Zoning Board Public Hearing on 23 Bury Place, November 24, 2025

The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing via Teams Video Conference to discuss two related applications (22418 and 22523) by Continental Family Holdings LLC for 23 Bury Place. The hearing featured presentations on revised site plans, architectural specifications, and environmental assessments intended to address previous board concerns. While board members and the community expressed strong support for the principle of adding housing, significant disagreement persists regarding the proposed density (RMF zoning) and its compatibility with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. Due to the absence of a revised traffic study review by the Town Traffic and Transportation Department (TTP), the Board voted to continue the hearing.

Consent Calendar

• The Board reviewed and approved the minutes of the zoning board meeting held on November 10, 2025.
• The Board reviewed the video recording of the November 10, 2025 meeting.
• Applicant Michael Cakese confirmed that all prior board and staff requests regarding e-bike charging locations, exterior wall dimensions, sidewalk measurements, street tree spacing (increased to 20 feet apart and 16 trees), and tree species (cherry) have been addressed in the updated plans.
• The Board noted that extensive environmental evaluations (July 30, April 30, and November 11 reports by Geo-Environmental) were submitted demonstrating no risk to neighbors regarding previously remediated contamination, which will remain capped.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Lenine Krasnow (Resident, Waterside): Expressed concern that traffic data does not reflect the reality of the area, specifically citing delays on Fairfield Avenue near the ice skating rink. She noted the rink has over 86 parking spaces and often exceeds capacity on weekends, and argued that 261 units would add significant weekend traffic.
• Kathy Smith (Resident, Old Greenwich; Member of St. Clement's Parish): Expressed opposition to the density, stating the proposed apartment building (approx. twice the population of the nearby Waterside community) is incompatible with the neighborhood. She argued the site is not in a walkable area and expressed concern about traffic impacts on residential streets in both Waterside and Old Greenwich without a confirmed traffic study.
• John McAvoy (Resident, Stanford Landing): Expressed support for the project's design but argued the number of units is too high and needs to be "toned down." He highlighted increased weekend traffic from the hockey rink, potential strain on police/fire/emergency infrastructure, and the inability of the streets to handle the additional load.
• Darlene Calvillo (Resident, Melrose Place): Expressed concern about safety and parking. She stated that traffic from the ice skating rink is already "crazy" during peak hours and argued that the additional residents would overload street parking and endanger children crossing the street.
• Giovanna Delia Fox (Resident, 8 Bury Place): Expressed serious reservations about the density, stating current infrastructure on Melrose and Bury Place cannot support the project size. She noted limited parking and interference from catering events and questioned plans for streetscape improvements that might encroach on grass areas.
• Jason Kennard (Resident, Southfield Avenue): Expressed strong support for the project, citing the nearby TGM Anchors Point complex (323 units) as a successful precedent without traffic chaos. He argued the project offers significant tax benefits and infrastructure funding.
• Salvatore Zarella (Resident, Keith Street): Disagreed with comparisons to Southfield Avenue projects, calling them "apples and oranges." He argued the project violates the Master Plan's intent for walkability (MU1 designation) as the site is far from public transport. He expressed concern about parking shortages and the inability of the site to support the proposed density, even at lower unit counts.
• Dave Adams (Resident, Glenbrook Road): Expressed opposition, stating the project is too dense and too large for the area. He argued the new residents would significantly outnumber existing voters in Waterside, altering the community balance.
• Father Carlos Rodriguez (St. Clement's Parish): Expressed support, citing the housing crisis in Stamford. He argued that if the project negatively impacted the area, St. Clement's Parish and Innis Arden (Golf Course) would be the entities expected to oppose it, yet both remain neutral/supportive. He emphasized the desire to avoid leaving the property as an abandoned industrial site.
• Applicant Response (Michael Cakese): Stated that 40 letters of support were submitted and that the Planning Board unanimously supported the proposal. He argued the site generates less traffic than the former industrial occupant (400 employees) and that the proposal meets all zoning regulations.

Discussion Items

• Site Design and Compliance: The applicant's team (Derek Dunay, Lindy Andrea, Matt Pop, Ravi Ahouya) presented updates on:
  • E-bike and EV charging station locations moved per regulations.
  • Sidewalk dimensions standardized to 6-foot width with curbing.
  • Street trees increased to 16 cherry trees with 20-foot spacing.
  • Removal of mid-block crosswalks in favor of intersections with controlled stop signs for safety.
  • Streetscape concept for Melrose Place involving curbing, 11.5-foot travel lanes, and a sidewalk on the north side.
  • Environmental assurances regarding capped contamination zones.
• Density and Zoning Conflict:
  • Staff Position (Vanita Mathur): Expressed concern that the proposed RMF (Multi-Family Residence Design) district is a "stark contrast" to the surrounding R6, R7, and R10 districts. She argued the density and building height are too high and suggested R5 or RM1 zones as more appropriate transitions, recommending centralized open space and proper circulation.
  • Board Member Bill Morris: Expressed that the density is too much, stating 40 units per acre is substantial for the neighborhood. He compared the proposed site unfavorably to other complexes, calling it "overdeveloping" and "apples and oranges."
  • Board Member Roseanne McManus: Agreed with Bill Morris, stating the map change allows too many units for the narrow streets and neighborhood character, despite supporting housing in general.
  • Board Member Jerry Bozak: Expressed that the community and St. Clement's parish are in strong support of the project to help the congregation and housing needs. He noted it is rare to receive calls supporting a project and felt hesitant to deny an outcry from the community.
  • Applicant Arguments (Lindy Andrea/Michael Cakese): Argued the RMF zone is appropriate, citing similar projects nearby (Stamford Landing, TGM Anchors Point) with comparable or higher densities that function well. They noted the rear of the site is bordered by a golf course, train tracks, and industrial lands, making it a natural transition point. They argued the unit mix (studios, 1-3 bedrooms) does not generate excessive traffic and that the site provides critical affordable housing (26 BMRs) and homeownership (60 townhouses).
  • Board Member Neil O'Linsky (SLR): Clarified that DOT standards for travel lanes can be as narrow as 11 feet, validating the proposed 11.5-foot lanes on Melrose Place for traffic calming.

Key Outcomes

• Continuance: The Board voted to continue applications 22418 and 22523 to the next Zoning Board meeting on December 1, 2025, at 6:30 p.m.
• Reason for Continuance: The Board determined they needed to wait for the Town Traffic and Transportation Department (TTP) to provide a review/response to the revised traffic study before making a final decision, as a significant portion of the discussion relied on this independent verification.
• Timeline: The meeting will proceed as scheduled on December 1st, contingent on the receipt of the TTP report, which was unavailable due to staff vacation.
• Next Steps: Staff will provide the TTP report to the Board and Applicant prior to the December 1st hearing, allowing for further deliberation on traffic and density concerns. The Board noted that if the report is not received in time, the meeting may be delayed until December 15th.
• Action on Agenda: The item for application 225-29 (120 C Long Ridge) was not reached in this session and is noted on the agenda for future processing. (Note: Transcript cuts off during the introduction of the next agenda item).

Note on Discrepancy: The transcript indicates the meeting date is November 24, 2025, in the Chair's opening, whereas the system prompt header states the transcript is from November 25. The summary reflects the date stated by the Chair in the transcript (Nov 24).