Stamford Zoning Board Public Hearing – January 27, 2026

Note: The meeting transcript states the date as January 26, 2026, but the user instruction specifies the meeting took place on January 27, 2026. This summary proceeds using January 27, 2026, per instruction.

Chair David Stein called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. by Zoom. Roll call established the presence of board members Bill Morris, Roseanne McManus, Jerry Bozak, and staff member Vanita Matter. The board announced that applications for 1150 Summer Street (daycare center) were continued to the March 9, 2026 meeting. Two main applications were heard: a site plan for a bathhouse (application 225-37) and a special permit for a mosque (application 225-39). Both were continued to the February 9, 2026 meeting after extensive discussion and public testimony.

Public Comments & Testimony

Bathhouse Application (225-37):

• Catena Rizzo (256 Washington Boulevard): Expressed aesthetic concerns, describing the proposed building as “utilitarian” and “khaki pants of buildings”; questioned the choice of facade materials.
• Sue Halpern (30 Alm Croft Road): Opposed the bathhouse, citing health risks from steam and shared air, lack of input from the Director of Health, and dangers of alcohol combined with saunas.
• Elizabeth McCauley (18 Walter Wheeler Drive): Represented Holy Name of Jesus Church (325 Washington Boulevard); opposed the bathhouse, calling it an “adults-only physical culture establishment” too close to the church and suggested the site be used for green space. She noted the congregation had long used the parking lot for overflow.
• Ted Potsey (White Plains, NY): Supported the bathhouse as an alcohol‑free social and wellness venue; suggested a mural to break up blank walls.
• Rizarda Kusowitz (256 Washington Boulevard): Opposed, raising multiple concerns: noise from rooftop pool and bar (proposed hours 7 a.m. to midnight), mechanical equipment noise, lighting and sound pollution affecting bedrooms, the loading dock location, and traffic study adequacy for 240 lockers. She requested written responses to emailed questions.
• Gina Calabries (300 Seaside Avenue): Opposed, arguing the use is an “adult physical culture establishment” under zoning regulations, not a gymnasium; questioned the classification and noted poor hygiene records at other Bath House locations.
• Paula Waldman (110 Old North Stamford Road): Opposed, stating the transfer of 34,000 sq ft of commercial floor area to a surface parking lot would increase density and missed an opportunity for green space, stormwater management, and community benefit.
• Monica Twal (37 Hanrohan Street): Vocally opposed, calling the building “a cell block of cement” and the use a “whorehouse” and “disgrace”; questioned the 16 security cameras and the lighting plan.
• Jose Aguilar (355 Atlantic Street): Supported, describing himself as a typical user of such facilities; said he currently spends leisure money in New York and would welcome the bathhouse.
• Michael Salvi (256 Washington Boulevard): Representing 18 condominium units 145 feet away; opposed due to noise, exhaust fumes, pool drainage chemicals, construction impacts, and a potential retaining wall. He requested answers to a submitted letter.
• Dave Adams (Glenbrook Road): Opposed the bathhouse, arguing the use is misclassified as an adult physical culture establishment and that similar facilities in Stamford do not offer massages/body rubs; suggested other locations.
• Tim Maloney (Greenwich, CT): Supported, citing positive experiences at Bath House in Manhattan and describing the facility as a healthy social alternative to bars.
• Aaron Williams (256 Washington Boulevard): Opposed, echoing concerns about noise and the loading dock.

Mosque Application (225-39):

• Dave Adams (Glenbrook): Supported the mosque, but expressed concern about traffic on narrow Lockwood Avenue.
• Farhan Memon (Norwalk, CT): Supported as a community leader; stated the mosque would meet all zoning requirements and that off‑site venues would be used for major holidays. He referenced a prior legal settlement in Norwalk as a caution about equal treatment.
• Monica Twal (37 Hanrohan Street): Opposed, citing past illegal gatherings at another mosque and traffic congestion; questioned the Arabic name and expressed distrust.
• Chamal Ahmed (75 E. Lane Drive, Stamford): Supported, vouching for the community’s commitment to follow rules and contribute positively.

Discussion Items

Bathhouse Application (225-37):

• Design Concerns: Chair Stein and board members expressed that the proposed building features “large expanses of blank walls” on the north, south, and west facades, contrary to SRDS design criteria (Section 5 HH6) which require transparent ground‑floor glass, avoidance of blank walls, and sensitivity to the neighborhood. The west (parking lot) wall was highlighted as particularly problematic. Architect Eugene Kolberg and attorney Lisa Feinberg argued the regulations are guidelines, not hard rules, and that the building uses textured brick, stone, and change in materials to meet the criteria. The board requested a calculation of glass percentage on each facade.
• Lighting & Security: The applicant presented an updated photometric plan showing maximum 5 foot‑candles in parking areas and zero spillover at property lines. Sixteen exterior cameras (24/7 monitoring) were shown on a plan; the west side has fewer cameras but coverage was defended.
• Use Classification: Board member Jerry Bozak questioned whether the bathhouse qualifies as a “gymnasium/physical cultural establishment” given the inclusion of massage services and a rooftop bar. Staff Vanita Matter noted that adult uses are separately defined and that this use does not fit those definitions; the gymnasium definition is not formally adopted but has been applied consistently for similar facilities. Attorney Feinberg insisted the use is a permitted physical culture establishment, not an adult use.
• Board Action: The board voted to continue the application to February 9, 2026, requesting: a glass‑percentage breakdown, additional landscape/design ideas to break up the west wall, and confirmation that the west wall will have the multicolor paneling shown in reference photos. The applicant agreed to supply these items.

Mosque Application (225-39):

• Parking & Traffic: Architect Peter Socora explained the building will have 104 worshipper seats, resulting in a requirement of 26 parking spaces (1 per 4 seats) – all provided on‑site. The previous social club had a variance for 32 non‑compliant spaces. The new layout provides 26 code‑compliant spaces, plus motorcycle/bicycle parking. The entrance is on Lockwood Avenue, exit on Lillian Street. Weekday prayers draw fewer than 20 people; Friday prayers about 80‑100; major holidays use off‑site venues. A van will assist those needing rides.
• Staff & Board Comments: Staff requested a landscape plan, lighting plan, and parking management plan. The board requested a rendering of the front community space and confirmation that a wrought‑iron fence will surround the property. Board member Jerry Bozak raised concerns about overflow parking during holidays, similar to other houses of worship. The applicant agreed to provide a parking management plan addressing peak times.
• Discrepancy with TTP: The board noted that a January 21 letter from the applicant to the Transportation, Traffic & Parking Department (TTP) had not yet received a final response. The applicant has a meeting scheduled on Thursday to resolve remaining issues.
• Board Action: Continued to February 9, 2026, with requirements: revised landscape plan, lighting plan, parking management plan, rendering of community space, wrought‑iron fence details, and incorporation of staff‑requested changes.

Key Outcomes

• Bathhouse Application (225-37): Continued to February 9, 2026. Applicant to provide: (a) percentage of glass on each facade; (b) additional landscape/design treatments for the west wall; (c) rendering showing multicolor paneling on west wall. Board signaled that meeting design guidelines remains a concern but held the application open.
• Mosque Application (225-39): Continued to February 9, 2026. Applicant to provide: landscape plan (including native/non‑invasive species), lighting plan, parking management plan (addressing peak holiday overflow), front‑community space rendering, wrought‑iron fence specifications, and updated elevations per staff report. TTP feedback is pending a meeting on Thursday.
• 1150 Summer Street Applications (225-43 & 225-44): Continued to March 9, 2026. No new discussion.
• Minutes of January 5, 2026: Approved unanimously.