Could city rules stifle development?
Proposed charter changes make it easier to object to expansion
STAMFORD — The city’s Charter Revision Commission voted Tuesday to send a package of proposed changes to the Board of Representatives after making tweaks to two zoning provisions but otherwise keeping in place the bulk of its drafted suggestions.
Commission members met six days after holding a public hearing where those who turned out complained that some of the proposed changes to Stamford’s governing document would stifle development, particularly multifamily housing construction. Stamford’s charter must go through a review process once every 10 years. Ultimately, voters will decide which changes are actually made.
Commenters at the public hearing targeted provisions proposed by the commission to allow planning and zoning changes to be appealed to the Board of Representatives if 300 property owners anywhere in Stamford sign a petition. Currently, such a threshold only applies to regulatory changes affecting multiple zones, while changes affecting individual zones can only be appealed if a certain number of owners in that area sign a petition.
Tuesday evening, the commission chose not to amend the proposed language on that item.
“I think we need to do a better job of explaining that at least the commission thought that, given the way the city is today, that people all over the city are concerned about congestion and zoning,” said Steven Loeb, a member of the commission who chaired a subcommittee on land use issues and is also a real estate attorney. “It’s not just zoning in their backyard. And so I think that the citywide provision is a good provision.”
Another commission member, former city director of human resources Clemon Williams, gave an example.
“The construction that’s going on right now at Bull’s Head — there are very few people who were within 500 feet of that particular project,” Williams said. “But it’s going to have a significant impact on a lot of people in Stamford, particularly people in North Stamford because there are only two ways down, basically either High Ridge or Long Ridge (roads). And once that project is finished, it’s already a
bottleneck there, and it’s just going to get worse.”
A Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana, Shake Shack and Starbucks have been planned for a site in the Bull’s Head neighborhood.
Meanwhile, a petition to support a proposed amendment to the city’s zoning map or master plan that the Zoning Board has rejected would need signatures from 750 property owners anywhere in the city. Loeb said the difference between the number of signatures that proponents would need to collect versus opponents reflects an existing ratio in the charter.
Under the current charter, opponents of a zoning or planning change can appeal it by gathering signatures from 20 percent of the property owners in the area in question. Proponents of a change must gather signatures from more than 50 percent of those owners.
Still, commission member Jeanette Bilicznianski said she was concerned that the controversy over petition signatures would “negate” the other work the group has done.
“I just think it’s just going to be difficult for the charter as a whole to get through if we don’t make some sort of changes with this one item,” Bilicznianski said.
The commission also stood by a proposal to prohibit land use boards from acting on an item the same day they hold a public hearing on the matter.
Loeb suggested that the commission change another proposal — to require a condemnation of land by the city to be approved by the Planning Board, Board of Finance and Board of Representatives by a two-thirds vote of each board’s membership.
“A number of people commented that it would make it impossible to ever do an eminent domain proceeding,” Loeb said.
But other commission members wanted to stick to the high vote threshold. “We have seen, I believe, some usage of this power that is really not in the best interest of the city and deprives people of the use of their property, obviously with compensation, but I think it should be a high bar,” said member Shelley Michelson.
However, the group did tweak a proposal to prohibit the Zoning Board from reconsidering failed applications until two years have passed, changing its recommendation to 18 months. The current wait time is one year.
Michelson said the proposal stemmed from an “omnibus text change” that the Board of Representatives overturned.
“There were items (in the package of changes) that I think people felt OK about, and there were items that really riled people up,” Michelson said. “I think giving it a little more time, maybe the Land Use (Bureau) would say, ‘Hey, these were the objections to this omnibus. Maybe what we should do is divide these (items) up and not unfairly penalize people whose applications would be perfectly fine.’”
Steven Kolenberg, a former city representative, was one of the commissioners who voted against the 18-month provision, saying he would rather the current 12 months stay in place.
“I think that changing the entire charter in response to one incident (is) not probably fair to all the other people who apply in the city of Stamford for various zoning approvals, and then if they get turned down, then they have to go wait ... 18 months now,” Kolenberg said.
The commission also revised a proposed requirement for developers to “engage in neighborhood engagement and outreach.” Under a draft version of the commission’s proposed changes, the outreach requirement would have applied to developments of five or more residential units. On Tuesday, commissioners changed the number of units to 20.
After receiving the commission’s recommendations, the Board of Representatives must hold at least one public hearing of its own. The board will eventually come up with ballot questions for voters, who will decide which charter changes are adopted. Voters could weigh in as soon as November.
The Board of Representatives appointed 15 residents to the Charter Revision Commission in early 2022. Thomas Lombardo, the chair of the commission and a Stamford Police Department captain, has said the group included five Republicans, seven Democrats and three unaffiliated voters.
“I think we need to do a better job of explaining that at least the commission thought that, given the way the city is today, that people all over the city are concerned about congestion and zoning. It’s not just zoning in their backyard. And so I think that the citywide provision is a good provision.” Steven Loeb, a member of the Stamford Charter Revision Commission, who chaired a subcommittee on land use issues