Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board recommends denial of two‑family on undersized lot at 0 Fairfield Avenue
Summary
The Stamford Planning Board unanimously recommended denial of a ZBA referral for a two‑family dwelling on a 4,972 sq ft lot at 0 Fairfield Ave (applicant Imran M. Rahim). Board members cited lack of hardship, precedent concerns, and parking/runoff questions; ZBA had previously denied the application without prejudice.
The Stamford Planning Board on Feb. 24 recommended denial of a Zoning Board of Appeals referral for a proposed two‑family house at 0 Fairfield Avenue, Lot 1, filed by Imran M. Rahim.
Staff introduced ZBA application 010-26 and asked the applicant to present. John Marinelli, presenting for the owner, described the proposal for a two‑family dwelling on a 4,972-square‑foot vacant lot in an R‑5 zone and said the design includes four on‑site parking spaces plus two additional on‑street spots intended to serve an adjacent corner lot. Marinelli said the applicant wanted to “beautify” a lot the owner has been maintaining, noting the neighborhood already contains multiple multifamily properties.
Imran Rahim emphasized neighborhood context, saying most nearby parcels are multifamily and that the new construction would reduce litter and provide parking for adjacent units. Marinelli added that “we are following the latest Stamford planning and zoning regulations,” and described the proposal as conforming to setbacks, height and coverage requirements aside from the lot‑size minimum.
Several board members questioned whether the application presented a hardship that would justify a variance. The board noted that the lot is vacant (so no preexisting built structure to grandfather) and that the requested reduction from a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum to 4,972 square feet is significant. Members raised precedent concerns and parking pressures in the neighborhood. One member said, “just because there are other nearby nonconforming properties does not constitute a hardship for which a variance is typically granted.”
Board member Jeremy moved to remain consistent with the board’s prior review and recommend denial, saying no new facts had been presented to change the earlier decision. Ravi seconded. The planning board voted unanimously to recommend denial to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The ZBA previously denied the application without prejudice to allow the applicant to present; the planning board’s recommendation is advisory and the ZBA may reach an independent decision.
The board also urged the ZBA and city staff to consider whether certain neighborhoods deserve a more comprehensive review of zoning designations where the built environment and existing density diverge from the zoning map.
