Stamford Zoning Board Meeting: September 10, 2024 – EV Charger Text Amendment, Acting ZEO, Coastal Reviews
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Stamford Zoning Board Meeting – September 10, 2024
The Stamford Zoning Board met on September 10, 2024, to consider several applications including a text amendment for electric vehicle charging stations with electronic displays, a text change to create an acting Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) position, and coastal site plan reviews. The board also approved minutes and discussed upcoming agenda items.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Juanika Twil (37 Hanrahan Street) expressed opposition to the EV charger text amendment, raising concerns about radiation, screen intensity, costs borne by consumers, types of advertisements, and decommissioning responsibilities.
- Mr. Michaelson (Idawood Drive) opposed the EV charger proposal, calling it a "honky tongue proposal" and arguing that EV production is declining, subsidies are inappropriate, and such screens cheapen the community.
- Juanika Twil also questioned the cost to taxpayers of the acting ZEO text change.
Discussion Items
1. Application 224-23 – Text Amendment for EV Charging Stations with Electronic Displays (Volta/Shell)
- Presentation: Attorney Maximilian Maholik presented on behalf of Volta (now a Shell company). The amendment would permit EV chargers with electronic displays as an accessory use in certain districts, with design standards (static images, dimmers, 50-foot setbacks, hours matching principal use, etc.). The business model uses advertising revenue to subsidize charging costs.
- Planning Board Recommendation: Unanimous approval with a recommendation to limit charging stations to a maximum of four per parking area and to tie display hours to store hours or facility operation hours.
- Board Discussion: Members raised questions about:
- Distinction between "parking lot" and "parking facility" – board suggested changing to "parking facility" to include structured parking.
- Limitation of four chargers per parking area – discussion of a ratio (e.g., 4 per 100 spaces) but no final decision.
- Prohibition of sound – agreed to add to regulations.
- Inclusion of "subsidized rates" – board member David requested a reference to subsidized rates, but attorney noted enforcement concerns. Board asked to include it.
- Clarification that screens are not distracting to drivers – agreed to add "nor distract" to the impairment language.
- Residential applications – board clarified that in residential districts, chargers with displays are only permitted inside parking structures, not in open lots.
- Outcome: The public hearing was continued for the applicant to provide a revised draft incorporating the board's feedback. The board requested a redline version in Word format.
2. Application 224-17 – Text Change to Create Acting ZEO Position
- Presentation: Ralph Blessing (Land Use Bureau Chief) explained the need for a clear succession plan when the ZEO is absent. The amendment would make the deputy ZEO the acting ZEO; if no deputy exists, the zoning board would appoint an acting ZEO.
- Board Discussion: No objections. A member clarified that the text addresses both scenarios – if a deputy is in place, they automatically act; if not, the board appoints.
- Public Comment: Juanika Twil asked about taxpayer cost; Blessing responded that compensation would be determined through the budget process.
- Outcome: The board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the text change.
3. Coastal Site Plan Reviews
- CSPR 1201 – 95 Sound View Drive (Anderson): Application to raise existing single-family residence above FEMA flood elevation, including decks, garage, and flood vents. Approved 4-0 with conditions from Environmental Protection Board (EPB), Engineering, DEP, and Harbor Management.
- CSPR 1196 – 216 Davenport Drive (Fang/Yu): Application to raise existing equipment pad and replace AC condensers. Approved 4-0 with conditions from EPB, Engineering, DEP, and Harbor Management.
4. Minutes and Other Business
- Minutes from July 29, 2024, were approved 4-0.
- The board noted upcoming agenda items: continued text changes on parking, non-conforming uses, and Section 1 (purpose section) after an appeal, as well as Riverbend and Volta items.
Key Outcomes
- Application 224-23 (EV charger text amendment): Hearing continued; applicant to submit revised draft incorporating board suggestions.
- Application 224-17 (Acting ZEO): Approved 4-0.
- CSPR 1201 (95 Sound View Drive): Approved 4-0 with conditions.
- CSPR 1196 (216 Davenport Drive): Approved 4-0 with conditions.
- Minutes: Approved 4-0.
Note: Application 224-11 was mentioned as closed but no discussion or vote was recorded for this meeting.
Meeting Transcript
I'm good. Okay. So application 224-11 is closed. And it sounds like the next step would be for staff to why don't you incorporate the changes, some of the changes we discussed tonight and get a new draft out to the uh to the board. Yes, and we can do that. Um then we can uh deliberate it. So um hey Rick, thank you for and thank you to the public for all of your comments. And um it'll be on uh either the next for the next meeting or the meeting after that. I will have to see where we can uh will we have room on the agenda. Um good thank you. Um next, we have uh application two two two four two three McPherson Taylor on behalf of Volta Charging LLC 2200 Bedford Street Text Change. Amend Section 12L by adding a new subsection 12L3 to add standards for charging stations with electronic displays. Um Roseanne, could you read the planning board letter on this, please? Certainly. June June 27th, 2024 to Mr. David Stein chair, City of Stanford Zoning Board regarding ZB application 224-23. Dear Mr. Stein and members of the zoning board. During its regularly scheduled meeting held on Tuesday, June 25th, 2024, the planning board reviewed the above caption application referred in accordance with the requirements of the Stanford Charter. Applicant is proposing to amend Section 12 L by adding a new subsection 12 L3 to add standards for charging stations with electronic displays. Christopher uh Christopher Fisher, Cudi and Fetter, LLP and Dean Apostolaris, Project Engineer, Kim Lee Horn and Associates made a presentation and answered questions from the board. After some discussion, the planning board unanimously voted to recommend approval of CD application 224-23 with a recommendation. The number of EV charging station display kiosks be limited to a maximum of four depending on the panel lights. Our time are time to turn on off in accordance with store hours and the timing of panel lights at 24 hour facilities be looked at for hours of operation. The board found this request to be in general harmony with the 2015 master plan, and it's aligned with master plan strategy 714 to encourage private applicants to install vehicle charging stations and the master plan objective promoting alternative modes of transportation to support cleaner air and reduce fuel consumption. The application also recognizes the importance of separation from residentially sound property, protecting residential neighborhoods from intrusion of advertising and light, which goes towards the preservation of the residential character. Sincerely, Stanford Planning Board, Teresa Dell Chair. Good. Thank you. Someone who's making the presentation on behalf of the applicant. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Maximilian Maholik with the law firm of Cutting and Federer on the behalf of Volta, a Shell Company. I am joined here this evening with Matt Taylor. He is with Shell. I thank the board for taking the time to consider this amendment. So I'm going to share screen the draft proposed amendment. So that screen should be sharing. Did it pop up on your end? Yes. Great. So you make it bigger. Uh sure. Let me see. Great. Great. So this amendment seeks to permit electric vehicle chargers with electronic displays. Why this specific business model is because those electronic displays create a revenue stream that then permits Volta to allow for subsidized charge for users. So for example, if one was to charge their electric vehicle up the road in a different municipality where there is no uh subsidized charge, where there's none of the displays with electric ads, then you're looking at say perhaps 70 cents per kilowatt hour. But if you have that subsidized charge through a revenue stream, you're going to reduce that price, say 50 cents per kilowatt hour, 60 cents per kilowatt hour.
openpublica.com