Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks special permit for six‑unit senior housing at 35 Terrace Avenue; planning board recommends approval
Summary
The Stamford Planning Board gave a favorable recommendation for a proposed six‑unit independent living cluster at 35 Terrace Avenue that would be deed‑restricted for seniors and people with disabilities; the board cited net tree gains, drainage upgrades and accessible unit requirements.
Get email alerts on the Senior Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Stamford Planning Board on Feb. 10 voted to give 35 Terrace LLC a favorable recommendation to the zoning board for a special permit to build a six‑unit independent living cluster at 35 Terrace Avenue.
Leonard Bridal, attorney for the applicant, said the roughly 1.02‑acre site in the Bull’s Head area would be redeveloped into six ownership units restricted for seniors and people with disabilities. “We the applicant wants to develop redevelop this property into a small community for seniors and people with disabilities with a total of 6 units,” Bridal said, adding that the buildings would be deed‑restricted as independent living and that one floor of each unit would meet accessibility requirements.
The proposal includes two home types: three Type A units with single‑car garages (~2,130 sq ft) and three Type B units with two‑car garages (~2,378 sq ft). Bridal said the plan yields about nine practical parking spaces for six units once tandem spaces in front of two‑car garages are counted for zoning purposes; he emphasized the garage mix responds to market demand and accessibility needs. The applicant also described a new drainage system and a revised landscaping plan that increases the site’s tree count from 48 existing trees to 62 proposed, addressing EPB comments.
Board members questioned the number of two‑car garages for a 55+ community and whether the mix was appropriate; Bridal said many older households continue to drive and some disabled residents may need larger vehicles. The applicant also said they declined an ownership density bonus that could have allowed a seventh unit in order to keep more open space on the site.
Ravi moved that the planning board recommend approval of the special permit; Jeremy seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The application will next proceed to the zoning board for final special‑permit review and any required public hearings.
