Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Stamford Zoning Board Meeting – July 9, 2024: Discussion of 91 Hope Street Development and Coastal Permits

Zoning Board — Tuesday, July 9, 2024

BodyStamford, Connecticut

SessionZoning Board

DateTuesday, July 9, 2024

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 55:01

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

Emily Court at all.

0:02

But there should be some idea that if this property would fit maybe eight, six or eight single family homes, there probably is a number that would make this still profitable for the developer, but not make it so there's the traffic issue, Mr.

0:23

Disraeli was saying.

0:25

Um, make the people who are abutting this property want to sell their homes because once they sell their homes, the dominoes start to fall.

0:33

And then it's the people across the street.

0:35

And then House Avenue is a big development.

0:37

And then Pierce Place is a big development.

0:40

So that's where we're coming from.

0:41

I know everyone who's developing thinks, oh, this is great.

0:45

We want to put homes, but we are worried about the domino effect of the neighbors on house selling their homes because this property is.

0:58

I'll just wrap it up there.

1:00

That was my uh reason to, I don't support the zoning change if this is their proposal.

1:05

I do support new homes in this area.

1:10

Town homes probably are a good idea if that's what they feel is going to be profitable and make this a good use of space, but 27 units sounds absurd to me.

1:20

That sounds way too many.

1:22

Uh so thank you for everyone staying up so late for the meeting.

1:26

Good.

1:26

Thank you.

1:29

Um, next we have Ms.

1:30

Gananda.

1:32

Can everyone hear me?

1:34

Yes.

1:35

Thank you.

1:36

Okay.

1:38

Good evening, members of the zoning board.

1:40

My name is Carolyn Roth, and I live at Fourhouse Avenue adjacent to the proposed townhouses at 91 Hope.

1:46

Well, I appreciate Mr.

1:48

Capalbo's willingness to address many of our concerns.

1:51

I remain concerned about the number of units, specifically unit 20, which comes close to my property line.

1:58

In the proposed plan, this unit is less than 30 feet from my backyard, allowing condo residents to have a direct line of sight into my home and outdoor space.

2:08

This concern is heightened by the fact that the grading will be raised by 10 feet, effectively making the buildings three and a half stories tall instead of the stated two and a half stories.

2:18

This invasion of privacy would make it difficult for my family to enjoy our property without feeling constantly observed.

2:26

Well, we appreciate the efforts to preserve the large trees on the property.

2:30

We are aware that construction activities can significantly impact their health and survival.

2:35

Trenching, grading, and excavation can sever or damage roots, leading to tree death, heavy machinery and foot traffic compact the soil, reducing air and water availability to roots, making growth difficult.

2:50

Construction can also alter natural drainage patterns, physically damage trees, introduce toxic substances into the soil, and change the light, wind, and temperature around trees, all of which can stress and affect their growth.

3:04

To ensure privacy, I urge you to consider another location for unit 20 or an increased setback to preserve the privacy and quality of life for existing residents.

3:14

Finally, I would like to ensure that there is a comprehensive landscape package and fence on our property as promised verbally.

3:22

In the latest Stanford zoning regulations passed in May, there is a commitment to minimizing and mitigating development impacts as well as addressing climate change.

3:31

Stanford Land Use Bureau, Chief Ralph Blessing mentioned that these regulations were included to meet a multitude of zoning challenges, including open space and tree planting.

3:41

I hope we can save the trees that have been here for a hundred years rather than counting on planting new ones.

3:47

I am not opposed to 91 Hope Street being developed, but I am opposed to the current plans for 26 units.

3:54

I really hope you consider reducing the number.

3:57

Finally, I would like to note that we have not received any information on the developer who wants to build on this lot.

4:03

This lack of information adds to the uncertainty and concern among the residents.

4:08

Thank you to everyone for the consideration and your time tonight.

4:13

Good.

4:14

Thank you.

4:16

Next, we have Miss Evelyn Simpson.

4:21

Good evening.

4:22

Can you hear me?

4:23

Yes.

4:24

Yes.

4:24

Okay, thank you.

4:25

Um, my name is Evelyn Simpson, and I have been a resident at House Avenue in Glenbrook for over 30 years.

4:31

Tonight I am speaking against the proposal for the development of the parcel in 91 Hope Street.

4:38

The proposal has obvious negative impacts on many areas, including environment, traffic, property values, infrastructure, resources, and even the schools.

4:49

We are hoping to get families.

4:51

Doesn't seem like anyone's really looked into the whole school situation in Stanford.

5:00

Um, it also blatantly ignores and violates the crop policies of the master plan and skims over some of the policies of the zoning board.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Planning and Zoning██████████████████████████████████34%

Zoning████████████████████████████28%

Procedural█████████████████17%

Traffic█████████9%

Environmental Protection█████████9%

Drainage Management██2%

Landscaping█1%

Summary of Proceedings

Stamford Zoning Board Meeting – July 9, 2024

The Stamford Zoning Board met on July 9, 2024, to consider a rezoning application for a proposed 26-unit townhouse development at 91 Hope Street, as well as several coastal site plan review applications and an extension of time for a previous approval. Public testimony dominated the hearing on the Hope Street project, with numerous neighboring residents expressing opposition. The board voted unanimously to approve all coastal permit applications and the extension of time, and continued the Hope Street application to a future meeting.

Consent Calendar

Minutes Approval: The minutes from the June 24, 2024 meeting were approved by a 4-0 vote.

Public Comments & Testimony

Carolyn Roth (4 House Avenue): Opposed the current plan for 26 units at 91 Hope Street. Expressed concerns about unit 20 being less than 30 feet from her property line, the grading raising effective building height to 3.5 stories, invasion of privacy, potential tree damage from construction, and lack of information about the developer. Urged reconsideration of the number of units and requested a comprehensive landscape package and fence.
Evelyn Simpson (House Avenue, over 30 years resident): Spoke against the proposal, citing negative impacts on environment, traffic, property values, infrastructure, and schools. Argued the development violates the city's master plan, which calls for preserving low-density residential character, and noted the parcel is medium-density surrounded by low-density lots. Opposed zoning change.
Sam Disraeli (3 Nash Place, family owned for nearly 50 years): Opposed the zoning change from R7.5 to RM1 and the plan itself. Asserted the attorney made multiple misstatements, including that the property is predominantly paved (said only half paved), and that the entire property is in master plan zone 3 (argued only frontage is zone 3, majority is zone 2 for single-family). Claimed proposed setback lines are not met, and that buildings would be 3.5 stories despite being presented as 2.5. Stated drainage would be inadequate. Urged the board to vote no.
Lori Constantine (3 House Avenue, 26 years resident): Urged the board to decline the rezoning. Described the plan as causing dramatic alteration of landscape, stormwater issues, and creation of an urban heat island due to excessive impervious surfaces. Contended the project is inconsistent with adjacent properties' 50% open space. Invoked the city's climate summit and commitments to environmental preservation. Concluded the project is an environmental catastrophe.
Johanna Cornecki (2 House Avenue, 24 years resident): Asked the applicant to clarify grading and elevation – whether units are 2.5 or 3.5 stories – noting confusion due to above-ground garages.
Monica (12, 37 Hangraham Street): Opposed the plan, citing too many condos on a small lot on a hill, drainage problems, inconsistency with neighborhood character (mature trees, beautiful homes). Hoped the board would reject the application.
Pete Bersamperi (16 Paris Place): Noted increased traffic using House Avenue as a cut-through to I-95, and asked what the developer would do to mitigate traffic if the project proceeds.

Discussion Items

91 Hope Street Rezoning & Development (Application 2233 and 22404): The board heard public testimony and then received responses from the applicant's attorney, Mr. Capalbo. He stated the traffic report was reviewed by the city's traffic department, and site distances are adequate. He clarified setback distances: unit 16 is 23.4 feet from property line, unit 20 is 29.4 feet, rear yard 30 feet, side yards 10 feet (one side increased to 14 feet at neighbor request), front yard 25 feet – all meeting RM1 requirements. He asserted the entire parcel is in master plan designation 3 (low-density multifamily), contrary to Mr. Disraeli's claim. He acknowledged a "substantial portion" of the property is paved, and a quarter acre in the rear is vegetated. He defended drainage design as adequate. Regarding traffic mitigation on House Avenue, he said they would ask the traffic department if anything can be done. On building height, architects explained that the garage level is treated as a basement (less than 5 feet ceiling height from average grade) and thus not counted as a story, resulting in 2.5 stories above. The average grade is raised by fill behind the buildings to create usable backyards. The building height from average grade is 28 feet 7 inches, under the 30-foot limit. Board members questioned the fill height and whether fill more than 3 feet above existing grade counts for height measurement. Chairman Stein directed staff to work with the zoning enforcement officer to provide a calculation confirming compliance. The board voted to continue this application to the next meeting on July 22, 2024.
Coastal Site Plan Reviews (CSPR):
- CSPR 1191 – Robert Malerano, 45 Ocean Drive North: Small additions – no increase in impervious surface. Approved 4-0 with conditions.
- CSPR 1193 – Jerry & Paulette Firestone, 199 Dolphin Cove Key: Demolish and rebuild new home outside VE zone. Approved 4-0 subject to comment letters.
- CSPR 1198 – Tamara & David Dykman, 46 Ocean Drive North: Demolish and rebuild, elevating house above VE zone to 20 feet. Approved 4-0 with conditions.
- CSPR 1197 – Alexandra Mock, 1285 Chipan Avenue: New single-family residence on a subdivided lot. Approved 4-0 subject to comment letters.
Extension of Time – Application 222225 (Vault Place LLC / 80 Prospect Partners): Applicant requested a one-year extension to October 21, 2025, citing ongoing financing negotiations and resolution of a storm sewer location issue involving the city and a state grant. Board granted the extension 4-0.

Key Outcomes

91 Hope Street Application (2233 & 22404): Continued to July 22, 2024, at 6:30 PM on Zoom. The board requested a height calculation from staff.
CSPR 1191, 1193, 1198, 1197: All approved by 4-0 votes, subject to conditions in comment letters.
Extension of Time (222225): Approved by 4-0 vote to October 21, 2025.
Adjournment: Meeting adjourned after scheduling a potential third meeting on July 29 if needed.

Meeting Transcript

Emily Court at all. But there should be some idea that if this property would fit maybe eight, six or eight single family homes, there probably is a number that would make this still profitable for the developer, but not make it so there's the traffic issue, Mr. Disraeli was saying. Um, make the people who are abutting this property want to sell their homes because once they sell their homes, the dominoes start to fall. And then it's the people across the street. And then House Avenue is a big development. And then Pierce Place is a big development. So that's where we're coming from. I know everyone who's developing thinks, oh, this is great. We want to put homes, but we are worried about the domino effect of the neighbors on house selling their homes because this property is. I'll just wrap it up there. That was my uh reason to, I don't support the zoning change if this is their proposal. I do support new homes in this area. Town homes probably are a good idea if that's what they feel is going to be profitable and make this a good use of space, but 27 units sounds absurd to me. That sounds way too many. Uh so thank you for everyone staying up so late for the meeting. Good. Thank you. Um, next we have Ms. Gananda. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Good evening, members of the zoning board. My name is Carolyn Roth, and I live at Fourhouse Avenue adjacent to the proposed townhouses at 91 Hope. Well, I appreciate Mr. Capalbo's willingness to address many of our concerns. I remain concerned about the number of units, specifically unit 20, which comes close to my property line. In the proposed plan, this unit is less than 30 feet from my backyard, allowing condo residents to have a direct line of sight into my home and outdoor space. This concern is heightened by the fact that the grading will be raised by 10 feet, effectively making the buildings three and a half stories tall instead of the stated two and a half stories. This invasion of privacy would make it difficult for my family to enjoy our property without feeling constantly observed. Well, we appreciate the efforts to preserve the large trees on the property. We are aware that construction activities can significantly impact their health and survival. Trenching, grading, and excavation can sever or damage roots, leading to tree death, heavy machinery and foot traffic compact the soil, reducing air and water availability to roots, making growth difficult. Construction can also alter natural drainage patterns, physically damage trees, introduce toxic substances into the soil, and change the light, wind, and temperature around trees, all of which can stress and affect their growth. To ensure privacy, I urge you to consider another location for unit 20 or an increased setback to preserve the privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Finally, I would like to ensure that there is a comprehensive landscape package and fence on our property as promised verbally. In the latest Stanford zoning regulations passed in May, there is a commitment to minimizing and mitigating development impacts as well as addressing climate change. Stanford Land Use Bureau, Chief Ralph Blessing mentioned that these regulations were included to meet a multitude of zoning challenges, including open space and tree planting. I hope we can save the trees that have been here for a hundred years rather than counting on planting new ones. I am not opposed to 91 Hope Street being developed, but I am opposed to the current plans for 26 units. I really hope you consider reducing the number. Finally, I would like to note that we have not received any information on the developer who wants to build on this lot. This lack of information adds to the uncertainty and concern among the residents. Thank you to everyone for the consideration and your time tonight. Good. Thank you. Next, we have Miss Evelyn Simpson. Good evening.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com