Developer gets OK to build apartments next to historic home
Zoning Board gives approval
STAMFORD — Regulatory changes the Zoning Board approved this week clear the way for a developer to carry out his plan to maintain a historic building on Summer Street and build four townhome-style apartments alongside it.
Jason Klein, a partner at Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, appeared before the board Monday on behalf of Daniel Kolich, the developer who bought a corner-lot property at Summer and Fifth streets in 2021.
On the western side of the property is a house that was built in 1914 for Edward B. Hoit, “a pioneer in the city’s business community, as the founder of the Grand Central Market and local real estate developer,” according to Kolich’s application.
Klein presented Kolich’s plans to preserve the home, where a family already lives, and build a four-story addition consisting of four three-bedroom apartments on top of what is currently a parking lot.
Kolich’s application pitched the complex as a “missing middle” housing opportunity that would provide an option between a studio or one-bedroom apartment and a single-family home.
But Klein said the plan couldn’t work unless the Zoning Board had the ability to bend rules on setbacks and open space.
By keeping the historic building in place, Klein said the developer couldn’t build on about a third of the roughly 7,000square-foot property at 1911 Summer St. Under the city’s zoning regulations, before the board changed them in a 3-2 vote, the new apartments and a parking area would have been considered too close to the property’s edges.
The adopted changes allow the Zoning Board to reduce setback requirements for projects involving historic buildings. Klein argued that they would make historic pres
ervation more attractive to developers — and would reduce the chances of demolition.
He noted that a 140year-old, General Grantstyle house down the road at 898 Summer St. was demolished in 2015 despite opposition from preservationists. A branch of the First Bank of Greenwich and A&S Pharmacy were built in its place.
Klein said the 1911 Summer St. project would align with city goals to preserve historic structures, address a housing crisis and encourage walking over driving. Scalzi Park, a Stop & Shop, an LA Fitness, restaurants and other businesses are near the property.
Zoning Board members had questions and concerns.
“I’m having trouble understanding why you need the setback reductions that you’re requesting, other than the fact that you designed the building, which (extends) into those setback restrictions,” member William Morris said. “I don’t see any benefit to the historic building from this to be honest with you.”
Without the changes, Klein said, the developer couldn’t both build the planned housing and preserve the historic home.
“But, Mr. Klein, you have to understand that as a board member, when we evaluate a text change, we have to evaluate how it affects the entire city of Stamford, not just your lot,” Morris said.
Klein said the changes could help prevent demolition in similar situations.
“If there’s another person like my client who says, ‘I can’t afford to preserve a historic building and meet two frontyard setbacks,’ (they’ll) demolish the historic building to meet the front-yard setbacks, and the historic building will be lost,” Klein said. “So if what it takes to preserve the historic building is allowing an addition to be a little bit closer on one front yard ... I think that is something that you want to be able to do.”
Board member Gerald Bosak Jr. shared Morris’ concerns, saying it seems like “we have to bend our criteria, our zoning, our setbacks to fit projects, and I don’t know if that’s starting to become a standard.”
In the end, Morris, Bosak and Rosanne McManus voted to approve the text changes after tweaking some of the proposed language. Chair David Stein and Raquel SmithAnderson were opposed.
The board also voted 4-0, with Smith-Anderson abstaining, to approve Kolich’s site plan.
One of the three regulatory changes approved Monday allows the Zoning Board to reduce or waive setback requirements for parking areas when a project includes a historic structure.
“The thought is when you’re preserving a historic building, that building takes up space on the property — space that can otherwise be used for, say, satisfaction of setback standards applicable to parking areas,” Klein said. “So we think it’s a fair bargain to say, hey, if you’re looking to preserve a historic building, and your cause is aided by providing some relief in these setback standards ... the zoning board should be allowed to weigh those two things and say what’s more important.”
More than half of the property at 1911 Summer St. is in the Limited Business zoning district, and the rest is in the Community Business District. In those zones, paved parking areas must be set back 5 feet from building facades and property lines, Klein said.
Under the developer’s plans, two surface parking spaces will be situated right up against the addition and about a foot from the property’s southern line, which will be bordered by a 6-foot fence. Another four parking spaces will be located in ground-level garages that will sit under the apartments.
The second amendment applies specifically to corner lots that have a historic building on site. Under the change, the setback on one of the lot’s frontages can be reduced to 5 feet in the Limited Business District or Community Business District.
The new apartments at 1911 Summer St. will be set back 5 feet from the property’s northern line. Klein made a point of noting that they will be 13 feet from the street line, and a historic building on another corner of the block is set back a similar distance.
Still, Stein said he was concerned that the apartments would stand out on Fifth Street because they would be closer to the street line than other buildings on the block.
The last amendment allows the Zoning Board to change requirements for providing open space.
Klein said the development at 1911 Summer St. must have 500 square feet of open space, and Kolich plans to provide more than twice that amount. But the regulations require each side of a section of open space to be at least 20 feet.
The amendment lets the board reduce the minimum dimensions to 15 feet per side.
During Monday’s meeting, two city residents said they opposed the project because they were concerned about traffic in the area. Judy Norinsky, the president of Historic Neighborhood Preservation, a Stamford nonprofit, disagreed and called the project a “good development.”