Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Streamlining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board debates streamlining procedures, infrastructure assessments as part of Stamford 2035
Summary
Board members asked staff to compile examples and a matrix of recommended edits to the Stamford 2035 comprehensive plan; members also discussed whether to require broader infrastructure impact assessments for large developments and reviewed available sewer capacity.
Stamford Planning Board members used the Sept. 22 special meeting to press staff for clearer examples and a concise matrix to guide discussion of proposed edits to the Stamford 2035 comprehensive plan, and to debate whether the city should require expanded infrastructure impact assessments for large development proposals.
Board members said streamlining certain administrative approvals — for example, routine, low-impact variances or processes to accept in-lieu fees from developers — was a topic in the comprehensive plan that merits clearer definition. One board member suggested compiling recent cases that illustrate what could reasonably shift to administrative review rather than a public hearing.
Lindsay (planning staff) cautioned that removing referrals or creating administrative review would likely require zoning text amendments and coordination with the Zoning Board of Appeals and other departments. "For variances, that would be a change to the zoning regulations because it's the zoning regulations that require the ZBA to refer variances to the planning board," Lindsay said, noting that staff can draft language and present it to the board for review.
Members also raised public concern about infrastructure capacity. Planning Board Chair noted the comprehensive plan’s review of systems and told members the wastewater treatment plant currently processes between "15 and 16,000,000 gallons," which is below the plant’s reported 24,000,000 gallon capacity. The chair framed that figure as evidence that the city has remaining sewer capacity but said other infrastructure (stormwater, schools, roads) may require selective analyses.
Discussion touched on two connected questions: whether Stamford could lawfully require environmental or infrastructure impact assessments beyond existing local requirements and whether doing so would drive development to other jurisdictions. Staff said Connecticut does not mandate the same statewide environmental-impact thresholds as New York and that adding local requirements would require careful policy study to avoid unintended consequences.
The board asked staff to prepare two items for the Sept. 30 meeting: (1) a consolidated table or matrix of proposed comprehensive-plan revisions and public-comment themes (using Carl Weinberg's matrix format as an initial model) and (2) several concrete examples of items that might be appropriate for administrative streamlining or that clearly should remain subject to board review. Staff agreed to update the revision summary document in SharePoint and circulate the planning-board-specific matrix before the next meeting so members have time to review and act on it in public.
The board scheduled follow-up discussions on the capital budget and the comprehensive plan in late September and October.
