Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Map Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies rezoning request for 7–9 Couch Street after neighbors raise parking and enforcement concerns
Summary
The commission unanimously denied a request to rezone 7 and 9 Couch Street to legalize an existing third unit, citing neighborhood parking and precedent concerns and noting unresolved enforcement and variance issues tied to density.
The Norwalk Planning & Zoning Commission on Nov. 26 denied an application to rezone 7 and 9 Couch Street from CB‑2 to CB‑3, a request that the applicant said would align the parcels with surrounding multifamily character and legalize a third unit.
Attorney Nathaniel Shipp told the commission the owner bought the property in 2024 and has sought to bring the site into compliance; he said rents are kept “well below market,” the property is within a half‑mile of the transit station and would fall under a transit‑oriented district created by pending state legislation (House Bill 8002). Shipp acknowledged staff concerns about density and said the applicant would accept a condition that approval be contingent on a separate variance if needed.
Neighborhood speakers and the Golden Hill Association urged denial. Jim Del Greco and Jim Clark described limited off‑street parking and public‑safety hazards from congestion on Couch Street, argued rezoning would set a precedent encouraging absentee landlords to add illegal units, and asked the commission to require the owner to correct the violation rather than use a zone change as a remedy.
Staff confirmed a notice of violation was sent Dec. 3, 2024 and that a citation was later issued in July 2025; staff also advised that a zone change alone would not remedy the density noncompliance because permits still require compliance with density standards and a variance from the ZBA might be needed.
Commissioners discussed options — withdrawing the application, pursuing a variance, or waiting for state law — and ultimately concluded that the appropriate administrative path was to require compliance before rezoning. A motion to deny the map change carried unanimously.
The commission advised the applicant that they may pursue a variance before the Zoning Board of Appeals or reapply after correcting violations or after any state law change that might affect density rules.
