Stamford Zoning Board Meeting: May 7, 2024 - Public Hearing on Nautilus Dispensary and Other Actions
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Stamford Zoning Board Meeting - May 7, 2024
The Stamford Zoning Board held a public hearing on a special permit application for a cannabis dispensary (Nautilus) at the boatyard location, which was continued to May 20, 2024. The board also denied Air Wellness, discussed Butter Cannabis, approved a text amendment to the purpose clause, and took other actions.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes from April 29, 2024: Approved 5-0.
- CSPR 1174 (generator at 77 Kennelworth Drive): Approved 5-0 with conditions from Engineering, DPB, and EPB.
- Application 223-42 (map change to NXD at 208 West Avenue): Approved 5-0.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Joanne Laureraca (owner of Giovanni's restaurant, Stamford resident) opposed the Nautilus dispensary, citing proximity to family restaurant, neighborhood safety, underage exposure, existing dispensary a mile away, and traffic concerns.
- Henry Dexy (president of Darien YMCA board, Darien resident) opposed, citing the location's proximity to I-95, incompatibility with residential area, and that new zoning maps would deem the site unsuitable. He also questioned the applicant's litigation strategy.
- Michael Quo (Darien resident) opposed, citing a school bus stop 880 feet away, foot traffic from I-95, and existing parking issues on Brookside Drive.
- Alejandro Cremarez (Darien resident) opposed, citing a University of South Carolina study on crime rates and home prices, and a 25% increase in youth consumption near dispensaries.
- John Ward (Darien resident) opposed, citing traffic congestion at the intersection, safety concerns at Hindley School and YMCA, and noting a police car was previously stationed to help pedestrians cross.
- Patrick Casey (Stamford resident) opposed, arguing the board has discretion to deny, criticizing the ITE traffic study based on only four dispensaries, and questioning the applicant's claim of no flooding at the site.
- Alan Calver (18-year-old, Wheat Avenue resident) opposed, citing traffic dangers, 18% crime increase near dispensaries, pollution, and normalization of marijuana among youth.
- Christy Calver (Wheat Avenue resident) opposed, citing a traffic study conducted in February during school break, inadequate parking lot aisle widths, and pedestrian/cyclist safety. She requested a new traffic study during normal conditions.
- Victoria O'Rourke (Darien resident) opposed, citing traffic, pedestrian safety, incompatibility with residential area, and the new master plan.
- Susan Bell (Hope Street resident) opposed, citing existing dispensary traffic on Hope Street and calling Stamford the "marijuana capital of Fairfield County."
- Edgar Devilder (52-year Stamford resident) opposed, arguing the applicant lacks a permitted use approval under Section 5E, as the zoning board never granted the required special permit for adult-use cannabis.
- Jacqueline Tyler (architect, Darien resident) opposed, citing conflict with master plan section 6a, recent proposed text revisions prohibiting dispensaries adjacent to residential districts, and traffic study deficiencies. She noted over 1,000 signatures on a petition.
- Alison Crongaard (cancer survivor, Stamford resident) spoke in favor, arguing that legal cannabis is expensive and not used by derelicts, that liquor stores and drug stores are more prevalent, and that the board should provide safe legal access.
Discussion Items
- Nautilus Dispensary (Application 224-16): The board heard testimony from the applicant about flooding, drainage, and landscaping. The applicant's representative (Connie) stated that the building would be flood-vented to increase flood storage, and that the parking lot is exempt from stormwater management due to lawful non-conforming status and an exemption under section 2.2 of the drainage manual. The board questioned traffic generation, community outreach, and consumption concerns. Due to the large number of public speakers, the hearing was continued to May 20, 2024.
- Air Wellness (Application 223-45): The board discussed a draft denial resolution based on the finding that B1C constitutes a non-public school under the regulations, making the dispensary within 1,000 feet of a school, and failure to meet special permit findings. The board voted 4-0 to deny.
- Butter Cannabis (Application 223-46): The board debated whether Yearwood Center (run by Boys & Girls Club) qualifies as a school. Staff reported similar programming to B1C, including educational activities and a licensed summer program, and the distance is 800 feet. Board members noted that no representatives from the institutions testified. They will review staff reports and consider both denial and approval resolutions at the next meeting.
- Text Amendment 224-05 (Purpose Clause): Ralph presented changes adding points on urban design, development impacts, infrastructure, environmental resources, sustainability, and resiliency. Approved 4-1, with Jerry opposed citing uniformity concerns.
- Other Items: The board scheduled the next meeting for May 20, 2024, and discussed the agenda for the May 9 site visit for 800 Long Ridge Road.
Key Outcomes
- Nautilus Dispensary public hearing continued to May 20, 2024, at 6:30 PM on Zoom.
- Air Wellness denied (4-0).
- Butter Cannabis decision deferred to next meeting; staff to draft both approval and denial resolutions.
- Text Amendment 224-05 approved (4-1).
- CSPR 1174 approved (5-0).
- Application 223-42 (map change) approved (5-0).
- Minutes from April 29 approved (5-0).
- Meeting adjourned at approximately 11:30 PM.
Meeting Transcript
It looks like the building, the lower level, maybe two-thirds of it is bisected by the flood zone as FEMA mapped it. And the only thing uh I got I'm trying to trouble understanding. The only thing you're re as you understand your required to do is put in vents. So the water capacity of the building, we're all knocking it down. Is that correct? Well, it acts in two ways. Not only does it eliminate the structural integrity issue, as you pointed out, it also provides more um flood storage capacity in the floodplain, which is where the FEMA regulations come from, is to prevent flooding from expanding beyond where it's been mapped. Buildings that are built in the flood zone that aren't properly flood vented would be essentially a void if you think about if you put you know a box in the water, you're just placing that water somewhere. If you do that over time, building along the coast, you create a larger floodplain. So that's why theme is guidance for structures that are built in the floodplain. In this case, this is a pre-existing one, their requirements are to allow that water to equalize, thus creating more comp uh flood storage capacity within that floodplain, which is what we're doing here. Okay, and it could you tell me how much uh the depths of flood will be in the in portions of the parking area, which is going to be flooded. Uh it'll range the parking lot slopes. So they're you know, right up against the building, we're at elevation eight. You're looking at three feet as we as we slope, you know, towards the back, it it could vary. I don't have the you know the exact number in front of me right here, but it'll vary. So the flooding event again, or all the cars would have to be moved, right? So it sounds like uh the ones the ones along the water. You know, if you take a look at the existing conditions map, you'll see where the where the theme line is mapped. Um it's really the eastern portion uh of the parking, the vast majority of the parking area, uh, especially as you come up along the building, that's all outside the flood zone. Okay. Um enough of this. Uh okay, Dave, that's it for me. Now I'll probably have more later, but okay. Thank you, Mr. Is the applicant required to do anything to the parking lot for um drainage. We don't believe so, uh, Mrs. Stein, but if you see Fenton impose a condition of approval, um that for instance we get engineering approval or exemption prior to a building permit, as Mr. Lewinstein testified, we can do that. The reason that we believe that we're exempt is severalfold. Number one, we have a lawful, non-conforming parking lot that we are just restriping. We are not doing anything uh to increase the building footprint. As a matter of fact, we're decreasing impervious surface um by removing the shed, the gravel area, um, and we're replacing that with native plantings, we're going to be improving uh stormwater, we're gonna be improving the riverbank. The uh the second uh reason is that even you know if we were um considered new development or redevelopment or land disturbance, none of which were dim. There's a provision in the drainage manual, section 2.2, um, that allows for an exemption from the stormwater uh management uh requirement for precisely the situation. We meet every one of the requirements for that exemption. The uh requirements are as follows. We create less than 400 square feet of impervious surface. Uh we uh will not adversely impact any of the adjacent properties, uh, which uh Mr. Loenstein has certified uh in response to engineering's comments. We will not result in any new or increased discharges to high quality waters or storm water. We will not discharge water directly to or within 500 feet of a tidal wetland. We are not designated as a direct waterfront parcel according to the drainage man. Therefore, even if we were development or redevelopment or uh disturbing any land, which none of which we are, we are uh entitled to to this exemption from engineering. Even you wanted us to to do stormwater management. We could do so as a condition of approval. And the only arguably applicable standard would be that we simply because we have a parking lot that we we treat uh the standard that uh I mentioned before, and Mr. Loenstein testified that we could treat. So we respectfully ask that, you know, as as EPB said that you give us condition of approval that we either demonstrate exemption or uh stormwater management approval from engineering. This the Stanford zoning regulations give give that discretion to to engineer.
openpublica.com