P&Z denies multifamily development application
NEW CANAAN — The Planning and Zoning Commission denied an application Monday for a 102-unit multifamily development with 31 affordable units at 751 Weed St.
The commissioners voted unanimously to deny the project on 3.1 acres on the corner of Elm and Weed Street on the grounds of fire safety, vehicular and pedestrian safety; weaknesses in the storm water management plans; and protection of adjacent and nearby properties.
Each part of the resolutions read, which totaled 11 pages, referred to testimonies by peer reviewers. Most of it was repeated in denials for text amendment, map changes and site plan.
The controversial project for a 33,463-square-foot development had prompted residents to post signs on their lawns, sign petitions and express outrage at Planning and Zoning meetings over the last few months. The proposed project would needed an amendment to allow for 35 units per acre in a one-acre single family zone.
Under Connecticut General Statute 8-30g, the commission could only deny the application if it could identify concerns for public health, safety and other matters, Chairman John Goodwin explained. Then, the commission must determine if the protection of public safety outweighs the need for affordable housing, he said.
The denial stated that Timothy Hollister, attorney for the applicant, reasoned that the commission must consider the regional need for affordable housing. Although the town has only 2.9 percent of housing stock deemed affordable, in response, the resolution noted multiple times that the the town is bordered by communities, namely Stamford and Norwalk, that exceed 10 percent of current housing stock deemed affordable.
Former Westport Fire Chief Andrew Kingsbury testified as a peer reviewer that the development “creates several significant risks to life and property,” according to the resolution. The density of the project would strain an “already challenged fire department,” which has only six personnel on duty, he had said. Mutual aids from other departments would also take too long to get there, the resolution states.
New Canaan Fire Chief Albert Bassett agreed with Kingsbury’s assessment in a meeting in September, the resolution stated.
One fire safety concern raised is that the application calls for 300 feet between the stairwells to the lobby, meaning that there would be an increased likelihood that firefighters and residents would be using the same stairwell during an emergency. Also, the proposed length of the building would increase the stretch of a hose to attack the fire.
The resolution refers to traffic engineer John Thomspon who “noted significant adverse traffic impact is likely to occur” with implications for existing residents, potential tenants and guests. He cited poor lines of sight for those approaching the Weed Street and Elm Street intersection from northern Weed Street with the possibility that the view of people and cars could become obstructed.
“At all hours of the day, cars turned on the Weed Street from Elm Street are stacked up creating a visual problem,” the resolution states.Also, the denial cited a threat to pedestrian safety, since there is a lack of sidewalks on the north side of Elm Street, where residents would likely walk to the nearby train station.
The commission received “substantial public interest in minimizing the threat of flooding pollution to the adjacent wetlands, waterways and Long Island Sound caused by a lack of effective storm water management practices,” the resolution stated. The decision was based on the testimony presented by town engineer Maria Coplet and Steven Trinkaus, owner of Trinkaus Engineering.
P&Z also received public interest in the lack of a sufficient buffer zone and reasonable landscaping plan, which the resolution states would adversely affect the quality of life of nearby property owners.
The resolution also stated that the applicant “flatly declined” to make changes to mitigate public health and safety concerns with a more modest proposal and rejected suggestions to reduces coverage and footprint of the building, increase open space, improve setback buffers, reduce height, provide open space and add more substantial screen and buffering. “All those things can be accomplished through reasonable changes proposed,” the resolution stated. Denials of text amendment, map and boundary change and site plan were each unanimous.