Developers ask commission to ease rules for nonconforming apartment-zone lots; members request more analysis

Developers and their agents presented a proposed zoning text change Feb. 25 aimed at making it easier to redevelop nonconforming multifamily properties in the town's apartment zone, but the commission asked for additional analysis and did not take a vote.

David Ruchi of Ruchi, LLC, appearing with developer Ed Zylas and consultant Steve Cleppin, asked the commission to amend Section 5.4(c) of the zoning regulations so the commission could reduce certain dimensional requirements for legally nonconforming apartment-zone lots. The applicants said many apartment-zone lots were established under earlier codes (mid-20th century) and are now over density or do not meet modern setback and lot-size requirements.

Under the applicants' preferred draft, a nonconforming multifamily dwelling that was built lawfully at the time of construction could be rebuilt to the same or a lower density, use the setbacks in effect at the time of original construction, and—in some cases—receive an increase in allowable building coverage up to 35% provided the redevelopment met design, stormwater and neighborhood-compatibility criteria. The applicants said the approach would allow older four-unit properties to be rebuilt as three-unit buildings that better match current market demands while retaining housing capacity closer to town and transit.

Town planner Steve Cleppin and commissioners pressed for additional detail. Commissioner questions focused on whether the change would amount to spot zoning, how the proposed 35% coverage figure had been chosen, stormwater management and whether the change would encourage larger, more expensive units that reduce naturally occurring affordable housing.

"You could either have a regulation like this that gives them sort of the balance that they need, or you just change the regulation itself," Mr. Cleppin said, noting the commission could consider a zone-wide rewrite. Several commissioners noted that inclusionary-zoning tools already allow 35% coverage where affordable units are provided, and that drainage policy in New Canaan already requires containment of additional impervious area on-site.

Commissioners asked the applicants to provide: comparative site plans showing what three units would look like at 25% coverage versus 35% coverage; a broader inventory of apartment-zone lot sizes and existing nonconformities; examples of nearby properties; and more explicit tradeoffs (for example, whether an increase in coverage would be paired with an affordable housing requirement). The applicants said they would return with additional analysis and design examples and that they prefer a zone-wide solution but could not delay seeking relief for these parcels.

No formal action was taken at the Feb. 25 meeting. The commission indicated the proposal should be reviewed further by the zoning-regulations subcommittee and that the applicants provide the additional materials requested.

Speakers in the discussion included the applicants (David Ruchi and Ed Zylas), consultant and town planner Steve Cleppin, and multiple commissioners. The applicants described the properties at 14 and 20 Richmond Hill Road as small lots (one about 9,500 square feet, the other roughly 13,000 square feet) that currently have four units on one lot and four on the other, and said redevelopment to three units per lot would be a likely outcome under their preferred approach.