Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting – November 19, 2024

The Stamford Zoning Board met on November 19, 2024, at 6:34 PM via Zoom. The meeting included an executive session on a pending litigation matter (900 Long Ridge Road) and public hearings for two applications: a major residential redevelopment at 74 Broad Street and a text amendment to the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing regulations. The board did not vote on either application; the 74 Broad Street hearing was closed and will be voted on at the next meeting, and the BMR text change remained open for public comment. No votes were taken during the executive session.

Executive Session

• The board entered executive session at 6:38 PM to discuss pending litigation (900 Long Ridge Road Property Owner LLC vs. City of Stamford Zoning Board, application 223-34). The session lasted until 7:34 PM. Present were board members, staff (Ralph Blessing, Benita Motter), Law Department representative Cindy Anger, and applicant representatives (Frank Craigill, Yahim Yabari, Lena Gasari, Chris Fulham, Bill Hennessy, Jonathan Triber). No votes were taken.

Public Hearing – Application 224-32: 74 Broad Street (RMS 74 Broad Street, LLC)

The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 123,000 sq ft retail building and construction of a seven-story residential building with 280 apartments, 5,403+ sq ft of retail space, and amenities. The hearing was continued from November 4, 2024.

• Presentation (Ray Mazzy, landscape architect; Rick Redness, attorney; Randy Salvatore, developer):

  • Updated landscaping with mostly native species, a new rain garden/bioswale along Summer Street, expanded tree planting on Broad Street, and a bus shelter on site. The driveway is right-in/right-out only with traffic calming measures.
  • Open space exhibit quantified usable open space: dog run (3,165 sq ft), central courtyard (5,609 sq ft), pool deck (2,711 sq ft), roof terrace (7,745 sq ft) – totaling 19,230 sq ft outdoor, exceeding the 21,000 sq ft requirement when combined with indoor amenity space (up to 50% substitution allowed).
  • Ground floor flexibility: applicant seeks ability to add a mezzanine or expand retail into parking bays, optional bike rack locations, and EV spaces. The retail space south of the lobby is proposed for non-traditional uses (e.g., co-working, exercise) to avoid long-term vacancies seen elsewhere downtown.
  • Walkway/through-block connection: covered arcade along driveway with raised sidewalks and crosswalks; existing alleyway will be improved.
  • Library parking: during daytime, ground floor parking will be open to all; handicap spaces shared with library. A parking management plan will come back to the board before a certificate of occupancy. Future gate for residential levels.
  • Traffic: signal timing changes at Summer/Broad streets suggested by applicant’s traffic engineer (not TTP) were noted; board member raised concerns about congestion from multiple new developments.

• Public Comments (in order of testimony):

  • Dave Adams (29 Flint Rock Road): Questioned setback to library coffee shop (not required for government building), the green space replacing a striped area (emergency stop), and asked about affordable housing.
  • Mike Moore (President of Stamford Downtown): Expressed strong support for the project as proposed, advocating for flexibility and no additional conditions. Praised developer’s track record.
  • Kathy Kligler (21 Friar Tuck Lane): Concerned about pedestrian safety exiting garage and library parking during evening hours.
  • Monica Twell (37 Hanrahan Street): Opposed the project, citing traffic congestion, loss of driving space, bus stop issues, utility space blocking emergency access, darkness from seven stories, and concerns about library parking.
  • Gina Calabries (300 Seaside Avenue): Questioned demographics of residents and occupancy rates of new buildings (Asher over 80% occupied), overall vision for downtown, demand for apartments, and lack of middle-income housing.
  • Cynthia Bowser (30 Rood Park Avenue): Concerned about traffic congestion on Broad Street, one-sided development, and asked about occupancy of Asher.
  • Dave Adams (second comment): Inquired about on-site affordable housing (10% of units, pro rata, no fee in lieu).

• Applicant responses:

  • BMR units will be provided on site at 10% of units, no fee in lieu.
  • Setbacks: not required in downtown; continuous pedestrian frontage preferred.
  • Green space: added per TTP request; applicant willing to remove if board prefers.
  • Traffic: study incorporated approved but unbuilt developments; no issues identified.
  • Library parking: open during day; evening hours may be subject to gates or permits; coordination with library ongoing.
  • Demographics: anecdotal evidence shows low vehicle trips from downtown residential projects; Asher over 80% occupied.

• Board discussion: Questions about usable open space dimensions (added to plan), north and east elevations (updated to final, materials shown), and traffic concerns. No board member indicated opposition.

• Outcome: Public hearing closed. The application will be voted on at the next meeting.

Break

The board took a 10-minute break at 9:00 PM and resumed at 9:10 PM.

Public Hearing – Application 224-24: BMR Text Amendment

This item was continued from November 4, 2024. Emily Gordon, Principal Housing Planner, presented.

• Presentation:

  • Overview of Stanford’s Below Market Rate program (created 2001, one of first inclusionary zoning programs in the country). Current requirement: 10% of units (12% in some districts) affordable at 50% of Area Median Income (AMI), permanently deed restricted. Fee in lieu option (special permit) used by about 11% of projects; $33 million collected, funding 147 units (average subsidy ~$86,000/unit).
  • Proposed changes: increase percentage from 10% to 14% in most districts; allow affordability range from 40% to 50% AMI (with board approval for other levels); make fee in lieu as-of-right (rather than special permit); incentivize smaller developers (additional units for BMR contributions); limit use of 80% AMI for rentals (cap at 65% AMI); require lottery for rental units; increase base FAR and reduce premium FAR in some districts; require more replacement units for demolished affordable units; clarify restrictions on additional fees for BMR tenants.
  • Rationale: housing affordability plan identified need to scale up investments; current funding per capita is $7/year, target is $35/year ($5 million). Fee in lieu funds can leverage other sources (state/federal) and fund diverse units (family-sized, supportive, senior) not typically built on site.
  • Affordable Housing Trust Fund balance: ~$480,000; one application for $400,000 in December.

• Board discussion:

  • Jerry Bozak: Favored increasing percentage; surprised fee in lieu use was only 11%.
  • Roseanne: Initially wary of as-of-right fee in lieu, but acknowledged flexibility and leverage benefits; comfortable with changes.
  • David Stein (Chair): Noted as-of-right fee in lieu may encourage more contributions; funds can spread affordable units across city (not just downtown/south end). Also noted reduction in fee in lieu base year (from Dec 2019 to Jan 2024) lowers payments slightly.
  • Bill Morris: Asked about using expedited permit processing to incentivize BMR; discussion of potential benefits (reducing regulatory costs). Board agreed to research case studies.
  • Overall board sentiment: supportive of the text amendment, with some open questions about as-of-right and percentage.

• Public Comments:

  • Barry Michelson (Stanford Neighborhoods Coalition, Idlewood Drive): Expressed opposition, arguing BMR program is a tax on development that increases base housing costs, discourages maintenance/renovation, and locks homeowners into deed restrictions preventing generational wealth. Cited studies by Mercatus Institute. Also noted social impacts of concentrated subsidized housing.
  • Dave Adams (29 Flint Rock Road): Opposed as-of-right fee in lieu, arguing board should retain discretion.

• Outcome: Public hearing remains open; no vote taken. The board will continue discussion at a future meeting.

Key Outcomes

• No votes taken on any application during this meeting.
• Application 224-32 (74 Broad Street) closed; voting scheduled for next meeting (date not specified).
• Application 224-24 (BMR text change) hearing continued; no date set for next discussion.
• Application 224-31 (modifications to various regulations, including pet shops) not reached; will be carried to a future meeting.
• The board noted the need to coordinate with the library and fire marshal on parking and access for 74 Broad Street.

Note: The meeting agenda and minutes were not available; this summary is based solely on the transcript of the November 19, 2024 meeting. The transcript itself states the meeting date as November 18, 2024, but the specified meeting date was used as instructed.