A state Superior Court judge last week ruled in the town’s favor in one of three closely followed affordable housing appeals.
According to a 49-page decision issued by Judge Ted O’Hanlan, the Planning & Zoning Commission did not run afoul of state law or New Canaan’s own regulations when it denied a proposed 20-unit redevelopment of the so-called “Red Cross building” at 51 Main St. two years ago. The application had been filed on behalf of property owner Arnold Karp under a state law known by its statute number, 8-30g (six of the 20 units in the proposed development would have been set aside to rent at affordable rates).
51 Main St. in New Canaan on May 25, 2022. Credit: Michael Dinan
P&Z “met its burden under 8-30g to show that the reason cited by the commission for its denial, the protection of the public interest in the historic value of the property and the Red Cross building in the Church Hill Historic District itself, was supported by sufficient evidence in the record,” O’Hanlan wrote in the decision.
He added that the public’s interests in historic preservation of the building and property “clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing in the Town of New Canaan.”
Reached by NewCanaanite.com, property owner Arnold Karp said he’s now looking at all options, including the state Appellate and Supreme Court.
“We think the court made the wrong decision,” Karp said.
On Thursday, Karp’s attorney, Tim Hollister of Hartford-based Hinckley Allen & Snyder LLP filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion to reargue.
Karp noted that a separate lawsuit regarding the New Canaan Historic District Commission’s denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the redevelopment remains active.
First Selectman Dionna Carlson was not immediately available to comment on the town’s behalf.
In the complaint, Hollister argued that New Canaan’s zoning regulations are exclusionary, that the Red Cross site is appropriate for a 20-unit development, that concerns such as “fire safety” were addressed in revised plan submissions and that P&Z’s denials of the 8-30g application’s multiple parts were “invalid,” “illegal” and “not based on public interests that clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing” here.
In response to the appeal, an attorney representing the town, Peter Gelderman of Westport-based Berchem Moses PC, said it’s “indisputable that the need for affordable housing exists in New Canaan.”
The state affordable housing law known by its statute number, 8-30g, “requires the Commission to balance that need against public interests requiring protection,” Gelderman wrote in a brief filed on behalf of P&Z. He continued: “Some sites within the Town simply do not meet that balancing test. 51 Main Street does not because it is located within New Canaan’s only historic district. The design of the project is incongruent with the preservation of the district and thus is abhorrent to the environment and the health of the residents of the Town of New Canaan.”
Under 8-30g, in towns where less than 10% of all housing stock qualifies as affordable, developers who propose projects where a certain number of units are set aside to rent at affordable rates may appeal to the state after a local P&Z denies their applications.
Karp’s appeals of two other 8-30g applications denied by P&Z—120 units at Weed and Elm Streets and 93 on Hill Street—are still active on the Hartford Superior Court Land Use Docket. (Note: A “Did You Hear” news item published Feb. 20 incorrectly stated that the Feb. 18 Superior Court decision was separate from the 8-30g appeal.)
The appeals are separate from an action that the town brought against the Connecticut Department of Housing regarding that state agency’s position with respect to the state’s initial denial of New Canaan’s application for four years of relief from 8-30g (called a “moratorium”). A status conference is scheduled for March 10 in that case, Connecticut Judicial Branch records show.
The decision regarding the 8-30g project on Main Street comes as the town’s Affordable Housing Committee prepares for moratorium applications in 2028 and 2032.