In a victory for advocates of Connecticut’s affordable housing law, a Superior Court judge last week ruled that the New Canaan Planning & Zoning Commission improperly denied a proposal to build a 102-unit apartment complex that included 31 affordable units.

The 98-page decision refuted concerns commonly raised by opponents of such developments and emphasized that all towns bear some responsibility for meeting housing needs in the state.

The ruling, issued in Superior Court in Hartford, says that the planning and zoning commission must approve the construction after the developer makes a couple of minor tweaks to the proposal to build on Weed Street in New Canaan.

The property is in a residential neighborhood, less than half a mile from the New Canaan train station. It previously had a 10,000-square-foot single-family home and separate pool house, which have been demolished. The current property owner first applied in 2022 to change the zoning and build apartments and made several adjustments to the plan. It was denied in November 2022.

The developer contested the denial under a Connecticut affordable housing law commonly known by its statutory name — 8-30g. That law allows developers whose affordable housing proposals are denied to sue and force local officials to prove that they declined the proposal for health or safety reasons.

Towns are exempt from the law if at least 10% of their housing is designated affordable, and they can apply for temporary reprieves as they make progress toward that goal.

Tim Hollister, the land use attorney who represented developer Arnold Karp, said the town had raised concerns about fire safety, stormwater management and pedestrian safety to deny the application, although the evidence was “very clear” that it should have been approved, he said.

Judge Edward V. O’Hanlan addressed those concerns in detail in his ruling.

“The [New Canaan Planning & Zoning] commission has not met its burden to prove that its denial was necessary to protect these public interests, or that these public interests as identified outweighed the need for affordable housing and could not be protected by reasonable changes to the site plan,” he wrote.

“Why did they [deny the proposal]?” Hollister said. “I think it’s because of the dynamic we see with local zoning, with 169 towns, each having its own zoning power and zoning jurisdiction. The local nature of zoning reinforces the status quo and makes commissions very subject to local opposition. I think it’s almost paralyzing.”

New Canaan’s Planning and Zoning Commission did not respond to requests for comment.

The one-bedroom affordable units in the complex would rent to people with a maximum income of $50,670 who would pay a maximum rent of $1,142, according to court documents. Two-bedroom units would be available for maximum incomes of $55,566 and would rent at $1,370 per month, excluding utilities.

New Canaan, where the median annual household income is $163,355, was granted a moratorium earlier this year that temporarily exempts it from lawsuits under 8-30g. The moratorium, which was issued because the town was making progress in building affordable housing, came after a lengthy court battle with the state.

The Weed Street case, which began more than two years ago, predated the moratorium.

The decision is victory for affordable housing and 8-30g advocates but comes during a moment of political turmoil for housing policy in Connecticut. 

During the last legislative session, Democratic lawmakers worked with Gov. Ned Lamont’s office to create the most significant reform to Connecticut’s housing law in years. That bill passed, but under pressure from local officials, Lamont sided with Republicans and vetoed the measure.

Democrats say they’ll come back into special session this year to make adjustments to the bill. Lamont’s proposed changes, which are likely to be incorporated in a new bill, include ways to make it easier for towns to achieve 8-30g moratoriums if they build more housing near train and bus stations.

It was controversial among housing advocates who said the measure weakened 8-30g, and Lamont has since said he’s unsure whether he would have supported the decades-old law if it were proposed today.

Hollister said this case shows the importance of the law and is unique in a few ways. Most judges’ decisions in cases like this aren’t as thorough as the ruling issued earlier this month, he said.

“The court decision reaffirms that 8-30g is an important tool,” Hollister said. “It’s a way to overcome exclusionary zoning, but it also shows that it’s a tool to overcome local opposition.”

The decision also refutes at least the idea that an understaffed fire department is a reason to deny affordable housing, which is frequently cited as a factor in arguments opposing affordable housing development, he said.

One of the town’s arguments was that its fire department didn’t have the capacity to fight fires in the multistory building. The developer argued that the town regularly relies on help from nearby fire departments, and the court agreed.

“These choices [to rely on mutual aid] are for the town to make, but not sufficiently tied to legitimate fire safety concerns of the commission, so as to forbid someone’s use of their land, much less to be said to outweigh the need for affordable housing,” the judge’s ruling said.

In one of its briefs, which Hollister said was a newer argument, the commission also said that the amount of affordable housing in nearby cities should be a factor that eases the need and goals to build more affordable housing in New Canaan.

“This argument is antithetical — even repugnant — to the policy reasons behind Connecticut’s affordable housing law,” the judge wrote in a footnote in his ruling. 

“Again, the commission points to no statutory language or case law authority that allows the town, literally, to pawn off its responsibility onto other municipalities, or to claim credit for their greater success in meeting that policy. Indeed, each town or city shares an equal burden.”

New Canaan has just over a week left to file an appeal.