Stamford Planning Board Meeting - May 20, 2026

Note: The meeting was originally recorded as taking place on Tuesday, May 19, 2026, at 6:37 PM. This summary adheres to the instruction to use the date of May 20, 2026, for the title and summary.

The Stamford Planning Board convened on May 20, 2026, at 6:37 PM. Members present included Vice Chair Jeremy Linder, Members Chet Sallett, Ravi, Subverminier, and Alternates Lay and Drew McKay. Jennifer Godzano joined at 6:50 PM. The board approved the minutes from the May 5, 2026 meeting, a subdivision extension, and reviewed three Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) referrals. The first two referrals received unanimous recommendations for approval; the third was recommended for denial without prejudice to allow redesign.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of the meeting minutes from May 5, 2026: Moved by Chet Sallett, seconded by Jeremy Linder. Passed unanimously.
• Subdivision No. 4056 (Sanford Lane): Request for a 90-day extension to file the final map, with a new expiration date of August 19, 2026. Moved by Chet Sallett, seconded by Ravi. Passed unanimously.

Discussion Items

ZBA Referral 028-26 – Cliff and Anna Blaze – 75 C Beach Drive

• Request: Variance from Section 5.X.4 development standards for lot coverage allowance of 51.6% (existing 49.5%) in lieu of the 40% maximum in an R10 zone, to construct a 374 sq ft first-floor addition for an accessible bedroom and bathroom for the applicant's parents.
• Background: The Planning Board had previously recommended approval on February 24, 2026, but the ZBA denied without prejudice, citing insufficient hardship justification. The applicant revised plans (removed a secondary door, provided additional photos showing slope constraints) and engaged engineers for coastal area management and stormwater remediation.
• Board discussion: Members noted the balance between aging-in-place goals (Comprehensive Plan) and flood resilience concerns from increased lot coverage. The existing lot coverage (49.5%) already exceeds the 40% maximum, and the new lot coverage regulation was added about two years ago. The applicant argued the hardship stems from the need for a single-level addition due to the property's slope and the parents' mobility needs.
• Outcome: Moved by Jeremy Linder to reaffirm approval; seconded by Ashley (alternate). Vote: passes unanimously.

ZBA Referral 029-26 – George P. Abbot – 21 Nichols Avenue

• Request: Variance from Section 5.X.4 for lot coverage of 43.1% (existing 22.4%) vs. 40% max, and building coverage of 31.2% vs. 20% max in an R10 zone, to construct a 310 sq ft rear addition (bathroom and mechanical room access).
• Applicant statement: Purchased property without knowledge of restrictions; discovered rot and leakage; house is undersized (6,000+ sq ft lot vs. 10,000 sq ft required in zone). Wants to correct a previous unpermitted conversion and make the home functional for aging.
• Board discussion: Members noted the lot is undersized and the addition is in the rear, not visible from the street. The variances were deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and unlikely to negatively impact neighborhood character. Hardship acknowledged due to undersized lot.
• Outcome: Moved by Chet Sallett for approval; seconded by Jeremy Linder. Vote: passes unanimously.

ZBA Referral 030-26 – Christian Fry (Architect) for Kamud V. Desai – 144 Shadow Ridge Road

• Request: Variances for front yard setback (36.5 ft vs. 40 ft required), combined side yard setback (16.5 ft vs. 30 ft), center line setback (63 ft vs. 65 ft), rear yard setback (20.8 ft vs. 30 ft), and parking in front of the house (prohibited in R10 zone). Proposed: 468 sq ft two-story garage with living space above and a 53 sq ft entry portico.
• Background: Similar variances were approved in 2005 but expired. The property has wetlands in the rear, so the addition is placed forward to avoid the upland review area.
• Board discussion: Members expressed concerns about the side yard setback (neighbor's house close) and the front yard setback encroachment. Suggested the addition could be pulled back four feet to eliminate one variance, or narrowed to reduce side yard impact. The portico may qualify as a permitted obstruction (one-story, open, projecting 4 ft). A motion was made for denial without prejudice to allow the applicant to redesign and address the side yard and front yard concerns.
• Outcome: Moved by Robbie for denial without prejudice; seconded by Ashley (alternate). Vote: passes unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• All votes were unanimous. The board approved the consent calendar items and the first two ZBA referrals. The third referral was denied without prejudice, giving the applicant an opportunity to revise the design to reduce variances, particularly the side yard setback.
• The next regular meetings are scheduled for June 9, 2026, and June 23, 2026, followed by a July hiatus, with return on August 11, 2026. The meeting adjourned at 7:18 PM.