Canton commission approves 100-unit apartment project
Posted July 18. Updated July 21.
By John Fitts
Staff Writer
CANTON – The Planning and Zoning Commission on July 17 approved A.R. Building’s proposal for a 100-unit apartment complex at 115 Albany Turnpike.
The Pennsylvania-based company plans to develop 100 units in two, four-story buildings on the 4.35-acre parcel which is set back from Route 44 – behind the CVS and UConn Health buildings – along Lawton Road.
As planned, one building will contain 57 units, and the other 43 units. All apartments would be one or two-bedrooms. Plans also included a fitness center, inground pool and 144 parking spaces. The larger building is proposed at 13,389 square feet per floor for a total of 53,556 square feet. The other at 10,774 square feet per floor for a total of 43,096 square feet.
As required in the town’s code, 15 percent of the units must be set aside as “affordable.” At least 15 percent of those 15 units must be deed-restricted for those at 60 % of the area median income and the balance for those at 80%. The balance of the units are planned at “market rate.”
Site disturbance would be about 3 acres and total impervious surface about 2.2 acres, according to the application.
According to the application, “The current estimated site construction costs will be $1,177,000. Sediment and erosion controls are estimated to cost $13,500. Landscaping is estimated to cost $115,608.”
A traffic study was done by Meriden-based BL Companies and asserts that there would be estimated 37 trips in the morning peak hour and 39 in the evening and 39 in weekend peak hour.
The approval included approval on a Type 2 site plan and a special permit for earthwork and grading. The commission, whose members are appointed, votes on land-use applications, judging their conformity to town and state regulations. The application followed the “Main frontage standard” in the East Gateway Design Village District – one area in the town’s form-based code- a type of zoning that emphasize design standards over a traditional separation of uses.
At a June 5 meeting, Jason Kambitsis, president of A.R. Development Co. touted the firm’s use of brick, extensive siding, AZEK trim, Trex decking and other “high quality” materials throughout. He also touted the use of natural lighting, outdoor spaces, amenities and connections to local shopping and recreation.
The commission closed a public hearing on the proposal June 5 and voted the evening of July 17.
During the June public hearing – and on social media – some residents strongly opposed the plan, with some expressing that they felt there are too many apartment projects in town. Many feel that they are a drain on services and overwhelm schools. Officials in town, on the other hand, have pointed to studies showing apartments are generally economically positive and generate few school children when kept to one and two bedrooms. Many residents, however, are not convinced and social media posts continue to be largely negative.
During the hearing itself, chairman Michael Vogel pointed out that the commission must vote according to town and state regulations and cannot arbitrarily limit the number of apartments in town, although they are only allowed in certain areas under the town’s zoning.
The staff report for the project, from Neil Pade, the town’s director of planning and community development, also addresses that point, stating “Just like any other use, Zoning does not have the authority to determine what the proper number of something is. The Commission cannot determine the maximum number of restaurants or retail stores the community needs and set a cap for that number. It cannot set a cap on the number of single-family homes. State legislation specifically restricts municipalities from setting a cap on the number of multi-family homes. Securing property and proposing development is not inexpensive. Developers perform market analysis determining whether there is demand or if the market is saturated. At the same time the inventory of available land that can support such uses is limited and diminishing.”
During the public hearing, many residents spoke against the plan, raising issues of traffic, design and more. Other residents asked general questions or made suggestions and at least one resident supported it on behalf of the Economic Development Agency.
Some residents took a different view – advocating for housing on the parcel, but contending the plan was too expansive. Taking that position was Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion.
"C.A.R.E. would like to support this application...but we can’t," the group wrote to the commission. "We think that apartments are an appropriate use of this parcel. We’re pleased that, thanks to your recently adopted regulation, 15 percent of them will be priced at the “affordable” rate. And we agree that balancing density with open space for the benefit of those who will live here makes multi-story buildings suitable. However, our support for this proposal stops at the third story and the amount of impervious surface."
On the evening of July 17, many commission members spoke to that latter issue, noting the concerns from but also that four stories is allowed in the East Gateway district.
In addition to its being allowed, some commissions also felt the applicant had done a good job with building placement and screening.
“I think in terms of height, in my view … that concern is mitigated by the siding and the screening,” said Vogel, who also advocated for town staff to work with the company to bolster that aspect even further – a detail that was included as a condition in the final approval.
Commissioner Elizabeth Vinick said she felt the project complied with the town’s code and while not offering an opinion on the issues, she said the commission should address it outside of a specific application.
“I do think thought that this is our second project that I’ve been seated for that is four stories. We’ve heard a lot of feedback. It’s time to have that conversation about three stories vs. four stories, elevation setbacks, location. It’s time… We’ve heard it,” Vinick said. “We can’t do anything about it on this application but it think it’s time for us to really have that conversation, I hope that we can make that a priority.”
Commission member Lans Perry touched on several issues, including the comments from some residents stating the buildings were not in character with the town.
“There were a lot of comments about the fact that it looks somewhat urban and that it didn’t fit in town, and it got me thinking about the fact that we are urbanizing that area,” said Perry who expanded on the Congress for New Urbanism’s concept “rural-to-urban Transect,” and how it applies to difference in various areas of town.
“I think this is appropriate density to preclude some sprawl,” Perry said. “I think that people habituate to things rather quickly that they think are going to be the biggest thing because they’re looking at them and it irritates them,” added Perry, who also spoke to the various ways – such as intense parking requirements - that towns, in the past, used to keep such developments out.
“The whole idea of stories and setbacks and this, that and the other thing is completely sighted in every study of how towns preclude the development of housing. They make land costs even higher by adding all these triple setbacks and everything keep neighbors out and make it expensive and it is class exclusion. It has been going on for 100 years and the directive from many of study committees in the housing field is that adding stories and reducing setback and reducing total land area required is absolutely essential if we’re going to get dense enough housing that people can afford to rent the apartment or buy the house. That’s a secondary issue but I like the fact that it’s as big as it is I think it complies exactly with our form-based code the shape of the roof and everything else if fine with me.”
Sandra Trionfini said she personally did not like the four-story aspect, but agreed the plan was in compliance and in a good location.
“If we’re going to do projects like this this is the location were you really want to do it,” Trionfini said. “I’d like it to be a little smaller but, you know, I’m not going to get that. There are no red flags, like I said. They’re within our regulations I don’t see any reason to deny this.”
There were also discussions about parking as the application included 8 more spaces than required, but ultimately the commission left the 144 spaces intact. The Farmington River Trail was another topic, and the company will be responsible for extending it along its frontage. However, town staff and A.R. will have to work out some details about how far that will be as there are some steep grades and utility infrastructure at the northern edge of the property
Despite those and other conditions in the ultimate approval, the commission unanimously agreed that the project conformed to the town’s standards.
"We are happy with the decision and excited to move forward," Emily Mitchell, Director of Development for A.R. Building Co., stated in response to an email inquiry.
Mitchell added that, "if all goes well," the company hopes to start construction next spring.
The images below show the site layout and building renderings.
