply to only five of the project’s 14 units. As a result, P&Z concluded the development did not qualify as assisted housing under the statute and therefore was subject to the town’s affordable housing moratorium.
Because the project did not qualify for the exemption, P&Z also found it failed to comply with the underlying zoning regulations for the property, which lies in both the B Residence and Half Acre zones. According to the Commission’s resolution, the proposed 14-unit building did not meet zoning requirements governing permitted uses, setbacks, building coverage and building height.
The property owner has appealed that decision in Connecticut Superior Court, arguing that P&Z misinterpreted state law and acted illegally when it denied the application.
According to the complaint—filed on behalf of property owner GHF Parade Hill Road LLC, by attorney Amy Souchuns of Milford-based MacDermid, Reynolds & Glissman, P.C.—P&Z focused its review on whether the proposal qualified as assisted housing instead of properly evaluating the application. The lawsuit said the Commission acted “illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion” by incorrectly determining the project did not qualify for an exemption from the town’s affordable housing moratorium.
The applicant argues the proposal satisfied two separate definitions of assisted housing under Section 8-30g: that it would receive government financial assistance for affordable housing and that some units would be occupied by tenants receiving government rental assistance. The lawsuit contends either circumstance independently qualified the project under state law.
The complaint also alleges the Commission adopted an overly narrow interpretation of the statute by imposing requirements not found in the law, including requiring government financial assistance to be paid directly to the developer and effectively treating the affordable housing requirements as an “all-or-nothing” standard.
In addition, the lawsuit claims P&Z failed to demonstrate that any concerns about the project could not have been addressed through conditions of approval. It also states the application had satisfied all substantive review comments from the town engineer and fire marshal before the commission voted to deny it.
The appeal asks the court to overturn the commission’s decision and grant any other relief it deems appropriate.