OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Stamford Appointments Committee Interviews and Recommends Reappointments for Multiple Boards on April 29, 2026

Board of RepresentativesWednesday, April 29, 2026
BodyStamford, Connecticut
SessionBoard of Representatives
DateWednesday, April 29, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:57:14

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

With a quorum, it's uh 6 uh 31, and we call this meeting of the appointments committee to order Wednesday, April 29th, uh 2026.

0:13

And uh our first uh order of business, uh, which is uh 32.021 is uh James Fleiser, Board of the Cess Book Appeals.

0:28

Do you want me to take attendance?

0:30

Or no?

0:31

Oh, um I'm sorry, yes, please do.

0:33

Hi Bobby.

0:36

Um Bradford.

0:38

I hear present.

0:40

Okay.

0:40

Um Camparelli is excused, Gardner.

0:44

Present pill.

0:48

I don't see him.

0:50

Hi it, Lori High, hiat President.

0:54

Bobby Pavia.

0:56

Good evening, President.

0:59

Uh Representative Shore.

1:02

Present Candace Weathers.

1:06

Present and Carl Weinberg.

1:10

President, thank you.

1:11

You're welcome.

1:13

Uh representative Camparelli wrote me that uh she might not be able to make what the seat.

1:18

Correct, yeah.

1:23

Okay, now we've got that out of the way.

1:25

Um so uh this is a reappointment.

1:29

Correct, just finishing off the first one.

1:31

And uh, well, first of all, thanks very much for uh for doing it.

1:36

Uh one volunteer to another.

1:38

Um we certainly appreciate uh we certainly appreciate that.

1:45

So uh you know, I I've met some folks uh who apply for a position on the board of assessment of appeals, and and it it it just uh seems like there's an emotional component to the uh process, and it's kind of curious what your uh observations have been as far as that's concerned.

2:10

So um I came into or started my term in an interesting time.

2:16

So every five years there's a reval that takes place, and that took place in 2022.

2:21

I started early 2023.

2:23

So first we have sessions in the spring and March, and then we do the session in September, which is typically about automobiles, but mostly properties from the spring, but that can be something and right after a reval, typically the first year in particular, is a large turnout of citizens from the city of Stanford because they're not necessarily happy with how their property was evaluated or revalved.

2:49

Um so for the first timer, it was I would say kind of introduction by you know, fire, where there were we met literally for the entire month almost I think four nights a week hearing um citizens coming and talking to case.

3:04

So from the standpoint of that, it was a great way to learn.

3:06

But I think the biggest element, at least in my opinion, for being on this board, is really just being present and listening to citizens they come in and showing them respect.

3:16

They clearly have a point of view, so hearing what they're helping to guide them a little bit, not that I'm a real estate knowledgeable person per se, but you know, trying to help guide them if what facts they should bring forward, what evidence they have, how can they present that to try and give us the information we need to to make a determination on if there's something that we feel should be adjusted or not.

3:39

Um so I think really listening is the biggest thing.

3:41

I don't know if a motion you try and keep out of it personally, um, but that that I think for me is really listening, giving people respect and you know, thanking them and recognizing that they're there out of their time trying to make a case.

3:53

And sometimes it's successful, sometimes it's not.

3:56

I'm curious, a city of 130,000 people, like how many people come forward at the at that point.

4:03

Can you put the number on?

4:05

So in that first year, um, I feel like I I probably could or should look back, but we had several hundred that came in.

4:14

Um, the way we're sort of a five-member board, um, we typically hear cases individually.

4:20

So people will sit with us, give 15 to 20 minutes typically for them as as needed to give their time.

4:26

We take notes individually, and then we deliberate as an entire board.

4:31

So we will present back, talk about what I believe might if it's my, you know, here's what I heard, here's what I believe it's a recommendation, others read no question, and then you know we'll make a decision.

4:40

But um, you know, we met from five to nine, like I said, probably 20 nights, 15, 20 minutes.

4:47

So it was it was several hundred that that came through.

4:50

Um more recent year, so this past session, you know, we had two nights, so it was a smaller and you have a smaller number.

5:00

So you're talking about maybe we've got 20 um citizens coming in, but in the first, it's it's hundreds that come in first year, second year also, because sometimes people don't realize there's a short window for them to identify and bring their paperwork forward if they want to appeal, but then the second year they they could come in and appeal as well.

5:16

Interesting.

5:17

That's a lot more.

5:19

Yeah, it again, and yeah, you're talking about real.

5:23

Yeah, so that will be you know, 2027 will be the next reval, which means you know, spring of 2028 would be likely you know, a big a big turnout.

5:34

Um for me personally, it also just in hearing your talk, it helped expose me to parts of the city and people coming in from different parts of the city that I didn't necessarily you start to, you know, oh that's where that street is.

5:46

Oh, that's where that, you know.

5:46

So you get to work with the assessed office to you know better understand where I'm gonna map.

5:51

Um they bring in comparables because they're trying to compare to make sure it's within their immediate neighborhood.

5:57

Um observations do happen where you hear claimants that come in and you notice a bit of a pattern, like, hey, there's a lot of people here coming from this particular neighborhood or this development.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural████████████████████████████28%
Historic Preservation███████████████████████████27%
Planning and Zoning█████████████13%
Personnel Matters█████████9%
Transportation Safety████████8%
Active Transportation█████5%
Engineering And Infrastructure███3%
Miscellaneous███3%
Community Engagement██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Stamford Appointments Committee Meeting – April 29, 2026

The Appointments Committee of the Stamford Board of Representatives met on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 at 6:31 PM and adjourned at 8:28 PM. Six members were present (Bradford, Gardner, Pavia, Shore, Weathers, Weinberg); one member was excused (Camparelli); one was absent (Hill). The committee interviewed candidates for five reappointments and one new appointment to various city boards, then voted on each recommendation.

Discussion Items

  • Board of Assessment Appeals – James Fleiser (reappointment) – Fleiser described the board’s work handling property valuation appeals, especially the high volume (several hundred petitioners) after the 2022 revaluation. Hearings run 15–20 minutes per case, often four nights a week for nearly a month in the first year. He emphasized listening skills, respecting citizens, and helping them prepare evidence. In response to a question about inconsistent applicant preparation, Fleiser suggested creating sample documentation packets to guide future petitioners.

  • Board of Ethics Alternate – Anthony Martino (reappointment) – Martino originally applied for Parks and Recreation but was assigned to Ethics. He brings nearly 30 years of experience in the court system, with skills in listening and fairness. Committee members praised his qualifications and noted his career path including a BFA from NYU, stand-up comedy, commercial acting, and real estate. Martino expressed eagerness to learn as an alternate and eventual full member.

  • Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Alternate – Maxwell Lynn (new appointment) – Lynn moved to Stamford two years ago and has a background in architecture history. He has compiled a list of about 100 architecturally significant buildings in the city. He discussed the tension between preservation and development, advocating for adaptive reuse and noting that historic preservation should not be used as a blanket stop sign. He cited the St. John’s Towers as an example where preservation was not financially viable. He also shared experience with illegal demolitions on Long Island.

  • Planning Board – Jeremy Linder (reappointment) – Linder works for O&G, a local construction company. He discussed recusing himself from the Roxbury school project to avoid conflict of interest. He highlighted the comprehensive plan’s revisions regarding ADUs and accessory commercial units, responding to public feedback and mayoral input. He supported strengthening historic preservation tools within the plan.

  • Planning Board – Jennifer Casino/Gazano (reappointment) – Casino, the most senior planning board member, described her initial involvement in the 2015 comprehensive plan. She discussed the 2025 plan’s balance of development and preservation, with a focus on sustainability, tree canopy, and bus rapid transit. She spoke at length about improving bus service and micromobility options, and noted the city’s transportation infrastructure decisions are not directly under the planning board’s purview. A prior charter violation concern regarding her nomination was reviewed by the administration and found without merit.

  • Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate – Matthew Tripepiotis (reappointment) – Tripepiotis, an attorney with over 10 years on the board, explained the variance process and the importance of finding land-based hardships. He contrasted well-prepared applicants (often with lawyers) with unprepared homeowners, whom the board strives to assist fairly. He also shared his work on high-profile class action cases (Epipen, Volkswagen) and remains an alternate due to family obligations.

Key Outcomes

The committee voted on each recommendation. All motions passed 7-0-0 (with two absences recorded for the first vote; later votes also noted seven in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions). The following appointments were recommended to the full Board of Representatives:

  • James Fleiser – Board of Assessment Appeals (reappointment)
  • Anthony Martino – Board of Ethics Alternate (reappointment)
  • Maxwell Lynn – Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Alternate (new)
  • Jeremy Linder – Planning Board (reappointment)
  • Jennifer Casino/Gazano – Planning Board (reappointment)
  • Matthew Tripepiotis – Zoning Board of Appeals Alternate (reappointment)

The full board is scheduled to meet on the following Monday to act on these recommendations.

Meeting Transcript

With a quorum, it's uh 6 uh 31, and we call this meeting of the appointments committee to order Wednesday, April 29th, uh 2026. And uh our first uh order of business, uh, which is uh 32.021 is uh James Fleiser, Board of the Cess Book Appeals. Do you want me to take attendance? Or no? Oh, um I'm sorry, yes, please do. Hi Bobby. Um Bradford. I hear present. Okay. Um Camparelli is excused, Gardner. Present pill. I don't see him. Hi it, Lori High, hiat President. Bobby Pavia. Good evening, President. Uh Representative Shore. Present Candace Weathers. Present and Carl Weinberg. President, thank you. You're welcome. Uh representative Camparelli wrote me that uh she might not be able to make what the seat. Correct, yeah. Okay, now we've got that out of the way. Um so uh this is a reappointment. Correct, just finishing off the first one. And uh, well, first of all, thanks very much for uh for doing it. Uh one volunteer to another. Um we certainly appreciate uh we certainly appreciate that. So uh you know, I I've met some folks uh who apply for a position on the board of assessment of appeals, and and it it it just uh seems like there's an emotional component to the uh process, and it's kind of curious what your uh observations have been as far as that's concerned. So um I came into or started my term in an interesting time. So every five years there's a reval that takes place, and that took place in 2022. I started early 2023. So first we have sessions in the spring and March, and then we do the session in September, which is typically about automobiles, but mostly properties from the spring, but that can be something and right after a reval, typically the first year in particular, is a large turnout of citizens from the city of Stanford because they're not necessarily happy with how their property was evaluated or revalved. Um so for the first timer, it was I would say kind of introduction by you know, fire, where there were we met literally for the entire month almost I think four nights a week hearing um citizens coming and talking to case. So from the standpoint of that, it was a great way to learn. But I think the biggest element, at least in my opinion, for being on this board, is really just being present and listening to citizens they come in and showing them respect. They clearly have a point of view, so hearing what they're helping to guide them a little bit, not that I'm a real estate knowledgeable person per se, but you know, trying to help guide them if what facts they should bring forward, what evidence they have, how can they present that to try and give us the information we need to to make a determination on if there's something that we feel should be adjusted or not. Um so I think really listening is the biggest thing. I don't know if a motion you try and keep out of it personally, um, but that that I think for me is really listening, giving people respect and you know, thanking them and recognizing that they're there out of their time trying to make a case. And sometimes it's successful, sometimes it's not. I'm curious, a city of 130,000 people, like how many people come forward at the at that point. Can you put the number on? So in that first year, um, I feel like I I probably could or should look back, but we had several hundred that came in. Um, the way we're sort of a five-member board, um, we typically hear cases individually. So people will sit with us, give 15 to 20 minutes typically for them as as needed to give their time. We take notes individually, and then we deliberate as an entire board. So we will present back, talk about what I believe might if it's my, you know, here's what I heard, here's what I believe it's a recommendation, others read no question, and then you know we'll make a decision. But um, you know, we met from five to nine, like I said, probably 20 nights, 15, 20 minutes. So it was it was several hundred that that came through. Um more recent year, so this past session, you know, we had two nights, so it was a smaller and you have a smaller number.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com