Planning Board Public Hearing on 2025-2035 Comprehensive Plan

The Stamford Planning Board held the first of two public hearings on Tuesday, September 10, 2025, via virtual conference to receive public comments on the proposed 2025-2035 Comprehensive Plan. The hearing began at 6:30 p.m. and concluded at 9:09 p.m. Chairperson Jennifer Gadzenno presided. The board introduced members and heard from Mayor Caroline Simmons, who emphasized the plan's revisions based on public feedback, including reclassification of many R2 areas to Res One (single-family residential) to preserve low-density neighborhoods. The consultant team from Sasaki presented key plan components and revisions. Over 20 residents signed up to speak, with many expressing opposition to perceived density increases, especially in single-family areas, while a few supported the plan for its focus on affordable housing and transit-oriented development. The board noted that the plan is a guiding framework, not zoning, and that Res One and Res Two categories are designated for minimal growth.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Catherine Barrios (Cove resident) : Opposed the plan, stating that many Hispanic renters in the Cove are unaware of it and do not support more density. She argued that affordable housing is a red herring and cited high rents in the area.
• Celeste Perilli (Cove resident) : Opposed multiplex housing in her neighborhood, citing safety, traffic, and infrastructure strain. Requested access to the city's study on illegal housing.
• Nicola Tarzia (lifetime resident) : Opposed the plan, calling it contradictory and density-driven. Urged the board to slow down and listen to residents.
• Kimberly Klepper Schneck (Hubbard Heights resident) : Appreciated reclassification to Res One but concerned about ADUs and density impacts; requested specific historic protections similar to the 2015 plan.
• Mike Moore (President, Stamford Downtown) : Supported the plan, highlighting infrastructure coordination, climate resilience, and transit-oriented development around the Stamford Transportation Center.
• Evelyn Simpson (Glenbrook resident) : Opposed the plan, questioning the validity of 25,000 engagements (noting 16,000 from schoolchildren). Requested a delay and more resident outreach.
• Kasoom (Hubbard Heights resident) : Thanked board for reclassification but asked for additional language to prevent increased density in historic areas.
• Mike Batinelli (Glenbrook resident, firefighter) : Opposed, citing congestion, illegal apartments, and fire safety concerns. Questioned infrastructure capacity.
• Rebecca Shannon House (Hubbard Heights Board member) : Supported affordable housing goals but requested clearer definitions for Res One, protection of historic districts from senior housing and cluster housing, and preservation of single-family status.
• Laura Martin (Hubbard Heights resident) : Opposed allowing senior/disabled housing and ADUs in single-family historic districts; requested explicit exemptions.
• Regina Gordon (Hubbard Heights Board member) : Thanked board for Res One reclassification but requested tighter language to prevent density creep and stronger historic preservation protections.
• Steve Garst (resident) : Criticized the engagement process, stating many residents were unaware; requested more time and a simple mailing. Opposed ADU loosening and cluster housing.
• Jeannie Faye (Springdale resident) : Acknowledged plan is a guide but expressed concern that future amendments could revert areas to higher density. Asked for guarantees and personal notifications if changes are proposed.
• Jennifer Edwards (Hubbard Heights resident) : Thanked board for reclassification but requested additional language to protect historic neighborhoods from density incentives.
• Ray Downey (resident) : Opposed reducing downtown parking and expanding staff; criticized ADU provisions and discriminatory housing breaks for city workers.
• Jason Polis (Cove resident) : Opposed, citing severe traffic congestion; questioned how more housing would be affordable and requested specific cost analyses.
• Celeste Fry (Chapan Point resident, small business owner) : Supported the plan, arguing healthy growth increases tax revenue for better services and housing options for young families.
• Arman Fleisch (Turn of River resident) : Criticized vague language in the plan (e.g., "envisioned") and requested more specific metrics.
• Melanie Ng (Springdale homeowner, neighborhood ambassador) : Supported the plan, citing pedestrian safety, healthy city goals, and economic growth. Urged middle ground.
• Paul Brindak (Cove Neighborhood Association treasurer) : Read an amendment on behalf of 10+ neighborhood associations, requesting the board not adopt any action that increases density in single-family zones. The board chair noted legal limitations on such a prohibition.
• Dr. Katie Corngold (North Stamford resident) : Opposed the plan due to lack of awareness; concerned about sidewalk proposals destroying mature trees and historic stone walls.
• Kevin M (Bell Town homeowner) : Supported the plan, emphasizing pedestrian safety and the need for more housing to address low vacancy and high costs. Argued that existing overcrowding is in defiance of zoning, not because of dense zoning.
• Michael Rappaport (Wallack's Point resident, attorney) : Opposed the plan as premature; requested a written response to the proposed amendment. Noted lack of cost analysis and that the plan calls for zoning changes despite disclaimers.
• Gina Calabrice (resident) : Opposed the plan, arguing that the city does not enforce existing codes on illegal apartments; traffic has worsened; and transit-oriented development does not address current issues.
• Charles Flynn (point of order) : Contested the board's procedure that this is one continuous hearing; insisted speakers should be allowed to speak at both hearings.
• Jennifer Tortolani (Waterside resident) : Opposed, stating the Waterside neighborhood is already overdeveloped with multifamily housing and lacks infrastructure; requested the mayor visit the area.

Discussion Items

• Presentation by Consultants (Eliza Decker, Sasaki) : Overview of the plan's 5 visions (Opportunity, Health, Connection, Affordability, Prosperity) and revisions based on over 110 public comments. Key changes: Renamed R1/R2 to Res One/Res Two to avoid confusion with zoning; updated future land use map to move many single-family areas to Res One; added detailed use tables; clarified that Res One and Res Two are minimal growth areas; added accessibility actions and transit coordination; clarified ADU study intent; and added data appendix.
• Mayor Caroline Simmons : Thanked staff and consultants, noted 25,000 engagements, and highlighted revisions to clarify terminology and preserve single-family areas. Emphasized transit-oriented development downtown and affordable housing goals.
• Chairperson Gadzenno : Clarified the board's role (stewardship, not zoning) and that Res One/Res Two are for minimal growth. Responded to comments on the amendment from neighborhood associations, noting legal constraints. Also noted that ADU language would be amended to emphasize a study rather than outright elimination of requirements.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Continue Hearing : The board voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to September 16, 2025, at 6:30 p.m. at the Government Center. The hearing will include in-person testimony. Written comments continue to be accepted via email.
• Next Steps : The planning board will also hold a regular meeting on September 30, 2025, to deliberate and vote on approval of the comprehensive plan.
• Clarifications : Chairperson Gadzenno stated that the hearing is one continuous event; speakers may testify only once (either on September 9 or September 16). This was contested by some attendees but maintained by the board.