Bridgeport ZBA denies use-variance for 65 Stillman Street after neighbors warn of parking, noise and health impacts

The Bridgeport Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday denied a use-variance request for 65 Stillman Street that would have allowed a small vehicle repair shop and limited online sales inside an existing taxi depot building.

Attorney Chris Russo, representing the applicant, told the board the property has a long industrial history and that the proposed operation — focused on indoor repair of classic “muscle cars,” no painting, no hazardous chemical storage and customers by appointment — would reduce the site’s intensity. Russo proposed conditions including a limit of 10 vehicles stored and repaired inside the building, five designated on-site parking spaces and landscaping to screen the lot.

But several neighbors and local leaders urged denial. "Under Connecticut zoning principles, a use variance should only be granted when there is a clear hardship tied to the property, not merely a desire to change businesses," said Tatiana Urena, a Stillman Street resident who identified herself as president of the East Side NRZ. Urena asked the board to enforce strict hours, noise limits and vehicle-storage rules if the board were to approve a variance.

Resident Maria Inez Vaggia asked the board to inspect parking and traffic conditions in person, saying narrow streets and nearby commercial uses already strain parking. Judy Gray, who owns property on Stillman Street, said the neighborhood has persistent parking and nuisance issues tied to the taxi business and nearby storage activity; she warned of fumes and health impacts for residents with asthma and said enforcement has been inconsistent.

Members debated enforcement and the legal standard for a use variance. Russo cited a court precedent (identified in the presentation as the "Adolphson" line of cases) and argued the request represented a step down from the existing nonconforming taxi use. The applicant also introduced Ray Longo as the property owner, who confirmed the taxi office functions have been outsourced and that he plans to apply for a different state license if the variance were approved.

A commissioner moved to deny the variance, citing insufficient property-specific hardship and concerns about neighborhood impacts; the motion carried and the board recorded that the application was denied. The transcript does not record a roll-call tally in numeric form.

The decision leaves the property's existing nonconforming taxi-repair permissions in place; ZBA discussion noted that, if denied, the owner may continue the prior legal nonconforming taxi use but could not add the proposed light-vehicle-sales activity.