Planning Board Meeting Summary - November 19, 2025
Planning Board Meeting Summary - November 19, 2025
The Stamford Planning Board convened on November 19, 2025, to address routine approvals, public comments regarding daycare regulations, and three Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) referrals. The meeting opened with the unanimous approval of a daycare application after a member highlighted the critical need for such facilities and the legislative changes that now designate them as an "as-of-right" use. The board then deliberated on three ZBA referrals involving lot size variances and building coverage requests. Two applications were recommended for denial due to significant variances, lack of stated hardship, and the applicant's absence, while the third application for a two-story addition and office conversion was approved with one abstention.
Consent Calendar
- Unanimously approved a application for a new daycare facility. Board member Bill expressed full support, noting that converting all available space to residential is counterproductive and that daycare is "badly needed."
Public Comments & Testimony
- Staff provided historical context on daycare regulations, explaining that state law now prohibits denying special use permits solely based on use or parking perceptions, shifting focus to technical standards (parking, square footage, egress). Staff noted this change was made because previous hearings inappropriately weighed non-technical factors like bed placement.
Discussion Items
- ZBA Application 026-25 (M. Ren M. Rahim): Board members discussed a request to reduce lot size from 6,000 sq. ft. to 4,972 sq. ft. for a two-family residence in the R5 zone. Concerns were raised that the lot is undersized even for a single-family dwelling and that the significant variance would set a precedent without justification of hardship. Since the applicant was absent to defend the proposal, the board expressed discomfort with the lack of rationale.
- ZBA Application 020-27 (Jonathan Lerner): Board members discussed a request for variances to reconstruct a garage and driveway. Key issues included: the proposed expansion being driven by the need for a larger garage rather than necessity; the existence of existing non-conformities (illegal circular driveway, lack of Belgian block waiver) that would require remediation regardless of this application; and the board's confusion regarding the ZBA's referral process which currently allows denial recommendations that do not appear to trigger a supermajority vote at the ZBA. The applicant was not present.
- ZBA Application 029-25 (Danielle Copic Santasiero): Board members discussed a request to add a second story over an existing garage. While the use of the space was labeled as an "office" with independent exterior access, raising zoning enforcement flags, board members acknowledged that accessory professional offices are permitted in the R10 zone. Board member Bill expressed uncertainty regarding the project's intent and the creation of an office with an exterior entrance, leading to a decision to abstain.
Key Outcomes
- ZBA Application 026-25: Motion to deny carried unanimously. The denial was based on the lot being undersized for the requested use, the lack of a clear explanation for the variance, and the precedent it would set.
- ZBA Application 020-27: Motion to deny carried unanimously. The denial was based on the lack of indicated hardship to support the variances.
- ZBA Application 029-25: Motion to approve carried with a vote of 3-0-1 (3 for approval, 1 abstention). Board member Bill abstained due to confusion regarding the project's specifics and the nature of the office use.
- Next Meeting: The next regular meeting is scheduled for December 16, 2025, with a capital budget review subcommittee to meet prior to the December 2nd scheduled capital budget review (though Ravi noted he may be traveling). The public hearing for the capital budget is scheduled for January 13, 2025.
Note: The meeting adjourned at 10:19 PM. The transcript contains a discrepancy where the chair initially states the next meeting is "September 2nd" before correcting to "December 2nd," and later confirms the regular meeting is December 16th.
Meeting Transcript
What the needs are and they want it and need it to work more than anybody. Um, because if parking is a problem, uh, it's not going to be a desirable destination for families. Okay. Okay. I think Bill wants to say something. Bill. Is that hand a comment or a second? Um Yeah, I was just gonna say I think we should be encouraging this kind of thing as opposed to just converting everything to residential and daycare is something that's badly needed. And so did he already recommend approval in that case. Yeah. Okay. Second from Bill. Um all in favor, please raise your hand. And it passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and as Ray is uh pulling off, I do just want to note for the board and uh a little bit of the history of of um daycare regulations specifically, actually. Um so the daycare regulations in Stamford actually used to be much more um uh stringent in that they were every single daycare had to come before the planning board for a special use permit. Um, and about two a year two years ago, I think at this point, um, there was actually a state level um change that um that disallowed having a special permit solely based on the use of a child daycare because there were many that weren't um approved because there were questions and perceptions around parking and like how that would all work, but that ultimately the approval should be based on technical standards around what sort of parking is required for this sort of facility as well as whether the um operator is meeting the state standards. Um I can recall some uh hearings where you know we had members who were like asking about the placement of the beds within the uh nap room and again it was so far out of the purview of what the planning board ought to be weighing in on that that ultimately led to um a state level law to make um child care as um an as-of-right use within uh residential and commercial zones, provided it meets uh various technical specifications around you know parking square footage, egress and all of that. So it removes a lot of um that existed that I would argue was often um meaning but not rooted technical standards uh um of these applicants. So hopefully that is helpful, and I hope that a number of folks will walk because there will be so many residential conditions that are also coming along, coming online adjacent. Um we are running quite late this evening. Um we're now shifting to uh zoning board of appeals referrals. Uh the first being ZBA application 026-25 M Ren M Rahim, uh 249 Fairfield Avenue variants of Table 2 appendix B. Uh applicant owns this 4,972 square foot vacant parcel and is proposing to construct a two-family residence with four parking spaces at the rear, an open greenway for the front yard. Applicant is requesting an allowance for a lot size of 4,972 square feet in lieu of the 6,000 square feet required in the R5 zone multifamily medium density design district. Um applicant would like to uh come forward and introduce yourself for the record. If there is an applicant on the line, there may not be for a CBA. Uh so he actually notified me that he would be here, but I'm not seeing him, and that's not his number phone number that's called in. So if it's somebody else on the line that's just not using the name associated with the application, feel free to raise your hand. But I I don't think he's here. Okay. Um well, if the applicant is not here, I think Lindsay, if you could just raise a couple of the key points that were in the staff report regarding this application. Sure. Um, so the property is in residential two, uh residential neighborhood future land use category provides for a diverse array of housing options options from single family dwellings to duplexes and triplexes. Um, so on the front, uh, having a uh two-family home on this lot would um by use align with the comprehensive plan. I did um note a few concerns regarding the size of the lot serving a two-family home when a 5,000 square foot lot uh is what's required to serve a single family home. Um so even if they wanted to develop as a single family home, they would be undersized. So I I would just a little concerned with that. Um and the parking uh parking issue. Um I've been in conversations with zoning enforcement, and uh apparently I've been directed to not be concerned about the parking issue on the second lot, uh, because that's not the lot for which the variance is being sought. Uh so the address, the lot which the 4,972 square foot vacant parcel where they're proposing a two-family residence, the four parking spaces meets that uh meets that requirement. The fact that the property, the applicant's adjacent lot that he also owns is not zoning compliant is not under consideration here. Okay, thank you. Um Chet, your hands up. Oh, I'm no, I'm sorry. Okay. Uh questions or motion from the board. So let me see.
openpublica.com