I didn’t expect to be back so soon, but if the horrors persist, so, I guess, must we. If you missed the first installment, you’ll find it here.
Last weekend, Arnold Karp and his team posted billboards at the corner of Weed and Elm Streets that claim to give passersby some choice in what gets built there. Protected by the same free speech laws that protect this Op-Ed, the signs also bully the site’s intervenor neighbors and make a crucially deceptive argument in support of the enormous condo building Karp has recently said he wants to construct there.
First of all, please understand that the Town of New Canaan did not post these billboards, nor are they asking for you to vote on this project. That’s not how this works.
Let’s talk about what’s actually going on.
Focus on the numbers first: 62 vs. 102
The biggest clue that the data central to Karp’s campaign is misleading is his dogged adherence to it. He furnishes no other information about the revised building.
As we learned last week, 62 units for sale is a pivot from the 102-unit, partially affordable rental building he introduced in 2022. Fewer units should mean a smaller building, right? That’s a 40% delta! Not in Karp math. This may be a spiritual pivot away from his taxpayer-sponsored altruism, but it is not a meaningful change in size.
Think of a pizza. You can cut it into 12 thin slices or 6 bigger ones. It’s still the same pizza.
Similarly, a 62-unit building sounds meaningfully smaller than a 102-unit building at first glance. But ‘luxury’ condos are, by design, grander than rental apartments. They have higher ceilings and bigger floor plans. As it turns out, the building occupies the same footprint as the 102-unit version and stands exactly as tall. The only difference to the building’s envelope is that the fourth floor has been partially recessed to allow for balconies. When Karp refers to it as “three-and-a-half stories high”, he wants it to sound like it’s been brought down from the stratosphere into somewhat closer communion with the neighborhood. The building heights, in truth, are the same: 50.3 feet.
My recreation of the building’s cross-section because, while I have the drawings, they are copyrighted, and I haven’t asked for Karp’s permission to use them. I don’t want him to sue me, win my house, and turn it into a casino. That would be a horrible thing to do to my neighbors. Anyhow, the top floor has a bit taken out of it for balconies. That’s the only difference to the envelope.
About this plan, Karp seems to enjoy using the words “dialogue” and “compromise,” as if he’s been sitting, hands folded, at a table, listening to what New Canaan really wants. I don’t get the sense that this is accurate. Instead, it seems that Karp and his team have followed the architectural path of least resistance. Rather than return to the drawing board for an option that looks like it actually belongs at Weed and Elm, they have rearranged some interior walls, swapped out a couple of exterior finishes, sunk the parking level a little lower, and presented it as a brave new vision.
It’s just the same gross pizza.
The footprint of the building, shown here in the original plans, would not change
Now for the bullying part
The other side of Karp’s billboards single out three figures in a clumsy adaptation of the “missing persons” poster. “THREE HOLDOUTS ARE BLOCKING A SMALLER COMPROMISE. IF THEY DON’T ACT, 102 UNITS GET BUILT.”
It puts the lotion in the basket, or it gets the hose again?
I noticed these had been taken down by the time I went on a bagel run on Saturday morning. But the identical banner ads placed on NewCanaanite are still up.
lol no
The way he’s characterizing the rental building makes this a very clear threat, a feint, and an attempt to get the town to think of the intervenors as the bad guys in this story, which they are most certainly not. Karp seems to have soured on the 102-unit plan he and his team hatched in 2022, even referring to it as “Plan B”. It all feels a little Freudian to me; if Plan A is the luxury condo building, does this mean it’s what he wanted to build in that space all along?
What’s the point of all this?
All of Karp’s ads direct users to a website that requires them to choose between A and B, providing no information beyond the total number of units for each. Submitting a response–the need to lead the witness here is hilarious; green for the luxury condos, red for the rentals–requires you to share your name, email, and address.
Please don’t fall for the fiction that an “American Idol”-style community vote will determine the future of that corner. Arnold Karp has made it abundantly clear for four years that the input of people who live in New Canaan matters not a whit to him. Also, that’s not how the law or the judge’s ruling works.
What does seem clear at this point is which option Karp wants to build: it’s the one the poster and website refer to as Plan A. There may be a more practical reason behind the pivot than Karp and his team are letting on. Construction financing for multifamily rental projects, the kind that the 8-30g application required, became significantly harder and more expensive to obtain between 2022 and 2024, as interest rates rose and lenders tightened underwriting standards. To a lender, a 102-unit affordable rental building is a financing proposition of a different feather than 62 luxury condos sold at closing. One requires carrying debt through construction and lease-up against below-market rents. The other generates capital the moment the first unit closes.
Why are we here?
When Judge Edward O’Hanlan sustained Karp’s appeal for his 8-30g proposal last July, he actually remanded the case to New Canaan’s Planning & Zoning Commission to approve a couple of modifications to the plan. These modifications–a stormwater management modification and a sidewalk thing–don’t affect the building’s size, but P&Z still needs to sign off on them.
Don’t fall for it. This is the original building. The new version is exactly as wide and, despite some balconies on the top floor, exactly as tall.
At this point, the 11 families who had legally challenged the development remained parties to the case due to their standing in the P&Z proceeding. Any modification would require agreement from Karp, the town, and the intervenors. One intervening family moved, and seven others must have okayed the 62-unit plan. Three families did not. Hence, the mounting drama and desperate tenor of Karp’s pressure campaign.
If we can’t vote on a website, what can we do?
Right now, it’s among town leadership, the intervenors, and Karp’s team. This negotiation, like any town real estate litigation conversation, takes place out of the public eye. If the intervenors accede, the 62-unit building will land before P&Z again for a stipulated hearing. This means that P&Z can take public comment, but the scope and the outcome of the hearing will have been preordained to a meaningful degree. Rather than a full adversarial proceeding (remember the library? That was fun) where P&Z evaluates the application on its merits, the parties show up with a pre-negotiated package and ask the commission to ratify it.
The three families have a lot resting on their shoulders. If you’re not a fan of the 62-unit building, support them as publicly as you can.
The David and Goliath of it all is impossible to ignore.
What comes next
If affordable housing is the mantle under which this project snaked around past P&Z, inched its way through courts, and allowed Karp and his team air cover through which to malign our town in the press for years, then there’s no reason to allow a project that gets us farther away from our state affordable housing mandate to be built on that property. That doesn’t mean I support the 102-unit version; I actually want to see what Karp would do for Plan C and Plan D.
As for what supportive townspeople can do to support the intervenors: respect their right to anonymity in the face of Karp’s bullying, but show up for them in any way you can. On social media, at a P&Z meeting, if it comes to that. Don’t visit Karp’s goofy little voting site unless you have a kink for bad web design or participating in sham elections for the sake of data capture.
The Affordable Housing Committee meets May 19 to discuss three town-owned locations that could actually produce affordable units without a single 8-30g application, a single lawsuit, or a single dollar going to Arnold Karp. Although our current affordable housing budget is unfunded, presumably because of the purchase of The Avalon, that bucket will refill. Town participation in that meeting matters.
I also think, and I know I’m repeating myself here, that unless we want to see what another few decades will look like, having set further legal precedent for developers using 8-30g to line their pockets with bars of actual gold, we need our legislators to replace it with something that incentivizes everyone, not just developers, to build equitably.
Finally, do significant research before selling your house to an LLC. The Connecticut Secretary of State can help you identify an LLC’s principal. LLC principals often hide behind Delaware’s anonymity and liability laws, but in the case of 751 Weed Street, LLC, the project’s principal is the Karp Family Trust, and it’s registered in Connecticut. Incidentally, I spent time this weekend with the Connecticut State Department of Housing website looking for other Karp-built affordable housing projects in the state to see what they look like. I can’t find any. None in Connecticut, and I don’t seem to find them anywhere. His entire portfolio is custom homes, high-end renovations, and luxury construction. (Arnold, I welcome your correction if I’m wrong here.)
Anyhow.
Folks on Karp’s side of the cyclone fence are hot to uphold the logic that multifamily housing = progress. This is a common argument throughout the country; it’s why you see identically repugnant 5-over-1 buildings cropping up everywhere, usually with a NOW AVAILABLE banner trailing down one side. They’re proven to be efficient developer-enrichment mechanisms, but I’m not convinced they’re the only option for housing people, especially in suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas.
I’ve been thinking a lot about progress, and, in a just society, who gets to be its author. Progress should leave something behind for those who need it. Penicillin was discovered, and we cured diseases. TV was invented, and now we get to watch “The Pitt”. When Arnold Karp is done with his 62-unit definition of progress, after having callously exploited a law meant to create opportunities for low-income Connecticut residents, he will have his money, his units, and his exit.
All we’ll have is an eyesore.
___________________________________________________
P.S. In the first installment of this Op-Ed, I wrote that Kevin Moynihan’s administration failed to file for a moratorium in time. Moynihan has requested a correction.
Per his clarification, the initial moratorium was granted in 2017 and expired in 2021, but New Canaan was not eligible to apply for a new one until June 2023, when the New Canaan Housing Authority received a Certificate of Occupancy for the second 40-unit building at Canaan Parish. The completion of Canaan Parish was delayed for several reasons, including a required shift from a state to a federal construction loan, pandemic-era construction shutdowns, and a delay caused by a utility provider, he said.
Apologies to Moynihan for my having had a hazy understanding of the topic.
A moratorium was applied for and denied in 2022. The second moratorium was finally granted in 2025, but Karp’s active 8-30g proposals predate it.
Laura,
Thank you for another well-researched article detailing the 102 unit vs. 62 unit “compromise”. Like so many residents I applaud the 3 intervenors.
Just curious: why are these billboards permitted in the first place and shouldn’t they all be removed?
First amendment protections at all three levels of government. I do mention this in the second paragraph. The town can’t take them down.
Laura,
Please send your article to Judge Edward O’Hanlan in Hartford Superior Court and to the Hartford Courant. Yes, the Weed Elm development was never about affordable housing. Neither was Merritt Village that was later changed to The Vue. Shame on Karp! But clearly this word means nothing to him. We have to seek justice!
The Vue was never an 8-30g affordable housing application, though I believe P&Z felt the threat of such an application and the then-chair cited that threat when the Commission voted to approve the Special Permit/site plan/text change for that project. The very same thing had happened with the “Jelliff Mill Falls” condo development.
While the Vue was not proposed as an affordable housing project, Arnold Karp did affirmatively threaten to use 13-g to build on the site if the town did not capitulate to his demands for an expansive Vue project.
This following is quoted directly from the November 30, 2019 issue of Newcanaanite:
“Karp indicated after the October hearing that his partners at M2 were unhappy with the figure of 105 units and willing to go the affordable housing route in order to redevelop Merritt Apartments.”
Despite Arnold Karp and Paul Stone condescendingly lecturing New Canaan residents about his desire to build affordable housing, Karp simply uses 13-g to leverage his true goal which is to build inappropriately large and profitable buildings that do not otherwise comply with applicable New Canaan zoning laws. I hope the abutting residents who are party to the referenced lawsuit
hold the line – force Karp to build the affordable housing development or return the property to single family zoning. The town cannot continue to allow him to use 13-g to circumvent local zoning laws while failing to build affordable housing that gets the town closer to its moratorium level. Karp’s behavior certainly appears to be unethical economic extortion – pure and simple.
Thank you for this post. Very helpful. As a 20yr resident of New Canaan, I am strongly in support of pursuing Eminent Domain to take over the parcel and turn it into a park. What can I do to help?
Superbly written and laid out. Thank you for all your research. I live on the west side of town and drive by his signs every day. Isn’t there some kind of ordinance on signage in New Canaan? We now allow bullying billboards? What am I missing with town hall and the police?
Like you, I thought there are regulations regarding the size of signs. Maybe P+Z needs to amend them so that billboards are not allowed in town.
To the three families standing as legal intervenors at 751 Weed Street: thank you. The rest of New Canaan owes you a debt we should pay publicly, and soon.
Here is the math the rest of us need to absorb.
Arnold Karp is asking you – and through you, the entire town – to bless a 62-unit luxury condominium building with zero affordable units in place of the 102-unit, 31-affordable-unit rental building a court has already cleared him to construct. He is calling that a compromise. It is not. It is the most profitable possible outcome for Karp Associates, and it is also the outcome under which our town receives the least: no affordable apartments, no rentals at all, and a developer windfall that on conservative public numbers approaches nine figures.
If those are the two options on the table, the 102-unit rental building is the better one for New Canaan. It is the only one that delivers any of the affordable housing this fight was supposedly about. It is the harder, costlier, lower-margin project for the developer – which is precisely why he is racing to abandon it. Letting Karp swap 31 affordable apartments for a $3.2 million consolation check, $103,000 per unit that will never be built, is not compromise. It is laundering a windfall.
So hold the line.
Do not capitulate. Do not sign. Do not let four years of public pressure, billboards naming you in your own town, and a developer’s PR campaign convince you that 62 luxury condos are a gift. They are a tax on every household in New Canaan, paid in the currency this town spent centuries building.
Three things the rest of us can do this week:
Show up on May 19. The Affordable Housing Committee meets to discuss three town-owned parcels that can produce real affordable units without an 8-30g application, without a lawsuit, and without a single dollar going to Karp Associates. Pack the room. Fund the budget. Make Mr. Karp irrelevant to this conversation.
Write the First Selectman, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and our state legislators today. Tell them: no stipulated approval of the 62-unit plan. If Karp will not build the affordable units he promised, he should build nothing.
Stand with the three families publicly. Lawn signs. Letters to this paper. Names in the comments. They have carried four years of pressure so the rest of us could keep quiet. The least we can do is make sure they are not standing alone next week.
Mr. Karp has been very clear about what he wants. It is time the rest of us were equally clear about what we want.
To the three families: hold the line.
The town is behind you.
– A New Canaan Neighbor
Well said, both you and Laura.
BINGO!!! A “compromise” generally involves both parties giving up something. Arnold Karps ” compromise ” just gives him a huge windfall. Perhaps a truer compromise would be to:
1. Get independent appraiser(s) to provide market rate/value for the units under the 102 unit proposal.
2. Arnold Karp builds under the 62-unit plan.
3. The town/affordable housing fund gets the difference or meaning percentage of the sale price of the units in excess of the appraised 102 unit values.
A lot of mechanics and incentives to work out, but the goal here would be for the town to get more fairly compensated than the $3.2M offered. (I would guess the 62 unit plan would otherwise yield 10s of millions additional for Karps pockets). For Karp, he doesn’t have to build as many units, doesn’t have to manage low income units, gets to represent a higher end project, may get some additional profits over the 102 unit plan and can move on to other projects.
However, my heart goes out to the would be neighbors of this proposed monstrosity, they didn’t sign up for any of this. I support all their efforts. Perhaps they can receive a small share of the additional revenue the 62 unit proposal would yield as some compensatory damage as well.
Laura, can you please tell us how many housing units Karp has already added to New Canaan (thereby increasing the need for affordable housing) and why The Vue, which was permitted because it was supposed to have affordable housing, has none?
And I hope the three holdouts are reading this, because I want them to know they have my support.
The Vue wasn’t approved as an affordable project.
Thanks, but if The Vue wasn’t approved as an affordable project why was it allowed to break the height zoning? My recollection is that Karp said in order to afford to build affordable housing in the project he had to build a four story building with more units/more profits.
Deborah (and other NewCanaanite readers):
Below is a link to the background of Merritt Village AKA: The Vue and zoning change information:
https://newcanaanite.com/merritt-village-unveiled-new-details-concerns-from-neighbors-emerge-at-first-public-hearing-of-proposed-development-40200
He’s built 111 units of market rate multifamily housing that he has recently actively marketed, but it’d be hard to track down a number for the single-family houses he’s built without going to the Building Department and cross-checking their records against LLCs he’s established.
I’m really happy to see you voice your support for the holdouts.
Laura
The world a better place with you
in it. Thank you for being on top
of this. The suggestion that I made back
in July 2025 was to take the property by
Eminent Domain. But our somewhat
Lacking first Selectman said “we can’t
Take people property” . Who new she new
nothing on the subject. it’s done all the time. She refused to
act on it.
I talked to one of the resident that
Is part of the lawsuit. He had no idea
about using Eminent Domain to solve
this problem and was going to pass it by
his attorney. Tom Odea was copied on this plan. Tom propose a law would give the
Towns and cities the right to have first right to buy
Any property that was for sale.
It went nowhere. Told Tom this would work better. We take the land and we build affordable housing. 100% affordable not
30% this way we only increase affordable not regular housing. Say 20 nice units.
We control what is being built.
Or as Kevin said build a preschool that fits the location. And open up more classrooms in K-4. Now time is running out.
Send a message to all developers we will fight back. Or trade the lumber yard
For Weed Street. But don’t sit on your
hands and do nothing.
It was interesting that you could not find
another affordable housing project
anywhere else by Arnold. As you said some
people will use the law to get what they want. So can we.
These are very good ideas and constructive suggestions. This editorial and the comments here are the kind of public discourse we need as a community to work at solutions to this problem. Kevin Moynihan’s comments notwithstanding, this debacle marks a failure in our town’s leadership. Despite the extenuating circumstances the fact remains that the renewal of the moratorium on 830-g developments was somehow botched. The was no plan in place for affordable housing and development in our town that our leaders were actively looking at to provide guidance. As a result developers have outsmarted our government over and over again. Moreover, despite the fact that this developer still has multiple applications for “affordable housing” all over our town, there seems not to have been a coordinated response by our leadership to counter these applications other than to fight them in court. Now a “negotiation” has taken place because the town lost all of its legal cases, and we as a community will suffer. Blaming the loss of a beautiful historic neighborhood on predatory developers, 830-g, and “Hartford”alone is not an adequate analysis. The town has been reactive instead of proactive, and here we are. An Affordable Housing Forum will be held at Lapham Community Center next Tuesday night, but it seems to be way too little way too late.
Such bad but predictable form that Karp doxxed the three intervenors on social media recently. He wants to redirect the towns outrage for the project onto these families which is cowardly and dastardly—but we all know better as to not fall for his villainous tactics by sticking together.
Sounds to me like Game, Set and Match, Arnold Karp. Time to get over it and move on, and incidentally the town could use more rental units, high-end or otherwise.
It is time to amend 8-30g. It has been in place for 37 years without modifications. We are seeing the results of 8-30g in the built environment in New Canaan from Arnold Karp. He builds unattractive and poorly constructed projects. The proposals he presents to P&Z are not what he builds. His specifications are vague and his excessive use of man-made materials is inconsistent with materials approved for other projects in New Canaan. The scale of his projects is out of context in the neighborhood(s) he intends to build.
8-30g needs to be updated.
Totally agree with you on his builds, and I still shake my head at that bizarro plastic retaining wall at The Vue. However, he actually hasn’t built any 8-30g projects in New Canaan, or anywhere else that I’ve found. We’re not seeing its effects—yet.
God Bless you, Laura! Thank you for all your efforts.
I still don’t understand how Karp can move forward with a project that has no affordable housing when the reason the project was forced through the system and approved was because it had affordable housing!!!
Thank you for this! I don’t get it as well. I thought it was approved because it had the affordable housing component. With that gone, how is it approved in a one-acre residential zone?
The numbers matter.
An 8-30g requires 30% affordable units on a project. That means at 30+ affordable units on a 102 unit project. Currently it takes 70-100 Housing Unit Equivalent (HUE) points to get to future moratoriums. Zero units on a large multifamily project does not help get New Canaan to future moratoriums. New Canaan currently has enough HUE points to get to our 2028 moratorium, so the Affordable Housing Committee, of which I am a member, is working on a strategy for our 2032 moratorium. Obviously, successive moratoriums are not something that any 8-30g opportunistic developer would like New Canaan to achieve.
The “Plan A” offers to change the project to 62 Units of MARKET VALUE ONLY with ZERO affordable units, and instead suggests a “fee in lieu” of $3.2 million cash to the town to build its own affordable. What is the math on this? A unit of NEW affordable is estimated to cost $620K per unit based on the zoning regs being developed by our P&Z subcommittee. So $3.2 million would support the creation of 5 NEW units of affordable. The funds were suggested to be used to rehab the existing town owned Riverwood rental units but that is really an apples to oranges comparison, since those are existing older rental units, not new construction as is the project at Weed and Elm.
Another important data point to consider: any developer with a project in New Canaan in an area that is actually zoned for multifamily (not an 8-30g) would be required to meet our towns existing inclusionary policy of 15% affordable on any projects of 5+ units. That would mean a 62-unit project would need to create at a minimum 9.3 units of affordable. The suggested fee in lieu which would support the creation of 5 NEW units of housing falls well short based on this existing metric.
Zoning is meant to promote smart planned development so that a buyer knows what they are getting when they are purchasing a property. Since its inception, the 8-30g developers’ remedy throws sound local planning and zoning completely out the window. What makes an 8-30g project so insidious is the total override of local zoning for height, density, setbacks, etc. Most often these outsized multi-story projects on tiny lots not meant for such high density development create loom over neighboring properties because they are out of scale with the already existing built environment.
On face, when one hears a proposal downsizing a project from 102 units to 62 units, burying the parking underneath completely, you would presume that the scale and loom is also decreasing. That would only be the case if the size of the units remained the same and the height of each floor remained the same. Unfortunately, under Plan A not only is the square footage of the 62 units (100% market value) increasing, but the ceiling heights are also increasing. As the original square footage of the building is not meaningfully decreasing, Plan A is not significantly improving the loom impacting the surrounding neighbors.
Since it was brought up in another comment, here are some points regarding State Legislators – your representation in Hartford matters. It’s time to be crystal clear that the only way to truly address the bad 8-30g policy is to vote the right people to represent our towns up in Hartford. We desperately need checks and balances. Democrats alone have sat on their hands when it comes to fighting back on 8-30g and they alone PASSED 8002 in November 2025 during a 48-hour “emergency session” which will impose new Fair Share mandates on our town – in addition to this insidious 8-30g. In 8002 (Public Act 25-1), it permits commercial property owners to do as of right conversions to residential OR mixed use. Our town has been scrambling to revise our regs to continue to require retail on the first floor in our downtown before the deadline of 7/1/2026. In a very scary last few days of this 2026 legislative session in Hartford, a party line vote of only House Democrats (including Lucy Dathan and Savet Constantine) PASSED a bill that would have allowed property owners to decide if they want to completely eliminate mixed use (like retail on first floors, small offices on second floors) to only residential use in our treasured downtown areas of Elm and Main. That would have created a sleepy bedroom community with no commerce and increased reliance on residential property taxes. Luckily, the Republican members of the State Senate fought against that change and did not pass that bill in the Senate – this year. The same onerous top down concepts that pander only to developer interests come back year after year. It took well over 5 years and a Democratic supermajority to finally pass the bad Fair Share provisions in 8002 during an “emergency session” where no legislators had an opportunity to read in advance the bill that they passed. The go along to get along by majority legislators must end. It’s state elections this year, you can choose to vote your local interests, or suffer even worse consequences.
Now, let’s set the record straight and get into the weeds on what happened with our moratorium at the state based on another comment. New Canaan was forced to apply an unprecedented 3 times before finally getting its second moratorium for relief from 8-30g. That has not happened to any of the other 13 towns that ever applied for a moratorium. (About half had been forced to apply a second time, but a 3rd time, that was a new low.) Why?
You can download the most recent moratorium list here:
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/doh/moratorium-history-8-22-2025.doc
Bonus points HUE points on certain affordable units we build had sunsetted on our first application, so that was denied (even though we had additional points we could have used) and for some reason, CT Dept of Housing (DOH), while requesting additional info from us during the process, chose not to point out the error in our HUE points calculations so we could add extra units that we already had for the calculation, so New Canaan was forced to reapply.
On application #2, in an unprecedented move, the DOH moved the goal post on the interpretation of counting past built affordable units in order to deny New Canaan’s moratorium request. Is there any connection with the developer’s attorney on these 8-30g projects (who had originally been hired by New Canaan to help us set our strategy for moratoriums) AND was also one of the writers of 8-30g law and the DOH moving of the goalpost? Coincidence? The DOH denial of New Canaan’s second moratorium applications was done despite the state’s approval of another municipality’s moratorium just months before under very same circumstances as ours – so they moved the goalpost just to prevent New Canaan from getting their moratorium. If you are getting the impression that the deck is stacked and was stacked against our town, you would be correct.
It is because of State Rep Tom O’Dea’s efforts in the prior legislative sessions, that past built affordable units still qualify for future moratoriums. Out of his own initiative, Tom O’Dea brought Majority State Legislative Leadership and a former member of the Housing Committee to town to show them what New Canaan is doing to create affordable development. For those in town that do not know, Tom O’Dea is the Deputy Minority Leader in the State House and runs the bills during the legislative session for the minority party. Real leadership matters.
Due to his bill and his bill discussion to establish the “legislative intent” as the bill was being talked on the floor, and the fix was passed as the goalpost should never have been moved in the first place. It fixed 8-30g by clarifying that HUE points from affordable prior developments can count for any future moratorium applications. The bill was raised and passed in the House because of Tom O’Dea’s initiative and Senator Ryan Fazio’s efforts to shepherd the bill through the State Senate.
What is happening at the state level is impacting New Canaan and that is where impactful change has to be made. It’s time everyone starts paying attention very closely to how every state legislator is voting in Hartford on these very bad housing bills. As co-founder of CT169Strong.org, we have been fighting against these bad policies for well over 6 years now. If you believe in the importance of local control, CT169Strong is looking for more volunteers and funding to help with our efforts. Connecticut desperately needs checks and balances.
It’s time to support, vote for and elect those that will represent our local interests, protect local zoning discretion and stop the pandering to the heavily funded developer advocates who most offensively claim they are helping those who need affordable housing but they really are not. They use 8-30g as a cudgel to override zoning while looking to offer no affordable housing. Their policies do not create affordable housing they claim to champion, nor do their policies improve overall affordability for residents. If we do not pay attention and vote accordingly, things are quickly going to change for the worse in all of Connecticut and specifically in New Canaan, our town that we all care so deeply about.
We stand with the 3 intervenor neighbors. Thank you Laura for helping us see this clearly. Maybe now the other neighbors who agreed to “plan A” will change their decision.
Since it’s been suggested that Mr. Karp was negotiating in bad faith this whole time, there are legal consequences for such an approach. It’s a Hail Mary, but since the town already has retained counsel, it might be worth raising in front of a judge. Make the process cost Mr. Karp every penny and every delay possible. He would do the same to the town. The idea of trading Lumberman’s for Weed is interesting, and potentially interesting to Mr. Karp, although creating another one of Mr. Karp’s buildings in the center of town isn’t all that much of a win unless NC can exert significant design control.
While I agree that it’s impossible to imagine a judge looking favorably on this bait-and-switch, it’s my understanding that the town has tried for and lost the legal right to appeal. Another unfortunate circumstance among dozens that have created this untenable situation.
This is a great piece. Thank you so much for elucidating the absurdity of this terrorist’s trade practice. Let’s cut the BS – He is a disgusting shakedown artist using an arcane law to blackmail the town into approving projects take will stress our schools and infrastructure as well as damage the aesthetic of our town and screw anyone around it, I say call his bluff. THERE IS NO WAY HE IS GOING TO BUILD 102 UNITS! This is a game to him. He is a disgusting individual (I have met him) and this pig needs his comeuppance. We should not cave in any wake to a shakedown artist such as he.
Thank you Laura for your well researched and reasoned piece. And Thank You especially to the interveners for standing up to a bully. I stand behind you and I know many others in town who do as well.
The motivation for the “switch” to luxury condos appears undeniably financial. It doesn’t take a financial wiz to calculate that building a 62 unit luxury condo is a meaningfully simpler and more lucrative proposition than building a 102 unit partially affordable housing complex. In addition to the well reasoned point about financing for affordable housing being more difficult to obtain let’s not forget that interest rates in general are materially higher than they were when this whole charade started. Time to positive cash flow is not a developers friend.
Regarding solutions, how about the prospect of a white knight buyer? After 3+ years of blistering stock market returns might anyone in town be in the position to purchase the property and have a 4 acre park named after someone they love?
Why doesn’t the town of New Canaan commence an eminent domain action on the property and turn it into a park?
Then add a sidewalk down to Acme and it would be a big walking loop, linking the west side of town to Irwin Park and further to the green corridor to the Nature Center.
Outstanding solution, Lars.
Dionna, Steve, Amy & TC’s Mike – Can you please look into this?
John, thanks. It should really be considered as an option. My reading of an Eminent Domain condemnation is that it is viable. A public park is a wholly legitimate purpose for such an action.
The landmark Supreme Court decision on Eminent Domain stemmed from litigation in our very own state: Kelo vs New London (2005)
After Kelo, Connecticut did not amend its constitution on Eminent Domain (as 12 states did). Nor did it meaningfully change it Eminent Domain laws. As a result, Connecticut has some of the “most permissive eminent domain laws in the country” (from Claude AI)
The chief executive of the town should look at this
Everything you said
Was sent to here back
In July 2025
Including the case
You sited.
There’s this saying
For the forces of Evil
To prevail the forces
of Good must do nothing!
Evil can never win
Over Good!
She’s done nothing!
Among the many extremely unpleasant things about this project is how unattractive it is. Ok, ugly. I just learned that New Canaan has no Architectural Review Board. Darien has one. Wouldn’t it make sense for all projects to be reviewed for appropriateness? This isn’t the taste police. It’s just a chance for some professionals to offer direction.
It seems painfully likely that we’re getting a project of unreasonable scale on that site. Can’t we make it just a little bit more acceptable?
I’m not caving here. The three neighbors are heroes. But unless someone with very deep pockets comes forward, (like the town?) a very big building will be built.
Kudos to Laura for keeping this in the forefront and doing such good research. What you’re doing is important. And thank you to the 3 families clearing this onus.
I still don’t understand why our state legislature and 8-30g seems to demand that it is always big impersonal apartment buildings. Why not have a small neighborhood of small 2-3 bedroom houses with small yards that would build community and pride? Yes, I’m aware it’s all about the $$$ to Karp, but it seems for social engineering and the good of a community and children, it is a better solution to the giant apartment buildings.
Congratulations on two very illuminating articles; very important to get everyone informed and involved. I hope the Town can indeed do something to forestall the building. With many thanks to the three neighbors who have the strength to hold out!
my initial undertstanding of the three intervenors was that they were still holding out hope to try and stop any project in its entirety. If they are holding out now to make sure that this development is at least in part affordable, well done! Keep it up! More units, more affordable units, better for the town!
Thank you Laura for your continued work on this issue. You are providing a real public benefit.
I stand with the 3 intervening families. And, while I admit ignorance of the fine details and appreciate the challenges of density, I must admit to feeling real disappointment that NC officials agreed to the Karp “compromise” and put these families in this situation. Having lost in court, the town should learn from its’ mistakes and at least ensure that affordable housing is the culmination of this debacle. Instead, the town agreed to cash payouts, nicer finishes and no affordable units? There must be a biblical passage for that.
The town lost in court. The die is cast. Mr. Karp is intent upon building something, anything too big on the property. Either solution is grossly unfair to immediate neighbors, but it seems the town can do nothing about that now. We can only hold the line and make Karp build something with affordable housing units. And then we can take solace in the facts that his margins will be smaller and we may well have more civic engagement as a result of this mess.
Nailed it, Laura!
Intervenors, stay strong.
Thank you, Laura, for another great Op-Ed! Karp is nothing more than a bully, and he couldn’t give a damn about New Canaan, affordable housing, and the impact his projects have on our town. I love how he portrays himself as someone who cares about New Canaan, yet he doesn’t live in town. The unnecessary clear-cutting of every single tree on the property and the posting of misleading signs were disgusting messages meant to intimidate the “Three Holdouts” and the rest of the town. We should all be thankful to these folks, and can you blame them, as Karp wants them to be OK with him singlehandedly destroying their neighborhood? The tragedy is that Karp, the developer, has been hiding behind 8-30g to threaten the town with this large-scale development, and in the end, we may end up with this horrific compromise, and no affordable housing!
In her 2026 e-Newsletter addressed to Members of the New Canaan Community, First Selectman Dionna Carlson states:
“While I cannot comment on the signs because they relate to a potential private legal settlement, I can provide background on the underlying matter. The Town of New Canaan, after vigorously defending its right to control local zoning, ultimately had its decision overturned by the State of Connecticut’s Superior Court. The 8-30g application brought by Karp Associates to build 102 housing units, 30% of which would be rented at state-mandated affordable rates, has been remanded back to the New Canaan Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission by the court.
Unless there is a negotiated settlement among the Town, all Intervenors, and Karp Associates, the P&Z Commission will need to approve the 102-unit development in the near future. Any negotiated settlement would be subject to public comment at a duly noticed Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
If Ms. Carlson states that the Town, Intervenors and Karp Assoc. are negotiating, does this mean there could be a third negotiated option presented by the Town? Or is Karp the only negotiator allowed to offer 102 vs 62? Perhaps there is a third option that Karp and the Intervenors would settle for that is presented by the Town.
Thank you, Laura, for writing this piece and putting words to concerns many residents have been feeling.
And thank you to the three families who have carried this for years and are continuing to show up under enormous pressure. Whatever people’s positions may be, I think many of us agree the process should be thoughtful, transparent, and community-driven.
I’ll be supporting efforts to explore town-owned alternatives and hope residents continue to stay engaged and make their voices heard respectfully.
Incredible writing and excellent research (and education for us). Hold the line, intervenors!
Thank you for the time and effort you put into your well written articles Laura. Any development built by Karp at Weed and Elm should have the same affordable housing ratio as was originally proposed by Karp in his 102 unit proposal. Karp should not push the burden of building the affordable housing to the town of New Canaan. Karp fought for his right to build his 102 unit development and won. Now let him deal with those consequences. If New Canaan backs down on forcing Karp to comply with 830-g, Karp will just keep playing the same game with other single family properties Karp owns in New Canaan. This means Karp should also be responsible for the long term management of the affordable housing units as he originally proposed. Karp should not push the long term expense and time burden of managing affordable housing units to the town of New Canaan.
“If New Canaan backs down on forcing Karp to comply with 830-g, Karp will just keep playing the same game with other single family properties Karp owns in New Canaan.”
Well said, Christy!
Without an affordable housing component, Karp’s proposed development does not comply with our zoning regulations. If Karp no longer wants to proceed with an 8-30(g) development project, he should withdraw his application and submit a new development application that complies with New Canaan’s zoning regulations. Karp’s current proposal is tantamount to spot zoning – which is illegal. The fact that our Board of Selectmen and P&Z leadership did not reject Karp’s proposal outright is disturbing. Backroom deals like this are why P&Z needs to be directly accountable to New Canaan’s voters. An elected P&Z would answer to the community — and not developers. All of New Canaan’s peer communities – Darien, Westport, Wilton, and Ridgefield elect their P&Z commissioners. In whose interest does it serve for New Canaan to continue to be an outlier and out of standard?
Lets buy the property from Karp,.lets start a fund to buy the property. THEN WE SELL THE PROPERTY TO
A BUILDER TO BUILD TWO OR THREE HOUSES ONLY. WE TAKE THE LOSS AND SMILE. SAVE OUR TOWN. I WENT TO THE Hamptons and they have kept their town in shape. Lets buy Karp out quickly for a few houses or another park…..a beautiful flower park
“Save our town”? And aspire to be like “the Hamptons”?? Please Jerry. No offense to the Hamptons, but that is not where I would choose to raise my children. New Canaan is a great town that does not need saving. I don’t need to add my opinion on the proposed Weed St development, but no matter how it turns out, New Canaan will be fine.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Well said!
Misinformation is not helpful. The developer has stated they offered the “Plan A” alternative proposal. Seems like it was in the developer’s interest to keep that offer private up until some of the intervenors did not agree with the offer, and the developer then decided to make it public.
Fact: The town is required to present the developer’s offer to all the intervenors on the 8-30g project and all must agree.
Fact: No votes by the BOS or P & Z or any other board are ever taken in exec session, so they cannot be “accepted” or denied in an executive session.
Fact: The P&Z did not vote after it came out of exec session on the developer’s proposal. As such, there was no “back room deal” by anyone, just the presentation of the developer’s offer to the intervenors.
Aside from that, the commenter is playing politics by conflating the work of the committee reviewing the town charter with an 8-30g project. An 8-30g project where there is limited grounds for any municipality to counter such appeals that are heard now by only one judge in Hartford, and where municipalities lose over 80 percent of the time. The town aggressively defended our local zoning our efforts to create affordable in town and the 3 8-30g projects through the court process. The commenter is giving their personal opinion on changing New Canaan’s Town Charter to have P&Z positions elected vs appointed and is mischaracterizing the presentation of the developer’s offer to the intervenors in an executive session as justification for an elected P&Z instead of appointed when 8-30g is being used statewide as a cudgel to override local zoning with projects that are out of size and out of scale and only benefit the developers who knew the existing zoning when they bought their property.
I will share from my experience as co-founder of CT169Strong, that I have seen statewide that developer money has come into local elections in small towns across the state where P & Z is elected not appointed. Such pro-developer interest candidates have been elected in other municipalities which has adversely impacted the actions of their P&Z’s so we should think long and hard about moving from an appointed to an elected P&Z.
Does an elected P&Z open Pandora’s box to outside ideological agendas or axe grinding? I believe that it does. With elected candidates, there is no guarantee that those P&Z candidates have the technical skills, and it can become a popularity contest where people with specific motivations or ideological agendas may now owe favors to the deep pockets or to the ideological agendas of those that got them elected.
Elected candidates vs appointed are more likely to be backed by big developer money to run New Canaan’s P&Z. The role of a P&Z commissioner is one of the most time consuming, with meetings running late into the night. These roles require large time commitments in the evenings are often hard to fill. They are also among the most technical roles in our town, which is why in the prior charter revision ten years ago, this question was raised for a vote then and the residents of New Canaan overwhelmingly rejected changing P&Z to be an elected position.
You are more likely to get candidates backed by certain residents unhappy with the P&Z majority’s ruling on one issue or a one-off zoning decision. These residents may have deep pockets and be willing to fund a placeholder or someone with an ideological agenda who is now beholden to them. That would not be wise.
In contrast, P&Z candidates for appointments currently present their resumes and they are all interviewed and are approved by our elected Board of Selectman. The BOS can seek out getting a lawyer, or any other role that may be lacking on an appointed committee, but this is not so if the positions are elected. It’s also likely harder to get independent or unaffiliated candidates in such positions if it is elected since the party machine becomes part of the process.
Big money came into the statewide legislative races 2 years ago in Senator Ryan Fazio’s campaign. Ryan’s opponent from Stamford received developer money and many negative PAC mailers were sent out to oust Ryan from his seat. Ryan Fazio has been strong pro local zoning control and helped New Canaan get 8-30g fixed when the DOH moved the goal post, changed how HUE points counted, and then denied New Canaan’s second moratorium application. (It should be noted that Karp’s 3 different 8-30g projects in town also filed as intervenors on our 8-30g moratorium applications. Did that influence the moving of the goalpost by the DOH?) Ryan’s opponent spent over $700K – the most spent in a single State Senate race ever to get Ryan out of that seat. You can see exactly who supported each candidate in their filings for that senate seat (local and outside of the state money). You can also review the PAC money like CT Project used to push an ideological agenda.
Do we really want to see big NYC developer interests like Regional Plan Association, the funder of DesegregateCT, or even national developer money come into local New Canaan races? That is bound to happen because of our proximity to metro NYC and the higher prices and profits that development projects here command.
While we are at it, term limits of 12 years are also being considered by the charter revision on the appointed positions of BOF and P&Z. There is serious technical and institutional knowledge that has been on these boards for many years that will need to step down should term limits be imposed and these positions become elected. People like Laszlo Papp, who served our town so well on P&Z for decades would no longer be able to continue to serve. In addition, given the top level executive careers of certain individuals in our town, some of our current appointed leaders are unable to run for an elected office, but are permitted to hold appointed positions. We stand to lose these dedicated long time and highly skilled volunteers who are pillars of the community.
In full disclosure, I am an appointed member of the BOF and also serve on the Affordable Housing Committee. During our recent New Canaan BOF budget process, I heard about a party leader trying to influence the actions of their party’s appointed BOF members in what has never been a partisan board. My concern is would BOF members if they are elected in New Canaan in the future be able to stand up if they disagreed with their party leaders and an attempt to bring politics into our local nonpartisan budget process?
At the state level, the answer is no. I have seen many elected moderate pro local control candidates taken out in a subsequent election cycle by new more progressive candidates if they didn’t “go along to get along” with the ideological agenda of their party leadership. I have seen at the state level the electeds have to “get permission” from their leadership if they want to vote no on anti local control bills. One elected state rep from another town actually said they “don’t know how they are voting until they are given permission by their leadership” to vote no on the bill. She had to “take a walk” when the vote was being cast on a highly controversial zoning bill and was marked as absent because she was not given permission to actually vote no. I can’t unsee all that I have seen in statewide governance. Is this what we want happening in our local government too?
Our town stands to lose some of our most esteemed and community minded volunteers we have on these boards and commissions should term limits be put in place and if the P&Z and BOF is changed to an elected position. Let’s keep the politics out of these positions.
We are not an “outlier” but a model of dedicated service by so many great volunteers to the community. Let’s keep what has served our community so well. Let’s focus our attention on the state where real change to 8-30g and better leadership and checks and balances is desperately needed.
The tiebreaker to keep our P&Z appointed and not elected was cast at the CRC by the appointed Chair of the Wetlands Commission whose husband is an appointed member of the P&Z. She should have recused herself but did not. Are you kidding me? An appointed town official voting to keep her husband’s appointed position. This is the very self dealing nonsense that the CRC was to end. Instead the appointed CRC insider preserved her husband’s appointed position. A total waste of time and taxpayer funds. Additionally there are many appointments that are made to payback political favors, even on your BoF. I wonder who? Many more qualified candidates are passed over because town leaders want to keep control and avoid proper questioning and challenge. Who loses? The taxpayer’s of New Canaan. Let the taxpayers decide who should be on boards and committees not politicians interested in paying back political favors!
Can we appoint a new chair for Wetlands? Maybe you’ve identified the issue – and a clean path forward.
word salad………
Brilliant comment
Perhaps the Town should considering acquiring the building site at Elm and Weed Streets via eminent domain. The property could then be used by the Town to develop (permanently) affordable housing units designed to maintain or even enhance the New Canaan community housing aesthetic. This action would permanently increase the number of affordable housing units o and move New Canaan towards its State-mandated goal.
An update on this: 751 Weed Street has been added to the P&Z agenda for tonight, at the estimated time of 9:30 (yikes).
Based on the language of the meeting agenda below, I believe the neighbor holdouts have held firm, and Karp is advancing the 102-unit version of his project for final approvals. P&Z has very limited power to do anything about this egregiously large building.
“Per the order in the Memorandum of Decision dated July 1, 2025 –
Approval of the Regulation Amendment, Petition for Change in Zoning Boundary, and Site Plan for an 8-30g set aside development of a 102 dwelling unit multi-family development located at 751 Weed Street, Map 32, Block 20, Lot 944 in the One Acre Zone.”
Thank you, Laura, for the update!
Tonight [Tuesday, May 26, 2026] Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting starts at 7:00PM. However, the estimated start time of 751 Weed Street , as mentioned above, will be approximately 9:30PM.
The meeting is available in person or via Zoom at the link below:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89838911611?pwd=gaS6DjnmZBRwr1buscwWGPcbXfAind.1
Meeting ID: 898 3891 1611
Passcode: 779124
One tap mobile
+ 16 469313860,,89838911611# US
+13017158592,,89838911611# US (Washington DC)