Stamford reviews zoning for UConn science institute
STAMFORD — With the University of Connecticut’s draft plans for a “worldleading data science institute” in Stamford, city officials are looking at how they could accommodate such from a zoning standpoint.
The university is seeking to capitalize on the Stamford campus with the advent of new programs as well as a Stamford Technology Incubation Program that would involve university and non-university startups, similar to ones already in place at the Storrs and Farmington campuses.
As early as June, the Stamford’s Office of Economic Development has looked into possibly designating a “research-university zone” in the city that would help the university with their plans to expand, according to meeting minutes.
“At this time, Economic Development is working with the Land Use Bureau on reviewing current zoning regulations and studying the implementation process of other university zones across the country,” said Director of Economic Development Thomas Madden.
The university’s plans, obtained through a public records request, propose “the creation of a worldleading data science institute in Stamford seeded with industry-friendly and entrepreneurially-minded faculty” that would focus on various fields like biotech, healthcare, fintech and insurance among others.
In previous reporting, university officials have not yet released budget details on the plan as these are still being finalized according to Vice President for Research, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Radenka Maric.
Madden did not elaborate further on details nor a potential timeline regarding the zoning regulations review. John Varamo, an analyst with the Office of Economic Development, said the review is still a work in progress and has periodically provided updates on the proposed zoning, according to meeting minutes.
In an Economic Development Commission meeting earlier this month, Varamo said reviewing zoning regulations would entail considering a variety of factors. Among these would be looking into parking spots and how many students and faculty would be expected to move into Stamford if the university’s plans materialized.
“We’re reviewing the dorm parking minimums and minimums for the university itself to see if anything could be adjusted,” Varamo said.
Land Use Bureau Chief Ralph Blessing said he and the Office of Economic Development were working on coming up with an overlay district but that there was no draft plan or map yet.
“Some ideas that we’re toying with are allowing university related uses,” said Blessing, referring to possible research facilities, labs or start-up spaces as well as student and faculty housing that could be part of the university’s plans.
“Obviously we want to work closely with UConn on that,” Blessing said.
UConn spokesperson Stephanie Reitz said that it was too early for the university to be specific about potential discussions or engagements with Stamford city officials or departments.
“This is in a very early stage of planning and visioning, so there isn’t much to share at this point yet,” Reitz said.
In early January, Economic Development Commission Chairman Jon Winkel had suggested that the city could reach out to UConn and invite representatives for a presentation or something similar on their plans for Stamford. As of now, Madden did not say if his department or the Economic Development Commission had issued a formal invite to the university for a meeting or presentation regarding the proposal.
Though planning stages are still preliminary, city officials are hoping that UConn follows through with its strategic plan, something that would bolster the university’s campus and footing in the city.
“I think that as a city, we’re very excited to have UConn continuing to expand,” Varamo said in an interview. “And anything we can do to keep that growing to have more of a dynamic university environment here in Stamford is really the goal.”
Cipollone grew up in New York and Kentucky, before attending Fordham University and the University of Chicago Law School. He clerked for a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Kentucky and then worked as a speechwriter for U.S. Attorney General William Barr, when Barr was attorney general in the George Bush administration.
Then, Cipollone joined the law firm Kirkland and Ellis in Washington, D.C. It was working for Kirkland and Ellis that Cipollone joined the Trumbull case.
In the 1980s and 1990s, each year at holiday time, the Trumbull Town Green hosted a decorated Christmas tree and a menorah. In 1993, the Knights of Columbus sought to add a creche to the display.
The town’s first selectman denied the display because the permit application came too late. The next year, the
Knights of Columbus tried again. They were awarded a permit, but then 11 days before Christmas, the town revoked the permit noting the creche was religious content.
Two days later, the Knights filed suit with U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut challenging the town’s decision. Shortly before Christmas, the District Court denied the Knight’s motion.
Cipollone argued before the District Court on behalf of the Knights of Columbus, said Martin Margulies, professor of law emeritus at Quinnipiac University, who represented the town of Trumbull in the case. Margulies met Cipollone in the office of the Trumbull town attorney.
“He struck me as a selfrighteous little prig, whose self-imposed mission was forcing his religion on other people,” Margulies said.
One day after the District Court’s denial, the Knights of Columbus appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which also promptly denied their case. The Knights of Columbus then brought their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the early 1990s, the Supreme Court was wrestling with several cases regarding religious expression in public spaces. In late June 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that members of the Ku Klux Klan could place an unattended cross on the lawn of the Capitol Square in Columbus, Ohio at Christmas time.
Margulies said lawyers on both sides of the Trumbull case filed amicus briefs in the Ohio case.
The Ohio decision caused