Springdale affordable housing approved
Zoning board OKs new units despite neighbor opposition
STAMFORD — City zoning officials paved the path for more affordable housing in Stamford’s northern neighborhoods, even after facing fierce critiques from a cabal of residents.
The zoning board unanimously approved a three-unit addition to an incoming affordable housing complex in the heart of Springdale after weeks of public debate. In total, nonprofit developer Garden Homes Fund sought to build 17 apartments instead of the 14 allowed as-of-right through a historic preservation bonus.
All the new apartments will rest on the property of the old Springdale United Methodist Church on Hope Street and would use funds from the city’s fee-in-lieu program to provide housing for extremely low-income families.
During his final pitch to the board on Monday, Head Developer Richard Freedman pulled up a map of every affordable housing unit in Stamford. He drew a
scribbled line across the bottom third of the city, just south of Scalzi Park. Almost every apartment in town fell squarely below that mark.
“What I’m proposing today has actually never been done,” Freedman said. “We’ve never built family affordable housing in any location in Stamford north of that line.”
The notion of breaking new ground did little to appease opponents to the development. Throughout multiple public hearings, what began as a debate about the merits of three more apartments devolved into a battle over development in one of Stamford’s most tightly-knit neighborhoods.
A band of Springdale residents circulated an online petition to “block” the development. They urged the zoning board to consider traffic impacts, parking and overcrowding at the nearby Springdale Elementary School. Some demanded the developer perform a traffic study to examine the effects of the new building on the community. (The city requires traffic studies when developers plan to build at least 100 parking spaces.)
“I feel like an outsider in my community,” said Susan Bell, a recurring voice in public hearings on the Hope Street project. “I feel very sad to be here today.”
Another resident, Kathy Kligler, asked the board if “democracy (has) died in Stamford” as they approached their final vote.
Garden Homes Fund Attorney Mark Branse, of Hartford-based firm Halloran Sage, defended the development against the traffic-related complaints by arguing that congestion is just a byproduct of existing. He said zoning boards cannot deny as-of-right uses based on traffic concerns.
“Traffic is a reality of life,” Branse said. “The 170-units across the street from us produce traffic. The units behind us produce traffic. Everything produces traffic. This is a need that is not being met in your community.”
Branse ultimately characterized the pushback as a way to oppose affordable housing without doing it explicitly.
“You’ve been told by every speaker, over and over and over again, ‘I’m not opposed to affordable housing, but.’ And there’s always a but,” Branse said.
Freedman went on to compare the pushback against the development to other episodes in Stamford’s history. During the 1960s, Mayor Thomas Mayer campaigned on scattered-site affordable housing in Stamford. Mayer lost the election, something that Freedman attributed to his push for more affordable housing.
Despite protest, board members decided that the pros outweighed the cons.
“I understand the concerns of the neighbors with the congestion and the other issues that this may cause,” Chair David Stein said. “At the same time, we’ve got someone who is willing to build 17 units of affordable housing.”
“I think the benefit we’re going to get from this... is worth it,” said voting member William Morris.
Data from the nonprofit Regional Plan Association shows that 44 percent of households that make between 30 and 50 percent of Stamford’s median income are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 25 percent of their income on housing. Another 24 percent is severely cost-burdened.
“The more things change, the more they don’t change,” added Freedman.
As a condition of approval, board members will require the Garden Homes Fund to add an outdoor play area and patio to the site plan after neighbors leveled complaints about the amenities available for tenants. Some residents also protested the number of bathrooms and the lack of elevators, arguing that the property failed to meet 21st-century living standards.
In the end, board members rejected the idea that they could or should reject the Garden Homes proposal over the “condition of many of the places some people live in.”
“We have to understand what it is being built for,” board member Rosanne McManus said. In a city increasingly characterized by waterfront high rises built by developer Building and Land Technology, McManus emphasized that this project had a different purpose: “We can’t have a BLT budget for this.”