OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Stamford, Connecticut/Zoning Board
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Zoning Board Meeting - January 9, 2024: Approval of Historic Preservation Project and Public Hearing for Industrial Development

Zoning Board — Tuesday, January 9, 2024
BodyStamford, Connecticut
SessionZoning Board
DateTuesday, January 9, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:38:00

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:06

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the zoning board meeting.

0:09

It's Monday, January 8th.

0:11

It is uh 6 31 p.m.

0:15

Uh I would like to see Raquel Smith interested for to be able to vote uh this evening.

0:21

Uh my name is Bill Morris, and I'm acting as uh as chair tonight.

0:25

And I would like to introduce my fellow board members and also our staff.

0:29

We have with us Roseanne McManus here.

0:34

Uh Jerry Bozak.

0:35

Present.

0:38

Smith Anderson.

0:40

Here.

0:42

Ralph Blessing.

0:44

Here.

0:45

And Vanita Matur.

0:47

Yeah.

0:50

Okay.

0:50

Uh the first item on our agenda is a pending application.

0:55

It's for a public hearing that was uh closed uh at our last uh meeting.

1:01

It is application number 223-36.

1:06

Uh members, uh how do we feel about this particular application?

1:15

People are in favor, don't like it.

1:19

Well, first I'd like to say that I think we received all the material that we had requested before closing out at the last uh meeting.

1:29

And um I think it gave me a clear idea.

1:34

I um I I think it's a good use of the property.

1:42

I think it fits with the neighborhood.

1:46

Um I like anything that we can do that uh preserves any of our um older housing.

1:55

Yep.

1:56

Um I think anything we can do to help that.

1:59

I had mentioned previously, maybe two hearings ago, that I don't like our um well, it's our own regulations that uh with the additional, you know, with preserving the houses that they can shorten um the side yard setback, but you know that's that's something that's already in place.

2:26

So there's um nothing that can be done about this.

2:29

So um I think it's a good use of the property.

2:32

I think we continue to have both we'll have some new BMR units, we'll continue to have some of the low-income units in the front.

2:41

So I I think it's all good.

2:44

All right, thank you.

2:45

Jerry, Mr.

2:46

Chairman.

2:47

I I just uh I want to echo uh uh Ms.

2:50

Ms.

2:50

McManus.

2:52

Um I think they were very thoughtful developers.

2:54

I you know, I we heard from them in regard to the drainage.

2:58

Uh we we uh received that supplement um documents we were looking for.

3:02

Uh I love anything that we could do to preserve the history of Stanford and or the continuity.

3:08

So uh I I'm in favor, I like the project.

3:10

I think they did a great job.

3:13

All right, thank you.

3:14

Raquel.

3:16

Yes, Mr.

3:17

Chairman.

3:26

Okay, I'll be back.

3:28

The good old days.

3:31

I too.

3:32

I'm in favor of the development.

3:34

I too like the utilization of the land.

3:37

I like the concept of you know, preserving the history of the original structures that were there.

3:44

So I'm gonna go.

3:46

Thank you.

3:47

My apologies.

3:49

And uh I agree with all the statements that were made, and I'm also in favor of this particular application.

3:54

So with that, Vanita, could you put up uh recommended conditions?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Planning and Zoning█████████████████████████████29%
Zoning Board███████████████15%
Economic Development███████████11%
Landscaping██████████10%
Sustainability█████████9%
Procedural██████6%
Sidewalk██████6%
Land Use Planning█████5%
Traffic████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Zoning Board Meeting - January 9, 2024

The Stamford Zoning Board met on January 9, 2024, at 6:31 PM (the raw transcript indicates Monday, January 8th, but the provided date is January 9, 2024; this discrepancy is noted). Chairman Bill Morris presided. The meeting included a vote on a pending application, a public hearing for a new industrial development, and several coastal site plan reviews (CSPR).

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of December 11, 2023 meeting minutes: Unanimous.
  • CSPR 1180 (110 Davenport Drive): Location of a generator on the south side of an existing house. Approved unanimously with conditions and recommendations from EPB and Engineering.
  • CSPR 1182 (88 Kenilworth Drive West): Two-story addition to an existing dwelling, partially in a flood zone. Approved unanimously with conditions from EPB and Engineering.
  • CSPR 1183 (30 Woolsey Road): Addition of a second floor over a garage and propane tanks, with full house renovation. Approved unanimously with standard conditions.
  • CSPR 1184 (45 Sagamore Road): In-ground swimming pool, terrace, pergola, and retaining wall. Approved unanimously with conditions.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No members of the public spoke during the public hearing for application 223-43.

Discussion Items

  • Pending Application 223-36 (Historic Preservation): The board reviewed this application that had been continued from a previous meeting. Board members expressed strong support for preserving older housing and creating BMR (Below Market Rate) units. Conditions were reviewed in detail, including a historic preservation bond, easement, parking (23 spaces, one EV charging space), and a parking management plan. The board voted unanimously to approve.
  • Public Hearing - Application 223-43 (375 Fairfield Avenue): The applicant, 375 Fairfield Avenue Associates, proposed constructing two new warehouse/flex industrial commercial buildings on a 9.4-acre site in the MG (General Industrial) district. Building A (3 stories, approx. 54,156 sq ft) is designed as a design center with a casual restaurant and rooftop social space. Building B (1 story, approx. 39,980 sq ft) is a traditional warehouse. The plan includes reducing curb cuts from nine to four, adding a new sidewalk (5 ft wide with a 4 ft amenity strip, a waiver from the standard 6 ft width), extensive landscaping (over 30 trees), and improved stormwater management. The planning board recommended approval. Discussion covered sidewalk width, tree planting, the sustainability scorecard, and traffic. The public hearing was closed, and the decision was deferred to the next meeting.
  • CSPR 1185 (29 Waterbury Avenue): Construction of second and third floors on an existing single-family dwelling. The board had concerns about whether the third floor meets the half-story requirement and about adequate parking. The application was deferred to the next meeting pending additional information and review by the zoning enforcement officer.

Key Outcomes

  • Application 223-36 approved unanimously with conditions.
  • Application 223-43 public hearing closed; decision deferred to next meeting.
  • CSPR 1180, 1182, 1183, 1184 approved unanimously.
  • CSPR 1185 deferred for additional information.
  • The next meeting is scheduled to include a decision on 223-43 and a public hearing for 100 Clinton Avenue (13 million dollar project).

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the zoning board meeting. It's Monday, January 8th. It is uh 6 31 p.m. Uh I would like to see Raquel Smith interested for to be able to vote uh this evening. Uh my name is Bill Morris, and I'm acting as uh as chair tonight. And I would like to introduce my fellow board members and also our staff. We have with us Roseanne McManus here. Uh Jerry Bozak. Present. Smith Anderson. Here. Ralph Blessing. Here. And Vanita Matur. Yeah. Okay. Uh the first item on our agenda is a pending application. It's for a public hearing that was uh closed uh at our last uh meeting. It is application number 223-36. Uh members, uh how do we feel about this particular application? People are in favor, don't like it. Well, first I'd like to say that I think we received all the material that we had requested before closing out at the last uh meeting. And um I think it gave me a clear idea. I um I I think it's a good use of the property. I think it fits with the neighborhood. Um I like anything that we can do that uh preserves any of our um older housing. Yep. Um I think anything we can do to help that. I had mentioned previously, maybe two hearings ago, that I don't like our um well, it's our own regulations that uh with the additional, you know, with preserving the houses that they can shorten um the side yard setback, but you know that's that's something that's already in place. So there's um nothing that can be done about this. So um I think it's a good use of the property. I think we continue to have both we'll have some new BMR units, we'll continue to have some of the low-income units in the front. So I I think it's all good. All right, thank you. Jerry, Mr. Chairman. I I just uh I want to echo uh uh Ms. Ms. McManus. Um I think they were very thoughtful developers. I you know, I we heard from them in regard to the drainage. Uh we we uh received that supplement um documents we were looking for. Uh I love anything that we could do to preserve the history of Stanford and or the continuity. So uh I I'm in favor, I like the project. I think they did a great job. All right, thank you. Raquel. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I'll be back.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com