Letter: Density Development Versus the Public Good

Andrew Glazer’s high-density subdivision of six houses on the Roger Sherman property, 195 Oenoke Ridge, belongs downtown, not jammed onto 1.683 acres.

Object and deny it.

Page 60 of the revised 2014 Plan of Conservation and Development states “increase housing in downtown,” and page 12 says “preserve and protect and enhance the physical character, open space, historic resources of our neighborhoods.”

Mr. Glazer’s cluster housing belongs downtown, with other density developments tagged residential, commercial, medical, and mixed use.

Nurturing downtown is a key thrust of this POCD. Page 68 states: “Enhance the walking environment in town.” An empty nester living around Vitti or Cross could easily walk to shops in town, but from hilly 195 Oenoke Ridge, most likely, he would drive.

This property is not part of downtown. It is beyond the 750 yards designation. It is spacious countryside, blessed with “openness,” which is encouraged by the POCD. This distinguished road is valued by homeowners and visitors who recognize it as a huge asset of New Canaan.

The POCD on page 58 states: “Protect residential neighborhoods.” Respect for zoning preserves the unique character of New Canaan. When a town values its assets, it stabilizes the residential community and assures a high quality of life for its residents.

It enhances and protects our “livability” (page 12, POCD). Property owners have reasonable expectations for predictability and stability when zoning is enforced. Take this subdivision downtown, where “high density mixed use development nurtures a stronger center for the residents” (POCD).

New Canaan Planning & Zoning commissioners are not obligated to break zoning when a developer pushes for it.

Weigh the public good against the project, precedents, and ramifications. Good zoning practices uphold the integrity of New Canaan. This is sensible land use practice. It does not lead to decline and stagnation.