‘Our Purview Is To Protect the Town’: P&Z Opens Application for 14-Unit Affordable Project on Parade Hill Road

Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission called on those behind the proposed redevelopment of a Parade Hill Road lot for a 14-unit affordable housing complex to obtain a traffic study as part of their application.

Addressing the developer behind the project, Richard Freedman, as well as his attorney, Amy Souchuns of Milford-based MacDermid, Reynolds & Glissman, P.C., P&Z Chair Dan Radman noted that although the proposal sets aside one parking space for each unit, it’s not a guarantee that its residents will drive.

“I want a traffic study, including pedestrian traffic,” Radman said during a March 9 special meeting where Freedman and Souchuns gave a preliminary presentation to P&Z on the project.

“I think the last thing we want to avoid is placing someone in an affordable housing unit that has no vehicular transportation and is forced to walk down roads and streets and [Route] 123 that has no sidewalks, and put them in harm’s way,” Radman said during the meeting, held at Town Hall and via videoconference.

Asked why there’s no formal parking study, Souchuns said, “It’s 14 units and a site plan. We didn’t think it was necessary. Traffic is really not a consideration for this application.”

Radman responded: “Really? With this commission, anything above and beyond the currently zoned allotment, we would typically require a traffic study, whether it’s 14 units or 400 units.”

No public input was taken during the presentation and discussion with P&Z, though Radman signalled strongly that a public hearing will be held prior to the Commission adjudicating the application.

Plans call for 10 two-bedroom units and four three-bedroom units in a three-story building that offers 16 parking spaces “constructed to high standard with a focus on quality materials,” Souchuns said.

“And we have, in the design, intentionally underbuilt this site as compared to some of the other options we could consider,” she added, referring to the denser redevelopment of affordable complexes at Millport Avenue and Canaan Parish.

Under the state law known by its statute number, 8-30g, developers proposing housing complexes where at least 30% of units are designated as “affordable” may skirt local planning decisions by filing an appeal. In 2022, New Canaan received three applications for 8-30g projects. P&Z denied each of them. The developer behind those three proposals appealed each denial under 8-30g, and a state Superior Court judge upheld two of the appeals, at Weed and Elm Streets, and more recently, on Hill Street, while denying one on Main Street.

The town’s strategy for securing “local control” of such developments has included appointing a committee focused on securing relief from 8-30g in four-year blocks known as “moratoriums” while exploring options for creating more affordable housing. New Canaan did earn a four-year moratorium two summers ago, and appears to have sufficient housing units—that is, Housing Unit Equivalency or “HUE” points—to chain together another one in 2028. 

Yet the Parade Hill Road project is exempt from New Canaan’s moratorium, Souchuns said, because the redevelopment falls into a category of “other affordable housing applications for assisted housing containing forty or fewer dwelling units” (see the paragraph starting with “Such moratorium shall not apply to” here).

“We have applied as assisted housing,” Souchuns said. “Five units will be reserved for voucher holders, administered and supported by The Housing Collective.” She referred to a Bridgeport-based nonprofit organization which, according to its mission, “harnesses the power of collective impact to provide access to safe and affordable housing and ensure housing stability for all.”

Souchuns noted that the site plan application also includes “two affordability plans” that would have dramatically different results for New Canaan’s efforts to secure future moratoriums. Both plans would maintain units for tenants at 50% of area median income who hold vouchers administered by The Housing Collective, but under one scenario, six units would be held for those at 80% of AMI while three would be offered at market value, she said. That would mean 10 HUE points for New Canaan. Under a second scenario, four units would be offered to those at 60% of AMI, meaning New Canaan would gain 26 HUE points toward a future moratorium.

“Time is money, to be frank,” Souchuns told the Commission.

“We think that if this were able to receive an approval from you—we don’t have to spend time litigating or challenging conditions of approval—the opportunity is there to provide that alternate plan,” she said, referring to the 26 HUE points.

Radman said later in the meeting, “I can appreciate your concern on costs and that you’re interested in expediting the process but I think it’s quite naive to come in here and think it wouldn’t be a full public hearing and application, this type of an application in this town, knowing what we’ve been through with 830g applications. With that said, I really don’t care if it costs you more. Our purview is not to save you money. Our purview is to protect the town. Protect the town’s interest, protect the town’s safety and protect the integrity and feel of the town. Since according to the state we can’t say ‘character’ but we can say ‘feel.’ So that is our mission and we’re more than willing to work with you, but there has to be some flexibility and it can’t be a simple answer as ‘No, it’s too expensive.’ ”

P&Z commissioners asked about the legal basis for claiming the “assisted housing” exemption (provided), why the proposal doesn’t maximize height and coverage (because it’s a philanthropic project), whether the applicant would be willing to work with P&Z on the design (yes) and whether a play area could be added to the site (yes, there’s room for a small playground behind the building).

P&Z members also voiced concerns about the building’s style, exterior and aesthetics. Commissioner Meghan Mensching said the current design is more appropriate for an urban setting than New England style.

“Your proposal seeks to add housing when housing is needed, and so I don’t mean to claim that it is more important to look good than to be sheltered,” Mensching said. “I believe that the context is important and that our village charm is real and precious, and that housing deserves to be beautiful. And while beauty may be subjective, the context here—the neighborhood, New Canaan—is not.”

Freedman noted that the proposed building is “a contemporary design” though he is “a reasonable person.”

“If you have reasonable requests, I’m happy to work with you but it’s not going to end up, at the end of the day, looking like a bigger version of a spec house,” he said. “And Canaan Parish is a very contemporary design. These buildings are not that different, actually. Canaan Parish is a flat roof, spare facade so it doesn’t look like a house and the decision not to use a peaked roof was a conscious choice to keep the height down.”

Commissioner John Engel agreed that Canaan Parish is a successful contemporary design that P&Z approved, though “the initial reaction on paper was negative.” 

Asked directly by Engel if he would be willing to work with P&Z, Freedman said “yes.”

Radman asked whether the parking (and trash enclosure) could be put behind the residential structure, saying it’s “not exactly a very attractive approach to building.”

Freedman responded that he did consider other layouts but found that “putting parking behind the building creates more impervious coverage.”

“That is the biggest problem with putting the parking in the back,” he said. “We looked at rotating the building and we couldn’t meet the fire code by rotating the building. If you rotate the building and the parking, it doesn’t fit. So we did look at other possible layouts and this was the one that worked with the least amount of impervious coverage and the most green space for the people who will be living there. And we did put screening in the front of the building.” 

P&Z Secretary Krista Neilson asked how putting the parking around the back increases impervious surfaces. 

Freedman said, “Because you have to run a driveway to the back and it has to be 20 feet under the fire code.”

The application was continued to P&Z’s March 31 meeting.

Town Planner Sarah Carey noted in her memo to P&Z that the Commission has just 65 days to hear and vote on the application, with the possibility of receiving up to 65 days of extensions, if the applicant consents. The 65-days clock started at the March 9 meeting.