Stamford Zoning Board Meeting – July 23, 2024 – Text Changes, Special Permits, and BMR Modification
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Stamford Zoning Board Meeting – July 23, 2024
The Stamford Zoning Board held a regular meeting on July 23, 2024, continuing consideration of a text amendment to ease adaptive reuse conversions, approving a special permit to modify affordable housing units at 18 Dock Street, and deliberating on a major residential development at 800 Long Ridge Road. Several items were continued to the July 29 meeting, and two special permits were approved unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Adaptive Reuse Text Change (Application 224-10): Multiple speakers addressed the proposed text change allowing as-of-right conversion of non-conforming buildings (e.g., office to residential).
- Eric Edelman (400 Main St), an adaptive reuse developer, supported the change, arguing it would allow conversion of historic buildings like the Dunkin' Donuts building (Valor Building) that cannot meet current amenity requirements, resulting in more housing and increased tax revenue.
- Barry Michelson (Stanford Neighborhoods Coalition) opposed, stating the proposal undermines statutory zoning by creating an intermediary “less conforming” category and giving the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) powers that belong to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He argued that hardships should be handled case-by-case.
- Dave Adams (29 Foot Rock Rd) opposed, contending the change serves developers’ profit motives, not residents, and that building luxury apartments does not lower rents; he advocated for in-person work to revive office use.
- Michael Batinelli (225 Cologne Rd) opposed, stating the change makes too many things as-of-right and removes discretion from the Zoning Board; he criticized the lack of affordable housing in new projects.
- Monica Twil (37 Hanrahan St) opposed, calling the change confusing, unethical, and favoring developers; she raised concerns about impacts on marijuana dispensaries and the potential for manufacturing’s return.
- Patrick Gatesy (Vineyard Lane) opposed, arguing the text subverts board discretion, that non-conforming uses should require a special permit, and that the ZEO should not determine non-conforming status; he also urged that BMR fee-in-lieu be suspended if extra units are granted.
- Cynthia James (2 Canterbury Green) opposed, stating affordable housing in Stamford is a “joke” and that the board has already sold off historic buildings; she requested preservation and truly affordable housing for seniors.
- Gina Calabries (300 Seaside Ave) expressed no position but questioned infrastructure capacity, noting the Asher building is only 65% occupied, and suggested considering public uses like a city pool.
- Ray Mazio (12 Yerwood Rd), a certified planner, supported the intent, saying existing reuse regulations have worked (e.g., 100 Prospect St) and that incentivizing reuse is more efficient than new construction; he cautioned against losing special permit densities in commercial zones.
- Sue Halpern (30 Alm Craft Rd) opposed, citing concerns about reduced light/air and open space requirements that benefit developers but harm future residents.
- 18 Dock Street BMR Modification (Application 224-27):
- Patrick Gatesy opposed, arguing the reduction from 44 to 34 beds (actually 32 to 20 units) is a cost-saving measure for the developer, not a community benefit; he said the data on demand for two-bedroom units was unsubstantiated and warned of setting a precedent.
- Sue Halpern asked why the number of units changed from 22 to 20 since June 14.
- Cynthia James asked for total unit count (395), management company, and proposed rents.
- Gina Calabries supported the project, noting responsiveness to community need for larger BMR units, but questioned the reduction in three-bedroom units and affordability level calculations.
Discussion Items
- Adaptive Reuse Text Change (224-10): Chief Planning Bureau Officer Ralph Blessing presented calculations showing the formula would not permit densities unsuitable for an area. The board noted a new version was circulated the previous Friday and agreed to continue the public hearing to July 29 to allow review and further public comment. Board members expressed concerns about making non-conforming uses as-of-right and the power of the ZEO.
- Cannabis Retailers Text Change (224-14): The planning board had unanimously recommended approval, with additional language to prohibit such facilities near city parks/beaches. The board continued this application to July 29 for further review.
- 800 Long Ridge Road (224-??): The board discussed the proposed residential conversion of an office park. Members William (Bill) and Roseanne noted they had not envisioned large apartment buildings when the text change was passed. Bill expressed concern about quality of life for neighbors—especially weekend traffic—and felt the applicant did not address neighborhood concerns. Roseanne countered that traffic when the office was full was similar. Jerry split between both views. Raquel echoed concerns about compatibility and urged staff to revisit regulations so the board is not “backed into a corner” by litigation. David supported approval, saying the traffic study was not refuted, and suggested traffic-calming conditions if possible. The board agreed to continue the application to July 29 for a final vote, with members to inform staff of their position by the close of business July 24.
- 91 Hope Street: The board expressed support for the project (including homeownership units) and directed staff to draft conditions of approval, including a landscape maintenance agreement to maintain sight lines as recommended by the traffic engineer. A formal vote was not taken but was expected at the next meeting.
- 1385 Washington Boulevard (Seabright/UConn housing): Approved by unanimous vote (5-0).
- 18 Dock Street BMR Modification (224-27): Attorney Lisa Feinberg presented the request to reduce the number of BMR units from 32 to 20, with larger units (two- and three-bedrooms) at lower AMI levels (40-50% instead of 50%). She emphasized the developer’s desire to meet community need for larger units. Board members Roseanne, Jerry, Raquel, and David supported the proposal, noting it responds to the longest waitlist for two-bedroom units and provides deeper affordability. Bill questioned the benefit of fewer units. The board approved the special permit 5-0.
Key Outcomes
- Adaptive Reuse Text Change (224-10): Continued to July 29, 2024 at 6:30 PM for further public hearing and review of the revised text.
- Cannabis Retailers Text Change (224-14): Continued to July 29, 2024.
- 800 Long Ridge Road: Continued to July 29, 2024 for a vote; board members to submit positions to staff by July 24.
- 91 Hope Street: Board directed staff to draft conditions of approval; formal approval expected at the July 29 meeting.
- 1385 Washington Boulevard (UConn housing): Approved 5-0.
- 18 Dock Street BMR Modification (224-27): Approved 5-0. The special permit allows 20 BMR units (mixed studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom) at 40-45% AMI, based on the equivalency formula in the zoning regulations.
- Adjournment: The board adjourned after noting that August would be off, with next meetings on July 29 and possibly September.
Meeting Transcript
And in this tax change. Because uh, if it comes to floor area, there's no problem. You have the floor area and and it doesn't change, and you just convert it to a different use. You convert uh uh a uh a manufacturing use to an office use, and you have a building that has a certain floor area, and you fit as much office in as as you would think you can fit, but with units per acres, it's different. And this is an example illustrating how that would work in practice. Okay, well, I'm looking at the text change and it's dated February 6, 2024. Is that the latest version? No, there was one send out last Friday, actually per email. And that's where you have all these calculations in it because there's nothing in in this version here about all that. Yes. What the look, how about this? It's it is kind of late. What if we hear from the public and then continue this till next week, and then we can go over the new text that um please that was circulated last Friday? Please thank you. Um so I saw some hands were raised. Umina, let's hear from the public. Yeah, first we have Mr. Steve Garst. Please uh introduce yourself and give us your address, please. Can you unmute um I'll take the next one? Mr. Eric Adela. Hi, everyone, can you hear me? Yes, yes. Um, I would love to be able to share my screen if that's possible. I don't believe you can do that. Okay, um, well, then uh hopefully you guys will be familiar with the building. I'm an adaptive reuse developer. Can um can you give us your your name and address, Mr. Elman name and address, please? Eric Edelman 400 Main Street. Okay, uh I'm an adaptive reuse developer. I specialize in converting historic office buildings into um residential, and so to what Ralph was just speaking about, one of the challenges is oftentimes these buildings are built to the lot line, and so when you look to convert them to residential, even though they're in areas that are already zoned for residential, it's impossible to get them to conform to uh the full residential requirements. So, for example, we have a 33,000 square foot building that we're zoned for all the units we'd like to build, but it requires 3,000 square feet of amenity space that we have nowhere to put because we're keeping the existing elevators, and um there's no space for the 3,000 square feet of amenities we're supposed to put. Um, so while we can fit all the units we'd like uh without the change that Frank's excuse me, Ralph's talking about there's um no ability for us to convert the building, and as a result, this building is already um decreasing in assessment, and so the property tax it contributes each year is declining, it's over 90 percent vacant at this point, and so the situation the city is faced with is do you want um you know vacant over the building was built in 1926, so it you know deteriorating office building that it that contributes less and less property taxes, or is there some relief for developers so that they can convert to a conforming use? Um, but in this case with um less amenity space than would otherwise be required. Um so there's some, but we there's nowhere to fit 3,000 square feet. Um, so this is an example where it benefits the city because it's more housing, it creates a high paying um you know, high tax contributing asset instead of a deteriorating asset, but it does need some help from zoning because as the zoning is currently written, it's it's um it's destined to go to zero basically and just be valued on the land basis and tore down, and it's a it's a historic office building. Um so this this is the Dunkin' Donuts building downtown. It's called the Valor Building, yep. Yeah, okay. It's on the corner of Maine and Atlantic. Um, and so you know, Bill, you made a comment earlier. What is you know, what is the city get by allowing more housing? You know, in this case, it's quite clear, and that the city A gets more housing, B, it gets a huge increase in the tax revenue generated from the building. C it um preserves a historic asset. This building was built in 1926 and is on the National Register of Historic Places. Um, so as a whole, it it's a huge benefit to the city and the counterfactual, which is um, you know, the requirement requirements are so onerous that a developer can't make the project pencil, which you know, if we had to build on the roof and add another elevator um that went up to the roof, uh the deal doesn't work. Um, and so at that point it just sits, you know, as vacant space, and then maybe one day someone will tear it down and uh try to build something there instead. But I think preserving our history in hundred-year-old buildings, um, this is the perfect example of you know what Ralph was talking about about trying to help ease or facilitate the conversion of office to residential.
openpublica.com