Affordable Housing: Developer Seeks To Become Co-Defendant in Town’s Moratorium Lawsuit vs. State

The developer who is appealing the town’s denials of three affordable housing projects in New Canaan filed motions in state Superior Court this month to intervene as a co-defendant in a separate legal matter between the town and state.

Attorneys representing developer Arnold Karp are seeking four property ownership entities—namely, 751 Weed Street LLC, W.E. Partners, LLC, 51 Main Street, LLC and Hill Street-72 LLC—to become co-defendants in the town’s lawsuit versus the Connecticut Department of Housing. In an earlier civil action, the town appealed the state’s decision last fall to deny the town’s application for a “moratorium,” or four years of relief from the state statute that facilitated the affordable housing applications. Later, the town sued the state for issuing a “declaratory ruling” backing up its denial.

Under the law—known by its statute number, 8-30g—in towns where less than 10% of all housing stock qualifies as affordable (New Canaan is at 2.94%), 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 Planning & Zoning Commission denies their applications. 

New Canaan since its last moratorium lapsed in July 2021 has received three such applications, at Weed and Elm Streets (120 units), Main Street (20 units) and Hill Street (93 units). P&Z denied all of them.

In a Motion To Intervene filed Aug. 15 on behalf of Hill Street-72 LLC, attorney Christopher Smith of Glastonbury-based Alter & Pearson LLC notes that the owner also had related applications denied by the town’s Water Pollution Control Authority and Inland Wetlands Commission.

“All three denials were appealed and are pending in the Superior Court,” the motion states.

“Although Hill Street’s Section 8-30g application that is the subject of a pending appeal is currently grandfathered from a moratorium, the Town could seek to impose a granted moratorium at some future proceeding as to the Section 8-30g application, such as a remand from the court system,” it continued. “Therefore, Hill Street [Hill Street-72 LLC] has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this action concerning the Town’s request for a moratorium under Section 8-30g. Hill Street respectfully submits that it is a necessary and indispensable party to this appeal, and its interest in this appeal of DOH’s denial of the Town’s requested Certificate of Affordable Housing Completion [or “moratorium”] is not adequately represented by DOH or the Town. Moreover, this Motion is timely.”

Attorney Timothy Hollister of Hartford-based Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP filed a similar motion Aug. 8 on behalf of three other property ownership companies under Karp, saying, “Although each of the moving parties’ applications and pending court appeals would be grandfathered if [an] 8-30g moratorium was to be granted or ordered, the Town and its Planning and Zoning Commission could try to use a moratorium against the movants at some future time, such as a remand from this Court to the PZC of one of the pending 8-30g appeals.”

A status conference in the case is scheduled for Sept. 8, court records show.

In a nine-page memorandum in support of the more recently filed Motion To Intervene, Smith argues that it should be granted as-of-right and that the property owner “is a necessary and indispensable party” to the appeal.

A status conference in the case is scheduled for Sept. 8, court records show.