New Canaan Planning and Zoning Commission holds hearing on business-zone rewrite
Planning and Zoning · Meeting of June 2, 2026
New Canaan Planning and Zoning Commission holds hearing on rewritten business-zone regulations ahead of a state deadline. Eight of nine commissioners, chaired by Dan Radman, heard from consultant Suzanne Goldberg of BFJ Planning on changes required by July 1 under Public Act 25-1, including allowing "middle housing" of two to nine units in commercial zones and a new 4 percent traffic mitigation district to preserve parking minimums. The draft would raise the inclusionary-housing fee in lieu from roughly $373,000 to about $623,000 per unit and cap business-zone building height at 35 feet.
Resident David Ruchi pressed for relief on sites with steep topography, prompting Town Planner Sarah Kerry to propose a 40-foot allowance tied to a 30-foot front-wall standard. Resident Maria Weinearten urged a moratorium on 16-unit developments to close a gap left by House Bill 5521. No formal vote was taken; the commission set a final vote for June 23.
In the full story:
- Who Was There
- Organizations And Documents Referenced
- The complete report — 2,911 words
Source: the Planning and Zoning meeting of June 2, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.
The Full Article
Overview and the July 1 Deadline
New Canaan's Planning and Zoning Commission has spent nearly a year working with consultant BFJ Planning on a rewrite of the town's zoning regulations, building on the 2024 Plan of Conservation and Development the commission adopted. Tuesday's special meeting was a public hearing on the portion of that rewrite that must be adopted by July 1, 2026, under Public Act 25-1, also known as House Bill 802. Senior Planner Suzanne Goldberg of BFJ Planning, joined on the call by colleague Emily Tolbert, presented the changes; BFJ principal Frank Fish, who has led the firm's side of the effort, did not attend. The commission was not taking up residential-zone changes Tuesday; those will come in a separate process after July 1.
The question before the body was narrow but consequential: whether the draft business-zone amendments, as revised since an April 21 public workshop at Lapham Community Center, are ready to move toward adoption on June 23. Chairman Dan Radman opened the floor to public comment after Goldberg's presentation, and the bulk of the meeting consisted of residents raising specific technical concerns that commissioners then worked through in real time.
Zoning Map Consolidation and Building Rehabilitation
The draft consolidates New Canaan's existing two retail zones and four business zones into a single retail zone and a single business zone. Goldberg said the retail zone is meant to protect the "walkable village, compact core" along Elm and Forest streets, while the consolidated business zone allows more consistent development across the wider commercial area. A companion provision would let owners of existing overbuilt buildings in the business zone rehabilitate them using their full existing square footage, even where it exceeds current area and bulk standards, so long as the resulting use is permitted. Goldberg described the goal as making it cheaper and easier to renovate aging downtown buildings without allowing new growth beyond what is already built. David Ruchi, a resident who spoke later in the hearing, praised the consolidation, saying combining what had been a confusing set of business-zone rules "makes a big difference instead of trying to go back and forth."
Dimensional Standards and the Topography Question
The draft sets a maximum building height of 35 feet in both the retail and business zones, aligning with existing one- and two-family residential standards and what Goldberg said is already built downtown. It also creates a new 1.5 floor-area-ratio cap for inclusionary housing in the business zone, where no cap currently exists.
That height standard produced the hearing's longest exchange. Ruchi, of 697 Valley Road, told the commission that flat roofs are effectively capped at 30 feet because height is measured from the roof's midpoint, while peaked roofs can reach the full 35-foot limit at their ridge. He said the distinction creates a real problem on a Pine Street parcel he is evaluating for development, where a sharp drop in topography means a flat-roofed building could not fit two stories even at the 30-foot allowance. He raised the possibility of a variance or a future text-change application, but said he preferred the commission address it now: "I would definitely recommend that here," he said of raising the flat-roof cap, and later added that a topography-based allowance "seems to me perfectly set up" for relief given the site's unusual grade change.
Commissioner John Chris pushed back on treating flat and peaked roofs identically, saying the distinction exists because a flat roof "fills up the space" between the wall and the roofline in a way a peaked roof, which tapers to a ridge, does not. "Even with good design, there's still the loom and the bulk issue to deal with," Chris said, adding that bulk concerns near the roofline have long been raised by residents. Ruchi countered that design review, not roof shape, should be the primary check on bulk.
"I don't want to even minutely leave the door open a crack for a developer to be able to." — Commissioner John Chris, on a related parking-loophole question discussed later in the meeting
Kerry offered a technical fix: allow a building's height, measured by average grade around the full perimeter, to reach 40 feet, but only if the total building height measured from the average grade along the front wall still complies with the standard 30-foot limit. That would prevent a 40-foot flat roof from appearing at street level while giving relief on sites where the rear grade drops sharply. "In concept, that's worthy of consideration," Radman said, asking Kerry to draft formal regulatory language for a vote on June 23. Kerry cautioned that any fix needs to be a clear, generally applicable standard rather than case-by-case flexibility, which she said would function like a variance and risk running afoul of state statute and Connecticut case law on the town's ability to grant zoning relief for hardship. Commissioners also weighed a broader policy question Kerry raised: whether giving commercial-only buildings more height flexibility discourages mixed-use development, which already receives density bonuses. Radman noted the change would affect "a very limited number of lots" with unusual topography, including an area south of Town Hall and possibly parts of Locust Avenue and Cherry Street.
Development Approvals Process
Goldberg outlined the three tracks for development approval in New Canaan: an as-of-right staff zoning permit, taking one to two weeks; site plan approval before the full commission with no public hearing, taking four to six weeks; and a special permit requiring a public hearing, taking eight to ten weeks. She said commissioners and stakeholders had told BFJ the special-permit process was inefficient, and the draft shifts many desired downtown uses to the faster as-of-right or site-plan tracks where appropriate.
Inclusionary Housing: Density Bonus and Fee in Lieu
The draft simplifies the town's inclusionary-housing density-bonus formula. Under the current rule, a roughly three-quarter-acre lot would allow one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area plus 15 percent bonus affordable units plus 15 percent bonus market-rate units, yielding about 28 total units with three affordable. The proposed formula would allow one unit per 1,250 square feet of lot area, with 15 percent of units required to be affordable, yielding roughly 27 total units with four affordable, a slight increase in affordability delivered through a simpler calculation. A commissioner later confirmed the affordability threshold itself, 80 percent of area median income or below, is unchanged and dates to 2021; the current draft only adjusts the density-bonus math, not the definition of affordability.
Separately, the commission proposes raising the fee developers pay in lieu of building required affordable units on site, from roughly $373,000 to about $623,000 per unit, citing the higher current cost of constructing affordable housing. The fees go into the town's affordable housing fund. Brock Sax, of 105 W. Hackney Road, asked about a related change: a proposed reduction in maximum building height for inclusionary-housing projects in the business zone, from 50 to 45 feet for peaked roofs and from 45 to 40 feet for flat roofs. Kerry said only one project, referred to in the discussion as Berdis and Cherry, has used the inclusionary program since it was adopted roughly five years ago, and it came in under the existing height maximum. She said the reduction reflects that many future inclusionary projects will proceed without special-permit review, which previously gave the commission discretion to negotiate facade and design details project by project. "We weren't going to be able to have those negotiations," Kerry said, adding the height reduction was meant to set a "baseline comfortable" standard instead.
State-Mandated Middle Housing and Parking
Goldberg detailed the two changes New Canaan is legally required to adopt by July 1 under House Bill 802. First, "middle housing," defined by the state as residential development of two to nine units, must be allowed in areas zoned for commercial and mixed-use development, meaning New Canaan's retail and business zones. Second, the law prohibits minimum parking requirements for residential developments under 16 units, unless a town establishes a conservation and traffic mitigation district, in which case the town may apply parking standards of one space per studio or one-bedroom unit, two spaces per unit with two or more bedrooms, or the number recommended by a parking needs assessment, whichever is lower. New Canaan is proposing to establish such a district covering roughly 4 percent of town land, the maximum a single district may cover under the law, in areas mapped with hatched gray lines that could plausibly see a 16-unit development.
Parking Modernization
Beyond the state mandate, the draft would "rightsize" New Canaan's broader parking requirements using standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a commonly used industry benchmark based on national trip-generation and parking-demand studies. Where a change of use increases a property's parking requirement, such as a retail space converting to a restaurant, the draft allows the additional requirement to be reduced through a parking needs assessment. Goldberg said one change since the draft was last presented is that, for purely commercial changes of use, the needs assessment can now be prepared either by a traffic engineer or by the applicant directly, provided it meets regulatory requirements.
Public Comment: The Traffic Mitigation District and a 16-Unit Loophole
Maria Weinearten, of 115 Lone Tree Farm Road, urged the commission to move toward the full 8 percent traffic mitigation district allowed under state law rather than stopping at 4 percent, citing what she described as an unpredictable legislative environment in Hartford. She said she had attended a Connecticut planners' association event where a state planning and zoning official discussed a bill that did not pass this year, Senate Bill 151, which would mandate as-of-right subdivision to nine units per acre anywhere with existing or planned public water and sewer service; she warned it could resurface in next year's legislative session. She also recommended the town's mitigation-district map exclude additional town-owned properties, such as parking lots, Town Hall, the police and fire stations, and schools, beyond the parks already excluded, to free up room for other areas.
Weinearten separately flagged a gap created by House Bill 5521, passed this session to correct earlier legislation: developments of exactly 16 units are left without any parking-minimum protection between July 1, 2026, when the original law takes effect, and Oct. 1, 2026, when the fix takes effect. "I would suggest that you not allow any development of exactly 16 units" during that window, she said, recommending a temporary moratorium.
Commissioner Eric Nolles later told the commission he had spoken with the town attorney about a 16-unit moratorium roughly six months earlier and was advised it was unnecessary, and that no other towns appeared to be pursuing one. Kerry said the legal exposure cuts both ways: a developer might argue the town's parking rules do not apply during the gap, but the town could also argue the traffic mitigation district's rules still apply, and by the time any appeal was resolved the October fix would likely have taken effect regardless. Despite that, commissioners indicated support for pursuing a moratorium as a precaution. "I don't want to even minutely leave the door open a crack for a developer to be able to" exploit the gap, Chris said, adding that if a single 16-unit project without parking were approved, "we'll be blamed for the state." Kerry said she would research the process, which may require involvement from the town attorney and the Board of Selectmen.
On the district map itself, commissioners confirmed parks are already excluded, including Waveny Park, but that Irwin Park is not excluded because it is zoned residentially, not as parkland, and is not connected to sewer service. Kerry said correcting Irwin Park's zoning designation is on a list of items to address during the residential-zone phase of the update. Commissioners also discussed whether to carve out additional town-owned parcels now; Kerry said doing so raises complications, such as whether to exclude a nonprofit senior-housing facility operating on police-station land or housing-authority properties, and said the commission would need a broader policy conversation before September, when a second 4 percent traffic mitigation zone is expected to be presented.
Historic District Overlay
A commissioner raised whether the town should pursue a new historic overlay district covering small downtown commercial buildings, such as the Whitney Shop and the Starbucks building, as a stronger protection than zoning alone provides. Kerry said zoning is not the state's strongest preservation tool; a historic district, overseen by the Historic District Commission rather than Planning and Zoning, is. She said state law requires 75 percent of affected property owners to approve creation or expansion of a historic district, a high bar in a commercial zone with dispersed and sometimes out-of-state ownership. Ruchi, referencing a past application at 112 Main Street that stalled over neighbor objections, said he believed property owners such as Franco's and the Whitney Shop might welcome the added predictability a historic designation would provide, rather than the more subjective design-guideline review the commission currently applies.
Post-Hearing Deliberation and Next Steps
After closing public comment, the commission canceled its previously scheduled Thursday, June 4 deliberation meeting and instead debriefed immediately. Kerry noted several minor typo corrections in three sections of the draft regulations and one substantive clarification: language on the commercial change-of-use parking needs assessment will be tightened to specify it applies only to fully commercial buildings, since mixed-use buildings already have a separate parking needs assessment created under House Bill 802. No commissioner objected.
Nolles summarized three public suggestions for the commission to act on: a standard parking-fraction rounding rule (round up at 0.5 or above, down below 0.5), which the commission adopted as policy; expanding the traffic mitigation district's town-property exclusions, which the commission agreed needs a fuller discussion and will likely be folded into the September work on a second district; and the topography-based height relief Kerry proposed, which Kerry agreed to draft as formal language for a vote on June 23.
A separate discussion, prompted by a commissioner not otherwise named in the transcript's audio, raised concern about a proliferation of illuminated signage and building lighting downtown, including neon signage recently visible near the library and other Elm Street storefronts. Kerry acknowledged the town's lighting standards, last substantially written before LED lighting was common, need updating but said the issue is on a longer list of regulations to be addressed after the July 1 deadline, not part of the current draft. Commissioners separately noted that active enforcement of rules such as sandwich-board placement has lapsed in part over First Amendment concerns about regulating speech in signage, a topic Kerry said will require a fuller conversation with the town attorney.
The commission voted informally, without objection, to close the public hearing Tuesday night rather than hold the record open for additional written comment, noting an online question-and-answer forum tied to the update had been open since the April 21 public workshop. The next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is a regular session June 23, 2026, at which the commission plans to first vote on Kerry's forthcoming topography-height amendment and then vote on the full business-zone zoning regulation update package, with the goal of meeting the July 1 state deadline.
Dan Radman, Chairman, present. Kristen Nielsen, Member, present. John Chris, Member ("Commissioner Chris"), present. John Engel, Member, present. Eric Nolles, Member, present. Megan Menching, Member, present. Bill Pratt, Member, present. George Daniels, Member, present. Christina Larson, Member, arrived shortly after the initial roll call. Chris Herring, Member, absent. Alan Swedllo, Member, absent. Tom Benton, Member, absent. Sarah Kerry, Town Planner and Zoning Enforcement Officer, present and staffing the hearing. Suzanne Goldberg, Senior Planner, BFJ Planning, presented the draft regulations. Emily Tolbert, BFJ Planning, participated remotely. Frank Fish, Principal, BFJ Planning, did not attend; described as having led the firm's work on the update. David Ruchi, resident of 697 Valley Road, public comment; identified an interest in developing a Pine Street parcel. Maria Weinearten, resident of 115 Lone Tree Farm Road, public comment; cited attendance at a Connecticut planners' association (CCAPA) event. Brock Sax, resident of 105 W. Hackney Road, public comment. Additional members of the public attended in person and via Zoom but did not speak.
BFJ Planning — consulting firm retained by the town to draft the zoning regulation update; presented the draft and fielded technical questions throughout. Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA) — cited by Maria Weinearten as the source of information on pending state legislation affecting local zoning authority. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) — national standards body cited as the basis for the town's proposed modernized parking requirements. 2024 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) — the town's adopted plan cited as the legal basis required for any zoning amendment. Public Act 25-1 / House Bill 802 — state law cited throughout as requiring middle-housing allowances and limiting residential parking minimums by July 1, 2026. Senate Bill 151 — state legislation that did not pass this session, cited by Weinearten as a possible future mandate for as-of-right subdivision to nine units per acre on parcels with public water and sewer. House Bill 5521 — state legislation cited as creating a temporary gap, from July 1 to Oct. 1, 2026, in parking-minimum protections for developments of exactly 16 units. Town of New Canaan affordable housing fund — recipient of proposed increased inclusionary-housing fee-in-lieu payments.