The Norwalk Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve a special permit, site plan and coastal site plan for a new six‑story, 32‑unit apartment building at 19 Day Street, including a waiver of eight required parking spaces. The motion carried by roll call 5 yes, 2 no, 1 abstention.

Attorney Liz Saatchi, a partner at Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessy, told the commission the proposal would add a 32‑unit building while keeping the existing 56‑unit apartment structure on site; the rear building that houses a distillery would be demolished to make room for parking and construction staging. Saatchi said the new building’s affordable units would be targeted at 60 percent of state median income (SMI), which lowers the parking requirement for those units to 1.0 space per unit under local rules; the existing building’s affordable units remain at 80 percent SMI and are calculated at 1.3 spaces per unit. She summarized the applicant’s parking math as presented to staff and the commission and noted the project relies on a 10 percent transit proximity reduction for properties within a quarter‑mile of the South Norwalk train station.

Why it matters: The commission’s decision allows additional housing in a transit‑adjacent area, an outcome commissioners framed as supportive of the city’s housing goals. Residents, however, raised persistent concerns about construction impacts, noise, dust and loss of parking and lease disruption for current tenants; commissioners debated those concerns against the municipality’s zoning standards and precedent requiring the body to apply only the regulations before it.

Key facts and conditions
- Project: six‑story, 32‑unit apartment building; existing 56‑unit building remains; rear distillery building to be demolished for site work and parking.
- Parking: Staff explained the calculation as 56 existing units × 1.3 = 73 spaces; 32 new units × 1.0 = 32 spaces; total required 105. A 10 percent reduction for proximity to the train station reduces the required total by roughly 10 spaces to about 95. The applicant proposed 88 zoning‑counted spaces plus 10 tandem spaces on the plan; tandem spaces do not count toward minimums unless specifically waived. The applicant requested relief for eight spaces; staff clarified an additional one‑space calculation adjustment related to a proposed leasing office increased the waiver to eight.
- Timeframe and mitigation: The applicant said construction would not begin immediately; site work would likely start at least nine months to a year after approvals to allow permits and financing. The applicant reported outreach to nearby property owners on Water Street and Day Street to lease temporary parking for residents and construction workers; one large neighbor was willing to discuss arrangements but could not commit spaces because of their tenants’ needs. The applicant said it had attempted to contact Saint Paul’s Church about parking but had not received a response.
- Regulatory citations: Applicant cited local zoning standards for site plan (8.4.0.5), special permit (8.4.0.8), coastal site plan (6.10.0.2) and the parking waiver provision (4.12.0.6), and referenced Fusitanic Terminal Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Board of City of Milford, 168 Conn. 304 (1975) for the commission’s scope of review.

Concerns raised and commission response
Several residents and tenants raised concerns during the public comment period (previous hearing) about loss of parking, noise and dust during construction and the timing of lease expirations. Commissioners repeatedly noted sympathy for tenants but emphasized that landlord‑tenant disputes and the rights of tenants under lease law fall outside the commission’s zoning review. Commissioners also questioned the policy implications of repeatedly reducing parking minimums downtown; others noted the city’s housing need and the site’s transit proximity as reasons to favor approval.

Vote and next steps
The commission approved the applications with conditions in the draft resolution, including language acknowledging the displacement of the distillery and requiring the applicant to continue outreach and mitigation efforts. Roll call recorded: Williams — abstain; Shulman — yes; Sebastian — no; O'Vino — no; Langalis — yes; Wells — yes; Linkowski — yes (reluctant); Bryce — yes; Jones — yes. The motion carried 5 yes, 2 no, 1 abstention. The applicant will proceed to secure permits and financing; staff and the commission retained oversight via conditions in the resolution.

Action recorded
Motion: approve special permit, site plan and coastal site plan for 19 Day Street as described and conditioned (motion text in the record).
Mover: not specified in transcript
Second: not specified in transcript
Outcome: approved (5 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain)

Ending: The commission noted it would revisit a separate regulatory matter at a future meeting. The applicant was thanked for the presentation and the public record was closed on the item.