Planning commission votes 9-0 against sale of town parking land

Planning and Zoning · Meeting of July 28, 2026

New Canaan planning commissioners vote 9-0 against selling town parking land, citing the site's future potential. The Planning and Zoning Commission found that selling a 745-square-foot strip of the Locust Avenue municipal lot to the owners of 56 Main Street, valued at $50,000, is inconsistent with the town's Plan of Conservation and Development, a finding that means the town council now needs a two-thirds vote, not a simple majority, to approve the sale. Director of Public Works Tiger Mann argued "the town has options" while the property owners "have no other option other than to speak to the town," but Commissioner Kriz countered, "I don't think the two are comparable.

This is a different location. It's next to a major parking lot." The commission separately approved, also 9-0, a special permit relocating a driveway at 93 Old Stamford Road to close two accident-prone curb cuts, and heard a pre-application pitch to rezone two East Avenue properties for a mixed-use, 10-unit building that split commissioners along commercial-creep lines.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 4,000 words

Source: the Planning and Zoning meeting of July 28, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Roll Call and Attendance

Chairman Dan Radman opened the July 28 regular meeting in the town hall board room, a smaller venue than usual because the main meeting room was booked for other town business. Nine of eleven regular members were present: Radman, Commissioner Nielsen, Commissioner Kriz, Commissioner Herring, Alan Sverdlov (participating remotely), Tom Benton, Eric Knowles, Megan Manning and Bill Pratt. Commissioner John Engel was absent without explanation, and Commissioner Christina Larson was noted as being on a leave of "a month or two." Alternate George Danielos was seated for the evening in place of one of the absent members, giving the commission a full nine-member voting body for most of the night.

757 Oenoke Ridge: Historic Cottage Window Changes

Background and stakes: The cottage at 757 Oenoke Ridge sits on a property that was subdivided from eight acres to four around 2004. As part of that subdivision, the commission created Section 7.7 of the zoning regulations specifically to let the property exceed its allowable building coverage in exchange for preserving several historic outbuildings, including this cottage, believed to date from between 1900 and 1930. The condition: if any of the protected structures are ever demolished, the property does not get to rebuild new construction using that same coverage allowance.

The question before the body: Architect David Dumas, representing new owners Colin and Anna Smith, sought administrative review of proposed exterior changes under the 2004 special permit, since the cottage's low ceilings and lack of any egress windows required some window relocations.

Substantive content: Of the cottage's 28 windows, 14 are vintage, possibly original, and 14 are newer Marvin double-hung units installed in the 1990s or early 2000s. The plan raises four window openings by seven inches to clear new kitchen counters and a bathroom vanity, converts a twin double-hung window in the kitchen into a single larger egress window, and replaces an exterior door on the small north-facing porch with a matching double-hung window, while leaving the porch structure intact. Dumas said flood damage, buckled floors, failing plaster and likely mold have left the cottage uninhabitable, though he called it "very salvageable."

The deliberation: Commissioner Nielsen asked pointedly why the commission was being asked to approve an interior layout change through what was billed as an exterior-only review, noting she could not find a floor plan in the application materials. Dumas explained that the only wall in the proposed first-floor bedroom long enough for a double bed is the one containing the door, forcing the door-to-window conversion. Town Planner Sarah Kerry framed the decision for commissioners: if the changes are minor, the commission can direct staff to manage the review administratively rather than hold a formal vote.

"I think this is pretty straightforward, and the only odd part about it is the removal of the door, but I understand the reasoning there. I think this is minor enough in nature that you can handle this administratively," a commissioner said before moving to delegate the decision to Kerry and her staff.

Procedural steps and outcome: The commission approved handling the review administratively by unanimous show of hands, with no formal roll call. No public comment was taken.

Implications and what is next: The Smiths can proceed with staff-level sign-off rather than returning to the full commission, keeping the project on a faster track while preserving the historic character the 2004 special permit was designed to protect.

8-24 Referral: Sale of Locust Avenue Parking Lot Land to 56 Main Street

Background and stakes: Under Section 8-24 of the state municipal improvement statute, the town cannot sell municipally owned property without first referring the proposal to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an advisory report. The proposal at issue: selling a 745-square-foot, roughly trapezoidal strip of the 16 Locust Avenue municipal parking lot, averaging about 29.8 feet in depth, to the owners of 56 Main Street, a white farmhouse-turned-two-unit building at the corner of Main Street, Locust Avenue and Heritage Hill Road. The property currently has two parking spaces and is legally nonconforming, since regulations now require four.

The question before the body: Whether the sale is consistent with the town's Plan of Conservation and Development, an advisory finding that determines what vote threshold the town council needs to approve the sale.

Substantive content: Tiger Mann, director of public works, said the property is valued at $50,000 and that the owners, whom he and commissioners referred to as the Demergian family, have worked with the town for several years on the parking problem. He cited Plan of Conservation and Development goals around preserving small-town character and encouraging "creative off-street parking solutions" and shared parking arrangements as support for the sale. Mann said any resulting curb-cut modification, retaining wall or driveway apron change would require separate review by this commission, the engineering department and likely the Zoning Board of Appeals, and that the overall sale would still need town council approval.

Mann told commissioners the Locust Avenue lot's frontage along Heritage Hill Road is about 110 feet, meaning roughly 85 feet would remain if the sale goes through. He said the town is not interested in leasing individual spaces in the lot on a long-term basis, calling that a precedent the town does not want to set given pressure on parking townwide, and drew a distinction with the town's 2004 sale of "Parcel K" to help enable the Bertis Avenue development.

The deliberation: Commissioner Herring asked whether a long-term lease, rather than an outright sale, could preserve the town's future options for the lot, which has been studied for potential affordable housing and a parking deck. Mann said a lease would still require the buyer to build a retaining wall on land they do not own, making it impractical, and that leasing spaces sets an unwanted precedent. Commissioner Kriz disputed Mann's comparison to the Bertis Avenue sale.

"I don't think the two are comparable. This is a different location. It's next to a major parking lot," Kriz said, adding that the earlier parcel "was, in my view, not strategic to the future development" of the town.

Commissioner Benton said he did not object to the concept in isolation but could not support it without a master plan for the Locust Avenue lot already in place. "It just benefits the owner of the building," Benton said, adding that without a formal development plan, "it doesn't feel like it's in town's best interest." Commissioner Manning, speaking in her capacity on the town's Affordable Housing Committee, noted that Locust Avenue was one of three municipal lots studied for affordable housing in a survey completed in June, though it scored lower than the Lumber Yard lot, and said she wanted to preserve the full lot's optionality until a development plan is finalized. Town Planner Sarah Kerry cited two additional Plan of Conservation and Development provisions, including a directive that the town be "intentional" about leasing or selling municipal land, and moved that the sale be found inconsistent with the plan.

Procedural steps and outcome: Kerry's motion to deny consistency with the Plan of Conservation and Development was seconded and passed 9-0, with Radman, Nielsen, Kriz, Herring, Sverdlov, Benton, Knowles, Manning and Pratt all voting yes. Because the finding was negative, town council would need a two-thirds vote rather than a simple majority to approve the sale on its own.

Implications and what is next: The finding does not kill the sale, but it raises the political bar for the town council. It also signals the commission's reluctance to sell pieces of a lot it continues to view as a long-term asset for affordable housing or parking expansion, even as it leaves the 56 Main Street owners' nonconforming parking situation unresolved.

Public Hearing: 93 Old Stamford Road Driveway Relocation

Background and stakes: The application sought a special permit under Section 3.6.D.1 to place a relocated driveway within three feet of a side yard property line, closer than the standard allows, in order to consolidate access onto an existing 16-foot right-of-way rather than the 25 feet typically required for a new driveway.

The question before the body: Whether to grant the special permit needed to relocate the driveway of 93 Old Stamford Road onto a shared access easement on the adjoining property at 152 Old Stamford Road.

Substantive content: Attorney David Rucci, representing trustees Granger and Alyssa Jewett, presented photographs of a sharp curve on Old Stamford Road where he said several accidents have occurred over the past five to six years. The plan eliminates two existing curb cuts on that curve, replacing them with a single access point using an existing right-of-way; a new stone wall will run the full frontage of the property with native plantings and lighting, and the asphalt approach to the old driveway will be removed and replaced with grass. Rucci said 99 Old Stamford Road, a landlocked parcel behind the site, holds an easement over the same access way owned by 152 Old Stamford Road, and that all parties have agreed to sign a new easement documenting the arrangement as a condition of approval.

The deliberation: Commissioner Sverdlov, participating remotely, questioned whether the new configuration would provide better sightlines than the current curb cuts; property owner Granger Jewett said exiting the new access point gives a clearer view both toward town and toward the Merritt Parkway. Commissioner Herring, who recused himself from the application, was replaced as a voting member by alternate George Danielos.

"I see this as enhancing public safety. I think the viewscape will be improved as well with grass and vegetation and a fieldstone wall, which is very typical of the New England environment," Commissioner Kriz said in moving approval, adding a condition that the new stone wall comply with height regulations given its proximity to the property line and that the easement be recorded on the land records.

Procedural steps and outcome: No members of the public spoke. The commission voted 9-0 to approve the special permit, with Herring recused and Danielos voting in his place.

Implications and what is next: The applicants can proceed with construction; the recorded easement will formalize legal access rights for both 93 and 99 Old Stamford Road going forward.

180 Forest Street Withdrawal and 11 Farm Road Continuance

Staff read a statement noting that the applicant for a garage at 180 Forest Street, whose footprint exceeded 1,000 square feet and therefore required a special permit, has withdrawn the application and is redesigning to a smaller footprint that will not require commission review. An unpermitted foundation hole that had been dug on the site has since been filled in, and a temporary erosion-control plan will be implemented. Planning staff will review the redesigned structure administratively with no further public hearing. Separately, an application for 11 Farm Road was continued to the commission's August meeting without discussion.

Second Traffic Mitigation and Conservation Zoning District

Background and stakes: State legislation the commission has been managing since last November, including what staff referred to as House Bill 8002 and Public Act 25-1, bars municipalities from requiring parking on housing developments of 16 units or fewer unless the property sits within a designated conservation and traffic mitigation district. The town established its first such district ahead of a July 1 deadline; each district can cover up to 4 percent of the town's land area, and the commission requested a second district be drawn to use the town's full allowance.

The question before the body: Whether to adopt a map for the second district, which Town Planner Sarah Kerry proposed drawing around nearly all of the town's sewer district.

Substantive content: Kerry said the proposed map excludes all town- and state-owned land and had to remain contiguous, requiring a narrow connecting strip along the Sacks property. She noted several anomalies, including properties near the "Marshall Ridge" area of Weed Street that paid decades ago for future sewer connection but were never fully incorporated, and a single lot near Weed and Elm streets that connects to sewer through an easement but is not currently mapped into the district.

The deliberation: Commissioner Herring asked Kerry to examine that Weed Street lot for possible inclusion. A commissioner raised the possibility of gaining additional acreage by more precisely excluding small ancient cemeteries, noting state law generally holds that only an ecclesiastical society, a municipality or a nonprofit cemetery association can legally own a cemetery, and citing a prior application in which a property owner disclaimed ownership of a cemetery on their land. Members discussed whether to adopt the map Tuesday night and refine it later through a formal amendment, or wait until the map is cleaned up. Kerry said the risk of an unanticipated multi-family application landing in an excluded area is "incredibly minuscule" given that the existing single district already covers everywhere multi-family housing is currently permitted.

Procedural steps and outcome: The commission opted to wait until the August meeting to vote, asking Kerry to refine the map's cemetery exclusions and check the Weed Street parcel in the meantime. No formal vote was taken.

Implications and what is next: The map will return for a vote in August; until then, the town's parking-requirement exemption for smaller housing developments outside the sewer district remains limited to the first district adopted July 1.

Pre-Application: 60-64 East Avenue Rezoning to Business Zone

Background and stakes: The two properties, a single-family home and an undersized two-family home totaling under 12,000 square feet of combined lot area, sit in the B residence zone directly adjacent to the commercial Vitti Street corridor, including the Gramercy Park mixed-use development the commission approved several years ago. Owners Ed Sislis and Joe Bavona, represented by David Rutledge, said the properties have limited standalone development potential given their size and location.

The question before the body: Whether the commission would be receptive to a future application to rezone the two parcels from B residence to business use, ahead of the owners filing a formal application.

Substantive content: Rutledge and Bavona proposed a mixed-use building with a retail storefront roughly 50 by 40 feet on the ground floor, up to 10 residential units above, and 22 to 23 parking spaces, including two accessible spaces designed by Subi Chung of D.H. Chung and Partners, the firm that designed Gramercy Park. Chung said the project would proceed under the town's inclusionary zoning provisions, with two of the residential units designated affordable, and that all 10 units would be two-bedroom or larger. Under the zoning code's standard parking formula, one space per 300 square feet of retail plus two spaces per two-bedroom residential unit, the project would need 27 spaces; Chung said inclusionary zoning allows a shared-parking reduction of 25 percent or five spaces, whichever is smaller. Town Planner Sarah Kerry clarified that under the town's newest housing law provisions, a developer can instead submit a parking needs assessment from a licensed traffic engineer that the commission would be obligated to accept, with no cap on the reduction, if the property is rezoned to a use where that summary review process applies.

The deliberation: Commissioner Knowles voiced support for the concept, citing the project's set-back street wall, its fractionalized, smaller storefronts and its potential to extend downtown's pedestrian character up East Avenue. "I think this is a very good idea. I think this makes a lot of sense," Knowles said, adding he would support it "provided there is the affordable housing component." Commissioner Kriz was skeptical of both the timing and the precedent. "I'm hesitant to make a decision like this on a one-off property map change when we're right in the middle of reviewing all this," he said, referring to the commission's ongoing rewrite of residential zoning. He also questioned the underlying parking math, warning that a shared-parking arrangement with a retail tenant that depends on drive-up customers could leave insufficient dedicated commercial spaces. A commissioner raised the concern that granting the change would represent commercial "creep" into a residential corridor and could invite similar requests from single-family homeowners bordering other town-owned or commercial parcels. Another member said she would be reluctant to consider it further without vacancy data on downtown Main Street commercial space, given the Plan of Conservation and Development's emphasis on downtown vibrancy. Rutledge and Bavona said they were open to reducing the unit count, to as few as eight units, to free up additional dedicated commercial parking, and noted that neighboring Gramercy Park's developer, Jonathan Garrity, and a resident of Gramercy Park's existing two-family unit had both submitted emails supporting the renderings.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken and none was sought, since this was a pre-application discussion rather than a formal filing. Commissioners were split, with at least two members supportive in concept and at least two others opposed to acting ahead of the residential zoning rewrite.

Implications and what is next: The owners indicated they may hold off filing a formal rezoning application until closer to January, once the commission's direction on the broader B residence zone rewrite becomes clearer. Bavona noted the property has sat effectively vacant, with the town's police department using it for training exercises.

Zoning Regulation Update: Next Steps for Remaining Budget

Background and stakes: The commission has roughly $20,000 remaining in its contract with planning consultant BFJ after pivoting in February to focus the bulk of the firm's work on completing new commercial zoning regulations ahead of a July 1 deadline. An additional $30,000 is budgeted for 2026.

The question before the body: How to direct BFJ's remaining work under the current contract, and whether to seek a cost estimate for completing the full residential rewrite.

Substantive content: Town Planner Sarah Kerry proposed using the remaining budget for drafts covering the B residence zone, dimensional standards including height, coverage and setbacks for all residential zones, impervious coverage requirements, fencing and wall regulations, and filling, grading and tree-cutting rules. She estimated the commission's work on this scope is 20 to 30 percent complete, drawing on drafts already developed for half-acre lots and smaller.

The deliberation: A commissioner argued that impervious coverage limits should apply uniformly across all lot sizes, including one-, two- and four-acre zones, rather than only smaller lots, saying larger lots produce a proportionally bigger environmental impact. Kerry said that scope addition is not a heavy lift given existing drafts. Commissioners also asked Kerry to obtain a change-order estimate from BFJ for completing the entire residential rewrite, rather than piecemeal work, though members acknowledged they have not yet agreed on the full scope, including items like village district design guidelines and a definition of "apartment" versus "multi-family," that would need to go into such a request. Kerry floated an idea to allow two-family homes universally across the B residence zone, as was permitted before 1970, and to allow three- and four-unit buildings on double lots to help the town accumulate "hue points" under the state's middle-housing law, provided such units are permitted as of right rather than by special permit. A commissioner raised sewer capacity as an open question for any broader upzoning, and asked staff to determine how many B residence zone lots are currently two-family or larger as a baseline.

Procedural steps and outcome: Commissioners reached informal consensus on the near-term drafting list; no formal vote was taken or required for consultant direction of this kind.

Implications and what is next: Kerry said the current round of drafts should be ready for commission review by roughly October, after which the commission would decide whether to issue a new request for proposals to bring the full residential rewrite to completion.

30 Parade Hill Road Appeal and Minutes Approval

Kerry told commissioners that Town Attorney Nick Bunamonte is handling an appeal of the commission's vote last month on 30 Parade Hill Road, which has been transferred to Connecticut Superior Court in Hartford and assigned to Judge O'Hanlon, the court's land use judge. Kerry said the case is likely to continue for a couple of years and offered to share the filing with any commissioner who wanted to read it. Commissioners then approved, by unanimous show of hands, the minutes of the May 12 zoning regulation update subcommittee meeting and the June 2 special meeting and June 23 regular meeting, with no changes requested. The meeting was adjourned immediately after.

Dan Radman, Chairman, presiding Commissioner Nielsen, member (first name rendered inconsistently in the recording as Chris, Kirsten and Krista; surname consistent) John Kriz, member (referred to at points in the recording as "Mr. Chris" or "Commissioner Chris," apparently an ASR mishearing of Kriz) Chris Herring, member (recused from the 93 Old Stamford Road vote) John Engel, member — absent, no explanation given Christina Larson, member — absent, described as on leave for "a month or two" Alan Sverdlov, member — participated remotely by phone/video (also rendered as "Swerdlow" and "Swaidlow" in the recording) Tom Benton, member (addressed once in the recording as "Commissioner Bennett," apparently a mishearing) Eric Knowles, member Megan Manning, member, seated as an alternate for the evening (also rendered as "Mansion" and "Menting" in the recording) Bill Pratt, member, seated as an alternate for the evening (also rendered as "Phil Pratt" during roll-call votes) George Danielos, alternate, seated as the ninth voting member for the 93 Old Stamford Road application after Herring's recusal Sarah Kerry, Town Planner (self-identified once in the recording as "Tara Kerry"; referred to once as "Miss Carey"; addressed informally as "Sarah" throughout — surname spelling should be confirmed) Tiger Mann, Director of Public Works Nick Bunamonte, Town Attorney (referenced, not present)

Applicants, agents and outside parties: David Dumas, architect for owners Colin and Anna Smith, 757 Oenoke Ridge David Rucci, attorney for trustees Granger and Alyssa Jewett, 93 Old Stamford Road Granger Jewett, property owner, 93 Old Stamford Road (identified once in the recording as "Granger Sewell") David Rutledge, agent for the owners of 60 and 64 East Avenue Ed Sislis, co-owner, 60 and 64 East Avenue Joe Bavona, co-owner, 60 and 64 East Avenue Subi Chung, D.H. Chung and Partners, architect for the 60-64 East Avenue concept, participating remotely

Neighbors and public commenters referenced by name (attendance/affiliation as stated in the recording): Michelle Nelson, apparent East Avenue-area neighbor, referenced during the 60-64 East Avenue discussion "Ray," apparent East Avenue-area neighbor, described as present in the room

Plan of Conservation and Development — cited repeatedly as the governing document for the 8-24 land-sale referral and the 60-64 East Avenue pre-application discussion; specific goals and strategies cited include 1.1 (small-town identity), 1.3/1.3.4 (downtown vibrancy and shared parking), 4.1.1 (intentional leasing/sale of town land) and 2.2.2 (repurposing municipal parking lots for affordable housing) Section 7.7, New Canaan Planning and Zoning Regulations — the 2004 special permit provision governing the 757 Oenoke Ridge historic structures Section 8-24, state municipal improvement statute — governs the town's obligation to refer proposed sales of municipal property to the commission Section 3.6.D.1, New Canaan zoning regulations — special permit standard invoked for the 93 Old Stamford Road driveway relocation Section 5.11, New Canaan zoning regulations — governs the conservation and traffic mitigation overlay districts House Bill 8002 / Public Act 25-1 — state housing legislation cited as the basis for the parking-exemption overlay districts and the new inclusionary zoning parking needs assessment process BFJ — planning consultant retained by the commission for the zoning regulation rewrite; roughly $20,000 remained under the current contract as of this meeting, with an additional $30,000 budgeted for 2026 Gramercy Park — prior mixed-use development on Vitti Street cited repeatedly as a model and boundary reference for the 60-64 East Avenue discussion Affordable Housing Committee / New Canaan Housing Authority — cited by Commissioner Manning regarding a June survey of three municipal lots, including Locust Avenue, studied for affordable housing potential 30 Parade Hill Road — prior commission decision now under appeal in Connecticut Superior Court in Hartford before Judge O'Hanlon