Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Locust Avenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Canaan subcommittee questions single‑entry Locust Avenue scheme, seeks alternate access and clearer assumptions
Summary
At a March 4 special meeting, the New Canaan Affordable Housing subcommittee reviewed two Locust Avenue designs and recommended clarifying public materials to "assumes no land acquisition cost," while flagging single‑entry traffic and perceived building 'loom' as key concerns.
Krista Nielsen, a member of the New Canaan Affordable Housing project development subcommittee, opened the March 4 meeting and led a site‑by‑site review of three draft Locust Avenue schemes prepared by Amenta Emma.
Nielsen said Locust Scheme 1 proposes a single four‑story residential building with a parking garage on the east side and could deliver about 89 units while meeting the committee's draft parking target of roughly 1.2 spaces per unit. Committee members flagged inconsistent parking counts from staff (one reference listed 153 existing spaces) and asked staff to confirm how many business‑permit spaces are reserved for town employees.
The committee agreed to change phrasing in public materials from "complete site control / no land acquisition cost" to "assumes no land acquisition cost" and to run that language by Town staff before a public rollout, saying they did not want to overpromise about town approvals or third‑party interests.
Members expressed two principal concerns about the single‑building concept. First, reliance on a sole entry and exit onto Locust could worsen an already constrained intersection; the committee said traffic modelling or a study would be needed before advancing that option. Second, several members worried the massing of a one‑building design could be perceived to "loom" over adjacent properties and businesses; members recommended softer wording in materials ("potential perceived loom over adjacent properties") and suggested design changes to reduce perceived bulk.
Locust Scheme 2 — an L‑shaped building with townhouse frontage along Heritage Hill — was discussed as a lower‑risk alternative because it provides additional ingress and egress points and a smaller building footprint. That design was estimated to deliver about 76 units with a parking ratio near 1.07; members noted the lower parking ratio and asked staff to verify whether that meets zoning and operational needs.
The subcommittee deferred final recommendations pending confirmation of parking counts, a traffic study, and input from town staff (including the town official referenced as Diana). The meeting record shows the group will revisit Locust designs at the next subcommittee meeting with revised slides and clarified assumptions.
Next procedural step: staff will verify parking data and coordinate a traffic analysis before the subcommittee presents options to the public.
