Stamford planning board finalizes wording changes to 2035 comprehensive plan, asks staff to refine details ahead of vote

STAMFORD, Conn. — The Stamford Planning Board spent its Sept. 30 meeting reviewing final edits to the city’s draft 2035 comprehensive plan and asking staff to polish language on several contentious items before the plan was brought back for a vote.

Chair Jennifer Gazzano opened the virtual session by noting the meeting’s primary purpose: “final discussions on the comprehensive plan,” and the board approved minutes from four prior meetings before turning to a line‑by‑line review of edits staff had made in response to public comment.

The staff presentation, led by project manager Lindsay Collin and Land Use Bureau chief Ralph Blessing, summarized an engagement process that included steering‑committee and technical‑advisory meetings, multiple open houses, neighborhood workshops and a youth survey. Collin told the board the outreach produced roughly 225 attendees at the first open house and about 250 at a second event, and that the campaign generated about 25,000 impressions across the city’s channels.

The board focused on wording changes to clarify intent rather than adopting new regulatory authority. On accessory dwelling units (ADUs), staff removed language that would have directly instructed zoning changes and instead proposed a study: “conduct a study to revise ADU regulations … to encourage development of ADUs,” language the board accepted as a way to explore options without presuming future zoning amendments. Collin said the study would consider adjustments such as minimum lot size and parking only if needed.

Accessory commercial units (ACUs) were reframed after public concern. Instead of “allow ACUs,” staff proposed developing a land‑use guide to help small businesses start and to study how ACUs might support those businesses. “That was originally misunderstood as a blanket permission,” said Chet Salat; the new phrasing, he added, “focuses more on the why rather than any particular tool.”

On missing‑middle housing, the board debated two options for Strategy 1.9 — a specific ‘‘permit and allow’’ approach tied to city sewer, water and transit proximity, and a broader ‘‘study’’ of permitting triplexes, duplexes and townhomes in additional zoning districts. Ralph Blessing explained the half‑mile transit radius as a standard transportation planning threshold (roughly a 10‑minute walk), while several board members favored language proposed by Chet Salat that combined both ideas: “Study allowing triplexes, duplexes and townhomes as permitted uses in additional zoning districts served by city sewer and water and within a half mile of a train station or bus stop.” The phrasing was adopted as capturing both specificity and the neighborhood study process.

Parking and parking‑lot conversion also drew sustained discussion. Staff recommended “right‑sizing” parking requirements by neighborhood category — for example, lower parking minimums downtown and in the South End where transit access and observed car ownership are lower — using data from the city’s parking study rather than relying solely on case‑by‑case special permits. Blessing noted that the city already uses parking categories and that prior adjustments were informed by the parking study.

The board discussed design guidelines and how to implement them. Members supported exploring developer toolkits, design review approaches and neighborhood consultation, while cautioning against prematurely prescribing a single mandatory implementation method. “The recommendation is to explore viable methodologies,” Blessing said, adding that some zoning districts already include design guidance and neighborhood input could be used to refine those standards.

Members also asked for clearer public materials. The board directed staff to expand an executive summary and publish a simple, plain‑English resource explaining how development is reviewed, what mitigation measures developers already provide (for example, sewer connection fees and transportation contributions), and how the comp‑plan priorities will feed into future capital budgeting.

Legal limits on charging a general development impact fee in Connecticut were part of the conversation. Blessing said the law department has advised that a blanket, general development impact fee is currently not permitted under state law; board members nonetheless asked staff to draft a model policy and to explore collaborating with WestCOG and state legislators on enabling legislation. “Develop a model policy to assess consistent, data‑driven development impact fees to fund future public infrastructure improvements,” the board proposed as an aspirational action item.

The board also agreed with staff recommendations to create a standalone conservation commission split out from the Environmental Protection Board and to prioritize ADA improvements at high‑pedestrian locations.

The meeting concluded with members asking staff to finalize wording changes and to post revised materials for public review ahead of the plan’s scheduled vote. Collin said staff would refine the text, publish the pocket plan and the public comment‑response table, and return with final language for the board’s action.

The board’s actions at the Sept. 30 meeting were procedural (approving minutes) and editorial (agreeing to specific language changes and to study or implement mechanisms); no final adoption vote on the comprehensive plan is recorded in the transcript excerpt provided. The plan was on the agenda for a vote that night; board members requested staff to post updated materials and recommended language before a final vote.