Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Summary - October 20, 2025

Zoning Board — Tuesday, October 21, 2025

BodyStamford, Connecticut

SessionZoning Board

DateTuesday, October 21, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:46:04

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

0:05

We have everyone.

0:07

We do.

0:09

Okay.

0:10

The uh zoning board hearing um is resuming.

0:15

It's now uh 9 12 p.m.

0:18

on October 20th.

0:20

And um why don't we continue with um questions from the board?

0:27

Um attorney K.

0:29

Case you you did complete your uh presentation, right?

0:33

We have, Mr.

0:34

Chairman.

0:34

Okay, good.

0:36

Um would you like to start?

0:44

Sure, right?

0:45

Very interesting uh application we have here before us.

0:50

Uh a couple things.

0:54

Uh Mr.

0:55

Kase made a statement in Durham's presentation, which I found very interesting.

0:59

He said that uh that they're overparked, and that's a good thing.

1:03

Why is that a good thing?

1:08

It's a good thing because there won't be any problem in terms of parking for the residents or the guests, and I would note for the record that most of the parking is taking place interior, that is either in the garage at the apartment building or in the garages uh in the townhouses.

1:30

There's very little surface parking, which frankly uh underscores the point uh made by Derek before that we've greatly reduced the impervious uh surface on the parcel.

1:48

But why do you feel you need uh to be overparked?

1:51

Are our parking regulations too low now?

1:53

No, they're not.

1:55

Uh, but we believe that uh in the interest of uh making sure there's adequate parking, we've been able to provide spaces that exceed what is required, not because uh we think there's an issue, but because we feel uh we've not only complied with your regulations, but we've more than satisfied them.

2:24

And how overparked is it?

2:26

What is the actual number that is overparked?

2:32

Well, in the RMF district, uh there are um 294 spaces required, and we are providing 300.

2:50

In uh the RM1 district, the total parking required is 135, and we're providing 174.

3:04

But that includes, Mr.

3:05

Morris, uh the interior garage spaces and the tandem space that's allowed in the driveway under your regulations.

3:16

So there's very few spaces that are outside of the buildings themselves or the driveway to the uh units in the RM1 district.

3:33

So the the reason I asked the question is because it's appears recently that we we've received we've viewed several applications which make the same statement.

3:43

They're overparked.

3:44

It seems to be a tendency to seem to be coming out.

3:47

I'm just curious why all of a sudden for years we spent time we had too many parking places and it cost too much.

3:53

Now we're overparking.

3:54

I just find it interesting.

3:57

I think frankly, as uh one of the reasons is that many of the applications that have come before the board and have asked for reductions in parking are either very close to the transportation center or in the urban core where there are other parking uh facilities available and other means of transportation more readily available.

4:22

I think when you start to move into this district, uh it's prudent uh to have met your requirements, not seek a reduction, and to the extent we have a few extra spaces, we think that's a bonus for the residents, we think it's a bonus for the neighborhood, and we think it's a bonus for the community.

4:44

Interesting.

4:45

The um regarding your your your traffic study, your your uh traffic impact study.

5:00

Um, you know, I read your study and then I read you know the documents we got from TTP, and it just there seems to be a lot of concern at TTP that the streets aren't wide enough, there's not enough sidewalks, a lot of issues.

5:08

Are you gonna be able to deal with all these I'm I'm led to believe by our team, and I'll I'll pass the baton to Kimberly that we can easily address the issues that have been raised by TTP.

5:26

Street widening the addition, I mean they're asking for a lot of stuff.

5:31

I I just find it, yeah.

5:32

Okay, we'll go to your traffic person.

5:35

I guess or in uh excuse me, this is Derek Donet from D'Andrea.

5:39

Let me just interject real quick because we just had a uh site meeting with Luke uh Buttonweezer out there to review he had requests about um uh improvements along both Barrie Place and Melrose Place Um in regards to the sidewalks, and we looked at different things, uh, whether it was conflicts out there or things that would work well, and we've come to an agreement regarding uh what um he believes is best that would suit this neighborhood regarding like where sidewalks should be.

6:07

Um, and so we are in process of working out a design with him uh regarding that.

6:13

Um, and he didn't seem to have any major issues or say it's um you know you can't uh you can't do this project.

6:21

Uh so yep.

6:23

Go ahead.

6:24

But he he's talking about widening streets also, is he not?

6:26

Well, he's talking about making sure you have travel lanes.

6:30

Uh not so much was he widening streets.

6:33

I know he mentioned uh streetscape improvements such as uh the sidewalks curving, drainage we talked about in the field.

6:41

Um and I think it had to do with uh uh just making sure the travel lanes were wide enough, but it um overall he was very uh you know uh happy with uh uh what we spoke about in the field.

6:55

So that's one where it's an ongoing design uh with him that he wanted those improvements done prior to uh occupancy.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Planning and Zoning█████████████████████████████████████████████50%

Parking█████████████14%

Traffic██████7%

Procedural█████6%

Environmental Protection█████5%

Zoning Board████4%

Urban Forestry Management████4%

Affordable Housing██2%

Housing██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting: October 20, 2025

The Zoning Board of Appeals convened to discuss application 224-18 and 225-23 regarding a residential development at 23 Berry Place, transitioning the site from industrial to mixed-use residential. The hearing featured extensive Q&A regarding parking capacity, streetscape improvements, environmental remediation, and density compared to existing neighborhood characteristics. Public testimony revealed significant concern from long-term residents regarding traffic safety and environmental history, alongside support from others for the project's benefits. Due to unresolved technical questions and a request to compare the project to similar local developments, the application was continued to the next meeting.

Consent Calendar

Approval of the minutes from the October 6, 2025 meeting was moved, seconded, and passed unanimously (3-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

Darlene Calvillo (34 Melrose Place): Expressed strong concern regarding traffic safety, specifically the lack of stopping at intersections on Barry Place and Melrose Place, and the danger posed to children walking to school and the bus stop. She noted that traffic from the nearby ice skating rink exacerbates the issue on narrow streets.
John Backaboy (Southfield Avenue): Expressed concern that the project would concentrate additional traffic solely onto Southfield Avenue and Fairfield Avenue due to the site being blocked by the railroad and golf course. He questioned the verification of the historical 400-employee traffic count from prior industrial use to compare with current projections.
Salvatore Zarella (Keith Street, Waterside District): As a 50-year resident, he opposed the high density (RMF zoning), arguing it triples the neighborhood density and that the current roadway infrastructure (Melrose, Congress, Southfield) is insufficient. He raised concerns about the site being a former hazardous waste site without a clear answer on remediation results, questioned the accuracy of the "no impact" traffic study regarding the ice rink, and argued the building height and mass are understated relative to the ridge of the roof, making it a massive imposition on a low-density neighborhood.
Jason Connard (150 Southfield Avenue): Expressed full support for the project, citing benefits such as the elimination of heavy truck traffic, noise, and air pollution; the provision of diverse housing options; and the catalyst for investment without displacing current residents.
Father Carlos: After failing to initially join, he submitted a letter of approval and spoke to offer full blessing for the development. He described the current site as an "eyesore" and stated the new housing would be a blessing to the neighborhood, suggesting traffic congestion would be easily solved.

Discussion Items

Parking Capacity & Configuration: Board members questioned why the developer claims to be "overparked." The applicant explained they provided 300 spaces for the apartment building (294 required) and 174 spaces for townhouses (135 required) to ensure adequate parking without reducing impervious surface. They clarified that the excess for townhouses is largely due to allowed tandem spaces in driveways.
Streetscape & Safety Improvements: The Transportation Department (TTP) and resident Luke Buttonweezer requested extensive improvements, including sidewalk extensions, curb bump-outs, and potential reconstruction of Melrose Place and Barry Place. The applicant agreed to these conditions but noted that the detailed design would occur after the initial approval, raising concerns that the Board would not have the opportunity to review the final plans before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
EV Parking Compliance: The Board noted that EV charging stalls must be located closest to the entrance per regulations. The applicant admitted they had not verified if their current parking design (including basement parking) complied with fire marshal requirements regarding proximity to exits versus the zoning requirement for proximity to building entrances. They agreed to consult the Fire Marshal and revise plans.
Bike Parking: The applicant admitted they had not yet decided on specific e-bike charging facilities, which are now required by regulation. They agreed to provide a plan for e-bike parking and charging at the next meeting.
Landscape & Tree Spacing: A Board member noted that the proposed street trees (Prunus Yoshino cherry) were spaced at 25-foot intervals, whereas the tree manual requires small trees to be spaced 20 feet apart. The Board requested the applicant revise the plan to add the necessary additional trees.
Sidewalk Dimensions: The Board requested the landscape plan be explicitly marked to show the 10-foot sidewalk, 6-foot sidewalk, and 4-foot amenity strip dimensions as per civil plan standards.
Environmental Remediation: In response to concerns about the site's history as a hazardous waste site, the Board was informed the site has been remediated to commercial/industrial standards. The applicant clarified they will undertake further remediation to meet residential standards, specifically removing soil in one area near the townhouse driveway while capping other areas not disturbed by construction.
Building Height & Density: The applicant stated the apartment building is 39 feet and townhouses are 29 feet, both below the 40-foot and 30-foot zoning limits respectively. Board members raised concerns that the apparent mass of the project is excessive for the neighborhood and requested the applicant provide data or examples of similar density developments in the immediate area.
Play Areas: While one children's play area is shown on the landscape plan, the Board suggested adding a second play area given the size of the development (261 units).

Key Outcomes

Continuation: Application 224-18 and 225-23 were continued to the next Zoning Board meeting on November 10, 2025, at 6:30 PM on Teams.
Directives for Applicant: The applicant committed to submitting the following at the next meeting:
- A plan for e-bike parking and charging facilities.
- A revised landscape plan showing street trees at 20-foot intervals.
- Marked dimensions for sidewalks and amenity strips on the landscape plan.
- Verification and plans showing EV charging locations closest to the entrance, including Fire Marshal review for garage locations.
- Confirmation of a second children's play area.
- Data or examples of similar density developments in the neighborhood to address concerns about the project's mass.
- A street plan showing the required improvements to Melrose Place and Barry Place as agreed upon with TTP/neighbors.
Staff Report: It was noted that a staff report regarding the application, previously delayed, will be ready for the November 10th meeting.
Regular Business: Approved the October 6, 2025 minutes (3-0). Approved a request for an extension of time for application 213-14 (Edge Hill Property Corp) through December 28, 2027, to add 12 memory care units (3-0). Adjourned the meeting.

Meeting Transcript

We have everyone. We do. Okay. The uh zoning board hearing um is resuming. It's now uh 9 12 p.m. on October 20th. And um why don't we continue with um questions from the board? Um attorney K. Case you you did complete your uh presentation, right? We have, Mr. Chairman. Okay, good. Um would you like to start? Sure, right? Very interesting uh application we have here before us. Uh a couple things. Uh Mr. Kase made a statement in Durham's presentation, which I found very interesting. He said that uh that they're overparked, and that's a good thing. Why is that a good thing? It's a good thing because there won't be any problem in terms of parking for the residents or the guests, and I would note for the record that most of the parking is taking place interior, that is either in the garage at the apartment building or in the garages uh in the townhouses. There's very little surface parking, which frankly uh underscores the point uh made by Derek before that we've greatly reduced the impervious uh surface on the parcel. But why do you feel you need uh to be overparked? Are our parking regulations too low now? No, they're not. Uh, but we believe that uh in the interest of uh making sure there's adequate parking, we've been able to provide spaces that exceed what is required, not because uh we think there's an issue, but because we feel uh we've not only complied with your regulations, but we've more than satisfied them. And how overparked is it? What is the actual number that is overparked? Well, in the RMF district, uh there are um 294 spaces required, and we are providing 300. In uh the RM1 district, the total parking required is 135, and we're providing 174. But that includes, Mr. Morris, uh the interior garage spaces and the tandem space that's allowed in the driveway under your regulations. So there's very few spaces that are outside of the buildings themselves or the driveway to the uh units in the RM1 district. So the the reason I asked the question is because it's appears recently that we we've received we've viewed several applications which make the same statement. They're overparked. It seems to be a tendency to seem to be coming out. I'm just curious why all of a sudden for years we spent time we had too many parking places and it cost too much. Now we're overparking. I just find it interesting. I think frankly, as uh one of the reasons is that many of the applications that have come before the board and have asked for reductions in parking are either very close to the transportation center or in the urban core where there are other parking uh facilities available and other means of transportation more readily available. I think when you start to move into this district, uh it's prudent uh to have met your requirements, not seek a reduction, and to the extent we have a few extra spaces, we think that's a bonus for the residents, we think it's a bonus for the neighborhood, and we think it's a bonus for the community. Interesting. The um regarding your your your traffic study, your your uh traffic impact study. Um, you know, I read your study and then I read you know the documents we got from TTP, and it just there seems to be a lot of concern at TTP that the streets aren't wide enough, there's not enough sidewalks, a lot of issues. Are you gonna be able to deal with all these I'm I'm led to believe by our team, and I'll I'll pass the baton to Kimberly that we can easily address the issues that have been raised by TTP. Street widening the addition, I mean they're asking for a lot of stuff. I I just find it, yeah. Okay, we'll go to your traffic person. I guess or in uh excuse me, this is Derek Donet from D'Andrea. Let me just interject real quick because we just had a uh site meeting with Luke uh Buttonweezer out there to review he had requests about um uh improvements along both Barrie Place and Melrose Place Um in regards to the sidewalks, and we looked at different things, uh, whether it was conflicts out there or things that would work well, and we've come to an agreement regarding uh what um he believes is best that would suit this neighborhood regarding like where sidewalks should be.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com