By Elizabeth Barhydt
The Red Cross building at 51 Main Street has been many things—a rectory, an office, a landmark of Victorian charm tucked into the folds of New Canaan’s historic district. Most recently, it has been a battleground. The latest skirmish ended in court, where a Superior Court judge ruled against developer Arnold Karp in his attempt to construct a 20-unit residential complex on the property.
The decision, issued Feb. 18, 2025, is a victory for the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z), which had denied Karp’s proposal in 2022, citing historic preservation, fire safety, and pedestrian hazards among its concerns. The ruling confirms that the town had the legal right to reject the project, even under Connecticut’s 8-30g affordable housing statute, which allows developers to override certain zoning restrictions in towns with low affordable housing stock.
Karp’s plan, first submitted in 2022, called for relocating the 144-year-old Red Cross building closer to Main Street, gutting its rear section, and attaching a four-story apartment complex behind it. His team argued that six of the 20 proposed units would be designated as affordable housing, making the project untouchable under 8-30g, the state law designed to spur affordable housing development in municipalities like New Canaan, where fewer than 4% of residences qualify as affordable.
The town pushed back. The Church Hill Historic District, they argued, was New Canaan’s only designated historic district, a pocket of 19th-century clapboard houses and church spires that had remained largely unchanged since its creation in 1963. The Red Cross building itself, built in 1881, had been deemed a contributing resource to the district, its Queen Anne Victorian architecture listed on the CT Register of Historic Places.
Preservationists called Karp’s proposal a “looming intrusion” that would dwarf the Red Cross building, disrupt the district’s streetscape, and violate historic preservation guidelines. In hearings, experts described how the development’s massing—a 48-foot-tall structure stretching nearly the entire width of the lot—would obliterate the site’s historic character. The New Canaan Historic District Commission weighed in, calling the project “detrimental to the fabric of the historic district.”
Fire and traffic concerns compounded the case against the development. The New Canaan Fire Marshal warned that emergency vehicles would struggle to access the site due to narrow setbacks, a single driveway, and the building’s height. The town’s traffic consultants flagged pedestrian risks at the site’s entrance, which sits at the busy intersection of Main Street, Locust Avenue, and Heritage Hill Road.
When the P&Z unanimously rejected the proposal in Dec. 2022, Karp took the case to court, arguing that the town had failed to balance the need for affordable housing against historic concerns.
The Superior Court disagreed. In a 48-page ruling, the judge found that New Canaan had provided sufficient evidence to support its decision. The ruling emphasized that the impact on the historic district was “immediate, absolute, and irreparable,” outweighing the addition of six affordable units. The court also upheld fire safety concerns, noting that the narrow lot coverage and reduced setbacks left little room for emergency access.
However, the judge left one door open. While affirming the town’s decision, the ruling remands the case back to the P&Z to determine whether a scaled-down version of the development might be feasible. Specifically, the court asked whether reducing the building’s height and density could protect the historic district while still allowing for affordable housing—a question that remains unresolved.
The decision marks a significant legal win for New Canaan in its efforts to control development under 8-30g, particularly as the town defends its four-year moratorium on affordable housing overrides, granted by the state in August 2024. That moratorium temporarily shields the town from 8-30g proposals—though Karp has filed a separate legal challenge questioning whether the town met the state’s affordable housing benchmarks.
As for 51 Main Street, the ruling does not necessarily mean the end of development on the site. Karp can still submit a revised proposal.
