Committee Approves Contract to Analyze Three Locations for Affordable Housing Viability

The Affordable Housing Committee last Monday approved a contract with an architecture firm to assess the viability of three sites for potential affordable housing.

Committee Chair Chris Wilson said the contract is to “try and get a sense of the size and scope which works in New Canaan for these types of developments.” 

“This contract won’t answer all of our questions and will probably raise a number that we will have to address later, but it’s a good first step,” Wilson said at the Committee’s regular meeting, held via videoconference.

The Committee unanimously approved the contract with Hartford-based Amenta Emma, although it was unclear which members were present to vote. The contract will go before the Board of Selectmen on Aug. 19, officials said.

The architecture firm will analyze three town-owned lots that provide parking—on Richmond Hill Road, Locust Avenue, and the “Lumberyard Lot” (near the train station, on the Elm Street side)—that the Committee has deemed as possibilities for where affordable units could be added. Adding affordable units via privately owned development has not been ruled out, yet the Committee is currently focusing on town-owned land right now.

“The firm is going to look at all three locations and their base conditions,” Committee Secretary Krista Neilson said. “They will look at topography, wetlands, et cetera. They will also perform a site walk to observe conditions and gain context of all three locations. They will explore the maximum residential unit count of what could be built based on different parking and building configurations. If, based on all of this, we can narrow the options down to one location, the firm will do a 3D model build of the site.”

Under 8-30g and to meet the requirements of another moratorium, the town must have approximately 75 to 80 affordable housing units under construction by 2032, according to Neilson.

“The contract is to help us figure out how many units we can build on each site, knowing that we need [about 80 units] for the next moratorium,” Neilson said.

As the Lumberyard Lot is the largest of the three, Committee members agreed that it could hold the needed number of affordable units, but Wilson emphasized that it must be seen how much of the site would be taken up.

“The one thing that scares me about the Lumberyard Lot is that it is such a valuable piece of land, and I don’t want to get it wrong,” Neilson said. “Yet, we also know that we have to have the 80 units in construction by 2032.”

Wilson added that this may be “a reason not to progress with the Lumberyard Lot.”

“The conclusion may be that it’s a good place to put affordable units, but it has to be in the context of a larger redevelopment. It may be a project for 2036,” he said.

However, the size of the lot makes it an ideal location. Committee members suggested that the Lumberyard Lot could be used for more than just multi-family units—it could also serve as a mixed-use commercial space. Committee member Bill Parrett called for any proposal that includes the Lumberyard Lot to come in the context of a larger master plan covering Elm Street from Weed to Park Streets.

One necessity for all three locations is conservation of existing parking spaces.

“The contract is written so that there’s intended to be no net loss of commuter parking in any of the sites,” Neilson said. “They need to be able to design the number of affordable units that could be there, along with parking to service the units, while still providing commuter parking space.”