Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment Apartment Zone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning and Zoning denies apartment‑zone text amendment request; commissioners prefer comprehensive rewrite
Summary
The commission voted 8‑1 on April 10 to deny a petitioner’s request to permit reduced requirements for legally nonconforming apartment‑zone lots, citing the imminent comprehensive zoning rewrite and insufficient demonstration that the amendment would serve the district broadly.
The New Canaan Planning and Zoning Commission on April 10 voted 8‑1 to deny a text amendment that would have allowed the commission to reduce certain bulk and coverage requirements for legally nonconforming lots in the apartment zone.
Proponent counsel framed the amendment as a tool to allow redevelopment of small, nonconforming multifamily properties to modern standards — for example, enabling an existing four‑unit building to be rebuilt without losing unit count. Commissioners generally agreed redevelopment can be appropriate, but most said the petition was too narrowly tailored to benefit a single property and that a broader rezoning process underway made a piecemeal change unwise.
Several commissioners said they were sympathetic to the idea of preserving or replacing longtime multifamily housing near the train and downtown, but they were not persuaded that the specific coverage and setback waivers sought were the right changes to adopt ahead of a comprehensive zoning revision. Commissioner John Engel noted the potential for “spot zoning” because the amendment would primarily benefit one lot in the district; other commissioners echoed concern that the petition had not shown how the two specific dimensional exceptions would serve the apartment zone at large.
The motion to deny the amendment “without prejudice to consideration in connection with our overall review of design regulations” was seconded and passed 8‑1. The lone dissenting vote came from Commissioner Tom Benton. The vote record on the motion read (by roll call): John Engel (yes), Chris Herring (yes), Paul Knagg (yes), Eric Knowles (yes), John Chris/Criss (yes), Krista Nielsen (yes), Alan Swerdlow (yes), Stephen Pratt (yes), Tom Benton (no). (Commissioners used varying name forms in roll‑call; transcript names are recorded as spoken.)
During deliberations commissioners asked staff whether the petition would be better considered in the pending zoning rewrite; staff recommended addressing broad apartment‑zone design and density issues in the upcoming consultant‑led revision rather than through a standalone text amendment. The commission also discussed practical outcomes the petitioner described: the applicant said without the amendment they could develop fewer, larger units; with it they would retain or replace the same unit count in a new building. Commissioners said that balance of unit count versus bulk, and other regulatory tools such as floor‑area ratio or maximum height, should be evaluated in the broader zoning rewrite.
The denial does not preclude the applicant from re‑filing or bringing a revised proposal; several commissioners said they would consider similar changes if presented through the comprehensive rewrite process.
