Public Hearing and Meeting Minutes
November 18, 2024
The Town of Stratford Zoning Commission conducted a special Public Hearing on Monday,in Council Chambers.
Members Present: Chair Harold Watson, Linda Manos and Ewald Joseph, Debra Lamberti
Members Absent: Len Petruccelli
Alternates Present: Richard Fredette – (seated for Len Petruccelli)
Town Representatives in Attendance: Jay Habansky- Planning & Zoning Administrator, and Pat Sullivan – Assistant Town Attorney
Others in Attendance : Robert Collins, town consultant with SLR
Meeting agenda focused on the Zoning Commission zoning regulations update.
Mr, Habansky and Robert Collins shared with the commissioners and the public the extensive work that went into updating the regulations over that past year and a half. Chair Watson asked questions to the staff that worked on this project. Discussion followed.
Chair Watson opened the public hearing for public comment.
“I ask of all here tonight this zoning revision rewrite presents two and a half years of earnest efforts to improve our Zoning for all shareholders in Stratford. It would be tragic for all our work to be wasted with reckless and dangerous regulations or the lack
Herein. What we present is our best future-looking zoning update
Jay Habansky: as you mentioned this project. although a year and a half in the making and meetings and work sessions that we’ve had, this meeting is really probably closer to nine years in the making. When I started here nine years ago we have been cataloging regulations that no longer work, n longer are consistent with state law, or do not necessarily fit with the desired goals that the town has in terms of economic development, in terms of housing, in terms of site plan development, and so this project is really long in the making, and long overdue. A comprehensive update of these zoning regulations, which really have not been touched in about 80 years comprehensively. And I’ll be repeating a lot of information to you all that you all have already heard, but for the benefit of the folks in the audience the zoning regulations intentionally was scheduled to follow and overlap with the plan of conservation and development update, that is the long range plan for the town of Stratford that helps to really guide decision making not only for land use officials, but serve as a guide to the development Community as well as other elected officials here in town. And so after that 2 year process of updating our POCD we started the zoning regulations update and so part of even before we got there we took many of the goals and directives from the plan of conservation and development and put that into the RFP for selecting a consultant and so that scope of work really should have been taken directly out of the PC which were to simplify the regulations to create more modern and user friendly document to align the regulations with the updated plan of conservation and development to ensure consistency with new state laws as well as other codes and lastly to support other long range planning initiatives and trends. Once we had that feedback and guidance from the POCD we went out to bid and we secured the services of our friend Robert Collins from SLR Consulting, who has done a fantastic job helping me with the reorganization of our zoning regulations, which I can tell you, were just all over the map. You have zones in the in the second chapter, you have zones in the 33rd chapter there was very little organization and intuitive workflow to the zoning regulations, and so helping me to organize that was really tremendous help given that I’m handling a lot of the day-to-day stuff and fires that happen in the office.
We’ve Condensed that down to seven. One of my goals with the zoning regulations was to not increase it by more than 10%. and that was just a Personal goal, if it had to be longer it had to be longer But we wanted to make the document user-friendly and not too cumbersome to operate in not only from a staff perspective but from a user perspective residents, as well as the development world. Again, we wanted to make it more modern user-friendly document. We took a lot of our tables, but we really didn’t change any of the dimensions, the zone development standards, although we added in a few, like Impervious area requirement in residential zones, something that almost every rate zoning reg Code has, but Stratford never did. We have a consolidated use table, which we always had one. Someone would call up the office and say – I want to set up a takeout restaurant at this address – and so we would go to our chart which would have all the uses in one column all the all of the zones in the other and you could go find the use column and it’s permitted as of right, you just need a building permit or you need to go for a special permit or you need a variance. Whatever it happened to be.
So one of the suggestions that SLR had was that we really formalized that Internal tool for navigating the zoning regulations quickly and effectively and really make it part of the zoning regulations Another example was we wanted to make sure that we were aligning the zoning regulations with the plan of conservation and development taking some of the chapters that we have from the Town of Stratford’s housing plan, which was developed by the Stratford Housing partnership that was during Covid, as well as some of the updated development standards and really integrate that guidance that we got from either other boards and get them into the zoning regulations.
Number four to ensure consistency with the state statutes. I think that our zoning regulations at one time we’re actually quite consistent with the Connecticut general statutes, which are essentially laws that that guide what towns can do and what towns can regulate. A good example of that would have been our coastal area management Chapter which looks to protect and regulate development activities within the coastal boundary specifically in relation to coastal resources We basically had taken what state law requires now through the CAM Act and really mirror that here locally at the local level, so that takes a lot of the gray area not only out of it for staff who was trying to interpret two sets of conflicting regulations, but also for the development world who has clear expectation as to what they should be putting on their plans and what they should be applying for.
Lastly we wanted to support as many of the long-range planning programs that the POC identifies but also that we’ve the planning office but also many of the other departments in town are working on so that we are all pulling on the same end of the rope In the same direction some of those things include an outdoor lighting regulation, which currently we do not have. , how lighting is used on the outside so it does not become a nuisance to neighbors or other businesses. Trying to integrate the ability of renewable energy, the allowance and fixing of multifamily housing and providing a diversity of housing stock here in town not only like allowing three families in our multifamily zone, which is something that’s new but allowing for accessory dwelling units on residential properties and so I think the code really addresses many of the priorities that came out of our governing document, which is the plan of conservation and development. So at this point I was gonna turn it over to Robert and let Robert maybe discuss some of the formatting and stylistic changes that the new regulations have since this is really much of the organizational expertise that Robert brought and helped with the project among many technical things.
Robert Collins with SLR: I just wanted to reiterate that this is an update, and throughout the process we shared a substantial amount of the zoning regulation text and the document that you see that’s available online, that’s a clean combined document. A substantial amount of those actual words are carried forward from the existing zoning regulations. So in many cases what you’re looking at is not in a substantial amount not new language or text, it’s carried forward again from the existing regulations. It’s just that it’s in a new location. It’s been combined again because we went from 33 Sections that the code has right now down to seven.
So we reorganized, it took the exact language and put it into a new location and we tracked that very carefully on our end. We had a master document that we went through very carefully and made sure that every aspect of the code since it was being moved around so significantly and we made sure that everything that was appropriate carried forward. In the end we had seven sections. The first one is an introduction which just kind of goes through the overarching parameters or purposes and legal requirements for the zoning regulations that leads into section 2 which is the definitions, definitions previously were scattered throughout the document in many cases. There was duplications inconsistencies or just very outdated definitions.
We consolidated them, we analyzed them, and then we put them back into the code engine in section 2 in a consolidated way. There are some instances where there are very specialized codes like the sign code, and the Coastal area management Regulations that Jay was mentioning, where we did make sure that because they’re so site specific or subject specific I should say that we did indicate the definitions in that location as well that are specific for that subject. But we did make sure that they were cross-referenced in case there was ever a situation where a definition, for instance, the sign code needed to be updated.
It would be noted In the definition section 2 as well in section 3 we move into the zoning districts again. All of the districts were collapsed into one area and with residential, commercial, industrial overlay and other types of districts being the categories. In the existing regulations those were scattered throughout as the code had been updated so it would have been possible if you were using the code that you may potentially not find a district because you weren’t sure where it was since it wasn’t in a consolidated location after you review that the district section 4 is the Use, and the use related standards again, all of the uses that previously were kind of scattered throughout or with the districts were collapsed into one consolidated section and one consolidated table for ease of use.
The interesting thing that happened when we did this we found out from the town Staff and from the Zoning Commission is that there were uses that were not intentionally left out, but they had never been noticed, that they hadn’t been permitted in a certain district, even though it was a very acceptable use, like a bank or something like that. We also were able to notice where there might be inconsistencies between an allowed use in one district versus another once you put it into a table format You can see that all very clearly then, and also all the use regulations because in many cases the special Permit that might be required might require the special regulations. So therefore those are easily found and they’re in alphabetical order So if you need to find based on what is it mentions in the use table something about a use you can very quickly find it in the rest of that chapter in alphabetical order
Mr. Habansky: Some of the uses that we have added to the zoning regulations are typical that we get the questions almost every single day in our office. You get things like beekeeping, automotive service and repair, boarding houses, group homes, temporary uses, community residences, medical offices, urgent care, soccer fields, athletic fields, contractor storage yards. Those were not in our zoning regulations yet.
We all know that we see them all over town, and how you get there, you know you have a developer, or an organization that comes in and says I want to do exactly what’s being done across the street. Well, we as staff don’t always didn’t know how to treat some of those uses, and so since there was no real avenue for them to get there, we’ve really formalized the process of uses that we do want to allow, and create appropriate guide rails for them to at least apply to this Commission and ask to do those things.
While doing that we also eliminated some uses that probably have not been around in over a hundred years. I always use the example of the feather plucking factory as a permitted of right use, which you know, I don’t think one of those has been around for over a hundred years, bone sharpening. That’s another use that’s in our regulations, which I’m not sure what that’s for, but we haven’t had one of those in my tenure here at the Town of Stratford, so really modernizing the code while not adding a whole lot but really trying to clarify the process of what needs to happen. If you want to do one of the one of these uses go ahead.
Mr. Collins: The code then goes into special development types and this is a outcrop of the uses but it’s more like a specialized development like multifamily development and based on the guidance from the PO CD update. We wanted to make sure that we work very closely with the town staff as well as the Zoning Commission to make sure updates to the multifamily regulations were put in place to make housing opportunities and affordability options increase within the town, which was a main goal. Currently the town in the site development standards, which follow in section 6 again. These were all collapsed so that they’re easy to find once you know your district and your use you can find out how to develop it, and this includes things such as the parking regulations and the sign code regulations Both of those two regulations were substantially looked at and updated to make sure that they were business friendly, more user friendly, and I think you know, we also put things in table format like that. We did also add some additional site development standards that Jay and Nisha kind of initially talked about. You know because of current either planning and zoning trends or town initiatives, this included things like outdoor lighting which is a very big issue in today’s world with dark skies initiatives. The state had just recently put out through the Connecticut Planning Association, Guiding Parameters for outdoor lighting, and we were able to take a careful look at that and make sure that we embedded outdoor lighting regulations that were appropriate for Stratford, and that has been that’s one of the sections that’s substantially new. Also renewable energy structures was another area that was a new item that was placed in things related to wind energy or solar power that weren’t really very clearly discussed in the current regulations, and again, we had some guidance coming from the state.
We took a look at those regulations And made them the most appropriate for Stratford Lastly The last section of the code the new regulations is the administration procedures and enforcement is collapsed again from several different locations, but put it all in one place and most all of the existing administration and Procedures were collapsed or brought forward as is except for the notification procedures which were updated to meet the desires of the Town staff as well as the zoning.
It wasn’t written anywhere in the zoning code but it was something that staff had always done in their applications, that process is now formalized, taking some of the gray area out of our internal procedures.
That’s a quick run-through of the seven new sections and kind of a summary tagging in with what Jay had given for some of the overarching five Goals of the project and how they were incorporated into the new seven sections.
Habansky: and the last thing I add Mr. Chairman before I turn it back over to you, is that you know my personal goals of this project was to make sure that we had a clear and concise and not overly wordy and difficult to interpret set of rules here for the town. and so I can’t remember the exact number, but I think we added somewhere around ten pages. But when you really think about it, there were some significant sections, but we cleaned up a lot of very wordy hard to interpret language so that now whoever follows in my position or my staff’s position will have a much easier job managing development here in town.
Collins: And I’m just gonna say real quick my favorite one, well there was quite a few that we thought we had some fun with, in the code the discussion about a single-family home was a whole entire paragraph in the use regulation. So a single-family house was described in an entire paragraph and we were able to collapse that in the use table to just down to single family so that with a definition in section two was one of the things that shows how we were able to really clarify and make it more user-friendly.
Habansky: I think I would say that we’ve talked about this in our many work sessions here with the Zoning Commission. I don’t have an exact number, but I would say probably 90% of our code was working and so 10% of our updates are new and really that’s very little, but it was kind of turning the dials and tweaking what we were doing to be consistent with law and case law and the general statutes, but also adjusting to what we are seeing applicants coming in and asking. Well, what do you mean I can’t have a mixed-use development along Barnum Avenue or whatever it happened to be so, Yeah, I’m very proud of all the work that you all did because these are complicated things that we were dealing with, you move a comma in a sentence and it changes what it means, you change an apostrophe and it changes what is being said so, you know all the work that we did and all the Open houses, I’m really proud of all the work.
I am happy to answer any questions from the Commission regarding the project. I know you’ve already asked me many questions over the past month, our past year I should say.
Chairman Harold Watson: If I can just make a comment on what our two masters here said, one of the things that I’ve learned over the process is that this new zoning has a built-in level of Interactivity that is future-looking because at some point in the short future we’ll be able to use the GIS mapping and reorganized zoning, and any property owner can go online and look up exactly what applies to that property. That is so quickly going to be a possibility that will actually change the process for homeowners, for developers, and for people who are living in rentals and everything else. So I think Stratford will be in a really great place a couple years down the road if we can get this all in and done
Habanosky: And it won’t be long before our current code uses an interactive zoning map. It’s called map link and on the town’s website: go to the planning and zoning page Click on the map link and you enter your address and it’ll tell you your zone what the setbacks are if you’re building a shed, what this coverage requirements are if you’re building a deck or an addition, and a lot of questions that we get are – I want to build a pool what are the rules? If you go to map link and you type in your address every single regulated activity in that zone for that use will show up. Not that it’ll eliminate all questions, but I think it’ll really provide concise guidance from the get-go because if you’ve ever tried to read zoning regulations, you know, they’re not always easy to find what you’re looking for, and or, to interpret what they’re telling you what the rules are so go ahead.
Chairman Watson: One other comment that I’m gonna actually read a little short passage for you. When I was on planning I worked on the POCD. By the time the POCD update started I was here on zoning, so I see the connection between the two really strongly, and I think what we’re doing in zoning is connecting back with our all of our Legality to what is our vision statement. So what I tried to put together tonight to help everybody understand it better Is a short couple pages that is specific to the POCD So I’m gonna read it
Before we begin discussions, I would like to read into the record my findings for consistency with the proposed zoning regulations and the plan of conservation and development. This is the key finding that we as commissioners are tasked with demonstrating prior to its adoption. This may take a few minutes, so I appreciate your patience.
I have made the following findings after thorough review of the proposed zoning regulations and the new plan of conservation and development. Number one, the POCD vision statement. Stratford residents envision Stratford as a town with a strong sense of community, providing opportunities and access to all, valuing and fostering partnership, balancing built and natural environments to maintain the small town charm, and creating a resilient community that withstands natural and man-made changes and disasters.
These zoning regulations, as proposed, further cultivate this vision for the town. Number two, POCD’s goals for land use. To promote a balanced physical growth and development that fosters livable, inclusive communities, economic vitality, and healthy lifestyles while preserving the small town charm and natural resources within the community.
These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals. Number three, the POCD’s land use objectives. Simplify the code, increase usefulness, understandability, encourage a mix of land uses, sustainable land use practices, and healthy lifestyles, increase aesthetic appeal, and streamline the approval process.
These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these objectives. Number four, the POCD’s goals for housing. If I could just interject, I worked on the Stratford Housing Partnership for a year and a half.
That’s a critical issue for Stratford. The goals for housing continue to provide diverse and healthy housing options to meet the needs of current and future residents during all stages of life, while maintaining a sense of community and the unique attributes of existing neighborhoods. These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals.
Number five, the POCD’s housing objectives. To implement inclusionary zoning and promote affordable housing, enable more housing choices and options, promote housing design sensitive to the community, support aging in place for older residents, educate residents on the need for promoting housing diversity and choice, and explore innovative housing strategies for creating healthy, affordable, and livable communities. Again, these zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with the objectives.
Number six, POCD’s goals for conservation, open space, and recreation. To conserve, protect, and enhance open space and natural and recreational resources while managing responsible growth and development, and to deliver responsive municipal services to ensure a safe, welcoming, and vibrant community now and in the future. These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals.
Number seven, POCD’s conservation objectives. To provide opportunities for recreation, exercise, and open space, expand open space, increase access to the waterfront, and continue to support and develop a system of greenways and trails. These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals.
POCD’s goals and objectives for economic development. To retain and grow new business, encourage the diversification and growth of the tax base, max development decisions that are predictable, fair and cost-effective, and encourage waterfront development that is resilient to natural hazards and sensitive to environmental areas. These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals and objectives.
Number nine, the POCD’s goals and objectives for cultural and historic resources. Preserve, promote, and protect cultural and historic resources for current and future generations, as well as encouraging the stewardship of historical landmarks and properties. These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals and objectives.
Number ten, the POCD’s goals and objectives for mobility. To improve and expand transportation options to support mobility and access for people of all ages and abilities, and to promote sustainable, reliable, multimodal transportation network within the town and to regional destinations. These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals and objectives.
Number eleven, POCD’s goals and objectives for energy, environment, and sustainability. To ensure that Stratford is a sustainable and thriving community that benefits from and supports clean energy, preserves and cares for its ecosystems, prioritizes environmental cleanup and protection, fosters community and ecosystem resiliency, and prepares for any coastal changes in fiscally and environmentally sustainable ways. These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals and objectives.
Number twelve, POCD’s goals and objectives for waterfront redevelopment and climate resiliency. To enhance the coastal and waterfront experience for residents through the accommodation and thoughtful management of water-dependent uses and coastal public access when opportunities arise, and to ensure that the town continues to be a livable community with future economic opportunities while supporting our basic town values. These zoning regulations, as proposed, are consistent with these goals and objectives.
Number thirteen, goals and objectives for place making and urban design. To promote vibrant community gathering spaces for residents of all ages and abilities. To promote welcoming and aesthetically pleasing commercial corridors, and to promote connectivity and accessibility between Stratford’s character areas and our neighborhoods.
Public Comment Session
The following individuals shared their comments on the adoption of the updated Zoning Regulations:
Ken Ciardiello New Haven
Tucker Chase Stratford
Gregg Dancho Stratford
Laura Dancho Stratford
Stephan Shapiro Milford
Jim Amenn Milford
Senator Kevin Kelly Stratford
Joe Gerics Stratford
Stratford Fire Marshall Robert Daniel Stratford
Ken Ciardiello: I represent Red Buff Rita Incorporated here in Stratford and I have a a few copies of proposed revisions that I’d like to pass out and submit into the record. It’s a letter but basically a list of proposed regulations that my client would like to suggest to this committee help streamline some zoning regulations and just try and make everything go a little smoother. So the first one I will start with is section 1.4.3, this section is basically a conflict section it says what will happen when municipal regulations come in conflict with State statutes. As it’s written now the regulation says that if there is a conflict between those two the municipal regulation will control. We think that is not in compliance with state law. There’s been a bunch of cases on this issue and basically municipalities only granted the powers that the state allows it to have so if there’s a conflict between the two we really think that the state statute should be controlling in place of the municipal regulation. Moving to 2.2 this section deals with what happens when a term is not defined in the municipal regulations. The way the regulations are currently worded it refers to a commission to use a dictionary to try and define terms that are not defined in the regulations. But we think a better more legally accurate reading or interpretation of that would be to use statutes and case law to help define undefined terms in the regulations rather than a dictionary. For the sake of time I’ll condense the next three regulations, 5.1.3 subsection 3 6.56 subsection 1 and 6.82 subsection: all of these regulations refer to a requirement for a performance bond similarly to what I was just talking about with municipalities not being able to exercise powers that not are not granted to them by the states. The state statutes do not permit performance bonds for completion of work. What the statute does permit is to require a financial guarantee in two situations one being that the work or the development that is being completed will be conveyed or controlled to or by the municipality that’s number one or number two, this second situation in which a financial guarantee could be imposed would be where there is implementation of a erosion and settlement control required to construct the development so those are the two situations which state law permits any sort of financial guarantee to complete work and nowhere in the state statute do does the state grant municipalities the power to impose a performance bond so we would respectfully request that those three regulations be revised to remove the term performance bond and replace them with financial guarantee given those two situations that I just went over. Moving right along to section 5.1 C Roman numeral. This regulation has to do with the town’s affordable housing regulations and we think that there is a MPL reference to Connecticut General statute 830 G which is the state’s affordable housing statute essentially by referencing 830 G that will put a restriction on the town’s affordable housing in that a certain amount of set aside units 30% at the state level will need to be set aside for 30 years, we don’t think that’s the intention of this statute we think that the intention of this town regulation would be to be in compliance with the town affordable housing regulations which normally provide for deed restriction for 10 years in those units and that by referencing 830 G in that statute those units would be more restricted than we believe that the town may intend for that provision. Moving along to five 0.1.5 D1 through the first subsection One deals with what types of sewer hookups a developer can hook into and we would like to add in addition to public sewer we would like to add in that developments can also have a community deceptic system approved by the Department of Public Health or DEEP and there was recently a law changed allowing the Department of Public Health jurisdiction over community septics of 10,000 gallons or less so to be more inclusive and to allow for more diversified development projects we think that allowing projects to hook into Community septics as well as you know the public sewer system should be permitted. The next one deals with water hookup. One deals with sewer hookup and they both involve issuance of certificates of occupancy so basically they say that certificates of occupancy can’t be issued unless there’s certain criteria met for water and certain criteria met for sewage. Our thoughts on these two is that the timing is just a little off we don’t want developers to build a whole project and then find out they don’t have the water volume or the adequate sewer hookup so instead of applying for a CO at the end of a project we think that developers should get those approvals for water and sewer at the outset of the project rather than you build this whole complex or development and then at the end you find out you don’t have the capacity for sewer or the adequate water flow. Moving to 6.8.7 this is the regulation control rolling EV parking space requirement for new developments. We think that requiring 10% which is the proposed regulation would be 10% electric vehicle parking that in our opinion is a lot those spots are expensive sometimes prohibitively so I just use my own experience in the parking structure that I go to and park in for work has 800 parking spaces and I think there’s probably 10 electric vehicle charging stations and every time I drive by them seven of them five of them have to be unoccupied so we think that requiring 10% is a little much just because again those are expensive and if the need presents itself down the road a developer can always add them if needed if there’s a demand for those but at where we are now we just think that 10% is a little much for that provision. Moving down to 7.3.3 a through D these all have to do with site plans so subsection A deals with the purpose of a site plan and we think that the purpose defined in this regulation is a little bit off. We believe that the purpose of a site plan review is to ensure compliance with zoning regulations rather than to promote health safety welfare of the town. Now those are important objectives of the town but not necessarily the objective of the site plan review which again is to ensure that the zoning requirements are met. Moving down to subsection B when a site plan is needed we would suggest removing subsections B four five and six which require site plan review for subdivisions zone changes and applications for 830 G which is the affordable housing statute we don’t think that the site plan review would be warranted for those uses or applications. Moving down to subsection C removing subsection 568 and 11 again we don’t think those applications are necessarily relevant for site plan review and then moving down to D we just think that again we want to underscore that the purpose of a site plan review is to ensure compliance with zoning regulations not ensure Public Safety Health and Welfare of the town. And then finally section 73 7 3.4 subsection B we want to make sure that the purpose it’s kind of the opposite of the site plan review here that the purpose of the site plan excuse me special permit be to permit public health safety convenience and property values which should be the relevant criteria which those applications be viewed under so that is the completion of what we are proposing or suggesting and I’m happy to answer any questions that the commission may have.
Tucker Chase: This is about the accessory apartments. I’m very glad that you’ve included detached accessory apartments. I think that that is an excellent way to go. I think that one— So I’m looking at—I’m not sure which section this is, but something number 11, It’s section 4.4.2. That’s the accessory dwelling unit section. Okay. So the part that I’m looking at is 11D. The maximum size of an accessory apartment should be no greater than 1,000 square feet, exclusive of utilities, whichever is less. I don’t understand what that means, the phrase exclusive of utilities. Just a point there. Then we have no attached or detached— So then I’m at 13. Any new detached ADU shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from both sides and rear property lines and a minimum of 65 from the front. So then it is the sentence which I’m objecting to, which is no detached ADU shall exceed 12 feet in building height to the midpoint of roof. So what that’s telling you is that you can only do a one-story detached ADU. Two-story detached ADUs are not allowed in this code, if I’m reading this correctly. So I would propose that there should be—this is too stringent, too dictatorial. It doesn’t allow for, let’s say, a site plan relationship that, you know, I’m an architect. I would like to do something different than throwing this one-story building in the corner of the lot. And it’s a one-story, so a 20-by-50 building could be pretty ugly. So I’d like to be able to, have a relationship with the original, the main house, and do a two-story building, 500 square feet on each floor, some variety of this. I think this is just too limiting, very, very limiting. You’re basically going back to the old code by talking about the 12-foot maximum height, which is the garage, the detached garage statute. And that’s all you’ve done here. And if I’m reading the wrong update of the code, please tell me. So I think that those were the main things in that one. So the other part that I’d like to address is lighting. I appreciate that there’s been an attempt to do something with lighting in this code. But I must say that I think that it was nitpicking, that it’s trying to do something, and it just really doesn’t work based on what should be the purpose of a lighting code. And I don’t feel that it’s been explained well. And I would say that one of the main purposes, what is the minimum lumen output and maximum shielding to achieve the goal for the property and the community? So those who are not familiar with lumen output refers to brightness of a fixture. It has nothing to do with wattage. It has to do with how bright a fixture is. So when you look at lighting, there’s three different ways of looking at it. You need to fulfill three different categories. One is shielding, so like that nothing here is shielded. We get to look into these little fake lampy things. But if you had, let’s say, a shield over each one of them, then it would direct the light downwards and not to where it can’t be anything except glare. So shielding is really crucial. That’s the number one factor that makes lighting become tenable for those of us who are looking, who are moving around, who are seeing the neighbors, et cetera. So the second one is lumen per acre. How many lumens do we have per acre? And I know that there’s been some discussion about, oh, this is difficult to measure. But it really isn’t difficult to measure. With a light meter and what the original packaging says that the lumen value should be, this is not complicated. I would even volunteer some of my time in the evening to go around and look. I’ll put in a little bit of time. Maybe the community could participate in the analysis of the lighting. So the third thing is the color spectrum. And everything, as we do lighting, it should not be towards the blue, which is what we’re getting with a typical LED fixture that’s outside. But it should move towards the red. And that’s much more friendly to us, to animals, to plants. And that’s really quite an important aspect. So those three ways are judging lighting. And I just feel that what’s placed in the new code is just I’ll nitpick here, and I’ll put a motion sensor here. And there are a lot of lines about, oh, OK, there’s a motion sensor. It’s going to go on. It’s going to go off. But that’s not good for the animal population. I think that what would be much more effective, it goes off, and we have the fixed hours. You do address that. And then it’s off for, let’s say, 11 o’clock to 6 o’clock. And that’s it. I don’t think that there should be the on-off thing. So I believe that that’s just about finished now. So this is how I got started with this whole thing about understanding lighting, which is a book called The Darkness Manifesto. So I’ve taken my five, and he had his 15? OK, there you go. OK. At any rate, my point is I believe this needs work. And one last thought is the format of this whole thing that we had those roundtable discussions where we, the community, gave input to zoning and the code consultant. But what I think is missing in this process is this is the first time we have an opportunity to actually interact. So I think there should be roundtables after this whole thing is put together. You present to us, the community, we have a plan. And then just discuss it and say how you’ve interpreted the input. Because I think now we’re getting, I know you’ve done this for a long time, but now it’s getting cut short. There’s not an opportunity to actually get into the weeds. Thank you.
Greg Dancho: Chair of the Stratford Conservation Commission. Good evening, chair and members of the zoning commission. I come before you tonight to thank you for your diligence in taking the time for reviewing, revamping, realigning, and re-examining the town of Stratford’s zoning laws. Not as I would expect was an easy task. With the inestimable support of Jay Habansky and the input from all around the town, this work will support our future development. As chair of the Conservation Commission, whose statement of purpose is to promote the development and conservation of natural resources within the town of Stratford, the commission has asked me tonight to also applaud the zoning commission’s work in relation to the Stratford Plan of Conservation and Development. Zoning plays an integral part in the health and welfare of not only animals and plants that live here, but additionally and more importantly, to its citizens as well. That, in fact, is our joint task and mission. These zoning laws, always carefully considered, should, can, and will support each other in our land use boards, and with that, the good of all our town. Now, I was gonna say thank you at that point, and be done real quickly, but one of the previous speakers did talk a little bit about community, and now as conservation chair, I do have to mention that community septic systems are a long-term problem waiting to happen. For a large community system, this is a maintenance nightmare. Many of these new developments are near wetlands and can have disastrous effects if the system fails, and whomever in the future needs to deal with these very large fields that are gonna have to be septic systems. Definitely not against, definitely I’m not against workforce or low-income housing. My wife and I actually started out in Success Village, but this should be a non-starter, thank you.
Laura Dancho: Good evening, Zoning Commission. I just have a few comments to make, and then I’m gonna reserve most of my comments for a future meeting, but similar to my husband, I’d like to thank you all for your work to rewrite and update the zoning regulations. As he mentioned, that was an incredible task, and it’s something that’s gonna totally benefit our town, and we appreciate your efforts for that. So the reason we have a Zoning Commission and regulations is to maintain local control, and that’s the authority to evaluate the safety and merits of any development and allow the transparency of a public hearing. Additionally, regulations are in place to ensure that all developments, regardless of whether such development is for workforce affordable or market value housing or any new business, that it meets the needs of our town and allows for the critical town staff to weigh in and advise the commission on the safety and merits of such development within their expertise. I’d also like to say that having critical infrastructure, such as connections to a sanitary sewer, city water, or providing storm water systems, are responsible elements for residents and businesses. And this also aligns with our new Stratford’s POCD. Workforce housing should be constructed in transit-oriented districts of which Stratford’s TOD area has the necessary sewer water and storm water infrastructure in place. To allow multifamily housing to be constructed without this critical infrastructure and no plan to manage storm water is short-sighted and environmentally dangerous. I’d also like to address the EV charging stations. I’m sure that this is written in detail in the new regulations, but this is regarding safety. Installing EV charging stations to multifamily housing developments is a great idea and should be included in the new zoning regulations. However, I’d like to point out that they should not be installed in underground parking areas or below housing units. This is because it’s well-documented these charging stations could be a fire hazard and we must ensure the safety of residents and workforce housing as well as allow our emergency vehicles to access these areas in case of fire. So with that, I’m gonna keep it short and I’ll finish it here and I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Steven Shapiro: Good evening, everybody. Thank you for your time this evening. Mr. Chairman, would I be able to pass out a regulation, thank you. So my attorney, Ben Peralta, could make use of Westport tonight. He already submitted this text amendment to the zoning office here in town. What I was hoping was it could possibly something that the commission could add to the whole zoning rewrite. What it is is a workforce housing overlay zone. So the commission would still, it would be a special permit. Every single application would still have to come before the commission. You’d approve it based on the merits of the site, et cetera. It concentrates the type of housing in an area along Access Boulevard, pardon me, Access Road and Lordship Boulevard, which is by a lot of jobs in town where a lot of big factories are. It’s close to 95. It’s got all the public infrastructure everyone’s been talking about with the sewer and the water. It’s by public transportation as well, not too far from the train station. Another thing we added into the text amendment was workforce housing, right? What’s it for? It’s for people that work, right? And for a town to attract more talent, there’s a provision in there to allow it for town employees for the first 30 days. So if you’re a police officer, you’re a teacher, and you’re looking for a job in the area, and oh, well, I can get a apartment on my 50 to 100 grand a year salary I can afford. Why would I go work in Milford or wherever when I could work in Stratford and get a nice place to live? By also concentrating the housing by public transportation, by highway and stuff of that nature, it’s gonna cut down on pollution, commuting times. It’s good for the surrounding areas as well. We’re proposing this workforce regulation tweaked, obviously, because you gotta do it on a town-by-town basis based on their infrastructure to make up a town in Trumbull as well. And I brought Jim Amon here with me. He’s gonna talk a little bit. We’re talking about it on a whole state level. The state right now doesn’t have actual guidelines for workforce housing. There’s a financial program that’s out there for developers where they say, oh, the housing’s gotta be deed restricted for like six years. So someone could rent this apartment in a short amount of time and they can’t afford it anymore. Not to mention the town doesn’t get credit for that unit after the six years. What our regulation has is it actually gives more of the units deed restricted and for the whole 30, I think we did 30 or 40 years, I’m not positive off the top of my head. But it makes it in line with the unit that someone’s gonna be able to live in for a long time and is a benefit for the town for longer because it gives them credit to the units. It’s close to jobs. It attracts people for jobs within the town and cuts down on commuting time and stuff of that nature as well. So I would respectfully ask if the commissioners could read this and consider adding it to the regulations. It specifies based on the town’s infrastructure where this type of housing, instead of just a vague blanket type statement.
Jim Amon: Excuse the voice. That is from an operation I had, so though I sound like the godfather, I’m really a nice guy. It is wonderful to be here tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wonderful zoning commissioners, Jay and staff. You did a wonderful job on putting this forward. We’re working with the state of Connecticut. I represent Mr. Shapiro up in Hartford, my company’s International Government Strategies. We’re working with Majority Leader Rojas, Senator Bob Dove. We’ve had several conversations with him in direction actually from some of the conversations we’ve had here in Stratford and also other communities that were proposing workforce housing. As Mr. Shapiro said, they’re actually looking for guidance themselves, so hopefully by the time session is done in June, we’re also working obviously with the Republican leadership to try to come up with something bipartisan that gives you more guidelines down the road, but certainly what’s great about where you are here, ahead of the curve, and we hope that you continue to be the leaders on this and make sure this passes because we talk about affordable housing. Affordable housing, when I was an alderman back in the 80s, a lot different than what affordable housing is now, and when you have teachers, firemen, especially young married couples that are trying to find a place to live, it’s difficult. We wanna keep that talent in our communities, but more importantly, as you have been drawing these regulations to draw people to your community because you’re welcoming them to invest, so with that, I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing this gruff voice to have a conversation with you tonight. Thank you.
Joe Garrick: Good evening. I too wanna express my appreciation to the planning commissioners for their work on this. It’s not easy to weigh competing interests and conflicting goods, but I have two points I’d like the commission to reconsider. The first one has to do with parking. At a recent meeting of the zoning commission that was recorded, I watched it on TV, and the statement was made that Stratford has too much parking. That statement at the meeting went unchallenged, and I’d like to challenge it in regard to residential parking. Based on what I see and what I hear from people as I ran for the planning commission, Stratford has too few residential parking spaces. Parking in apartment complexes spills out onto neighboring streets. This is particularly egregious on Willow Street, where cars line both sides of Willow Street, and after dark, when people are home from work, it’s difficult to envision emergency vehicles making their way down Willow Street to get to Housatonic. Condos don’t have enough mandated parking spaces for guests and residents. The units or the developments on Elm Street and Riders Lane frequently have cars parked on the access road to the development in areas that are not designated for parking. Again, this is emergency vehicle access problematic. Finally, on cul-de-sacs across town, you often find cars angle parked, which defeats the purpose of having a turnaround for emergency vehicles to turn around. So I think, it’s not 1950 where, when I grew up, families had one car. Right now, with affordable housing crisis, it’s not uncommon for two or even three generations to share a three-bedroom home or an apartment. Two or three generations means three or four cars, or even five cars, not two and a half, which has been cut down to two in the current regulations. So, and the last thing I’d point out, that the increased density in on-street parking, the burden for these things falls most heavily on working-class neighborhoods, not neighborhoods like Lordship or Oronoque . So I’d urge you to reconsider the cutting back of the number of parking spaces required for multifamily dwellings. The second point I’d like to mention is that, you know, I think there’s a missed opportunity with the lack of an affordable housing set-aside. The Zoning Commission often approves developments that have 10% affordable housing, and that’s good, I guess, but it doesn’t move the town closer to the state goal of 10%. The town of Shelton approves a sliding scale for affordable housing in its affordable housing plan. They call for 10% affordable housing in developments of six to 10 units, 16% in larger units that are 51 to 100 units, and 18% in complexes that are over 100 units. You might not think that this applies to Stratford, but I think, I’m very concerned about the development of the Army Engine Plant. I know that it’s currently zoned for commercial use, and it’s not being considered for residential use, but I think we need to be prepared. Number one, the developer has a track record of developing mixed-use residence in waterfront property in Stratford. Number two, there are millions of dollars at stake in extra profit if the zoning is changed so that housing is permitted there. Finally, with a new administration in Washington, we can expect environmental protection rollbacks. So even if that doesn’t come to pass, and it may not, I think a policy on affordable housing set-asides would be a good idea for the town of Stratford. Thank you again for your commitment to this process. Thank you. FYI: Mr. Garrick is one of our planning commissioners
Kevin Kelly: Thank you very much. For the record, Kevin Kelly of Kevin Kelly & Associates. I’m here as the assistant town attorney representing the town of Stratford. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. First and foremost, I’d like to thank you for your service. Public service is difficult and often thankless with long hours. The fact that you’ve stuck with this project as long as you have and gotten it to this point, you deserve a lot of credit. So thank you for the time and effort that you’ve put in to making our town a better place to live. You’ve heard a number of things this evening for the first time, wherein there’s a couple of issues that are being brought forward, predominantly looking at whether or not site plans are important, whether or not performance bonds are necessary, whether or not our regs are actually in accordance with state law, and lastly, whether or not we have enough workforce and affordable housing in our community. First and foremost, the town regulations are adopted in accordance with our ordinances and state law. So they are compliant, they are now, and they will be when you finish your job. Second, with regards to that performance bond issue, yes, they’re right in that it’s necessary whenever a parcel is going to be conveyed to the town or it’s part of a subdivision where the town’s gonna take ownership of that, or even when it’s part of soil and erosion during construction. But there’s also other compelling public interests that need to be protected, like when you have development in or near a wetland and you need to preserve and protect that. Zoning also has that requirement to protect it, and therefore, if a developer’s promising to provide landscaping or coverage to maintain that environmental resource, you can have a performance bond. So they’re wrong in that regard. You have greater authority than the two that they listed. Site plans are important. They’re important for health, they’re important for safety, they’re important to protect the environment. Health, sewer septic, the WPCA capacity, the EPA alone has identified that septic is one of the top five pollutants to our environment. So it’s essential that we make sure that we make whatever housing that’s developed safe. It’s important. As well as safe from a perspective of police, fire, and EMS. You gotta make sure that you can have access, that fire can get to homes, that you can actually have the sufficient water supply. Also, that there’s a code, there’s a fire code, and we need to adhere to that. Just like there’s a building code. Why do we have building codes? Why do unions have apprenticeships? It’s to make sure that the homes that are constructed are constructed in a manner that are safe and healthy. We all live in a town that has a long and storied history of asbestos. Asbestos is no longer allowed in homes. As a matter of fact, if you find it, it needs to be remediated. So we need to make sure, and another thing is if you’ve gotten your letter lately from Aquarion, that’s another issue. Showing that there are hazards out there, and it’s incumbent on government to make sure that what is built is not only safe, but that it’s healthy. If we don’t do that, we’re abrogating our responsibilities, our stewardships that we have under state law. Last is the environment. Again, protecting resources. We all see what’s going on, the climate change. We had the storm in Oxford, Southbury, and Seymour, where even though they’re not located in a flood zone, houses, buildings, commerce has been wiped out. Just go to the south end on Route 113 by the airport. We haven’t had a major rainstorm in months. We’re in a historic drought, but yet for the past week, Main Street and the airport have flooded. Why? Because you have rising sea level, you have rising groundwater level, and as a result, there’s now, more than ever, a requirement to protect the environment. The policy of the state of Connecticut, as articulated in 22A-1, states that the General Assembly finds that the growing population and expanding economy of the state have had a profound impact on the life-sustaining natural environment. The air, water, land, and other natural resources taken for granted since the settlement of the state are now recognized as finite and precious. It is now understood that human activity must be guided by, and in harmony with, the system of relationships among the elements of nature. Therefore, the General Assembly hereby declares that the policy of the state and Connecticut is to conserve, improve, and protect its natural resources and environment, and to control air, land, and water pollution in order to enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the people of Connecticut. That is done through site plan review. No other way than to get the site plan review by the agencies and individuals in our town that are vested with the ability to evaluate these for the health, safety, and welfare of our community. Just to address those issues on affordable and workforce housing. As to the workforce housing and affordable housing, nobody in Connecticut, I think, will take issue with the fact that it costs a lot to live here, and it’s not getting any more or less expensive. Everything from our electricity to our groceries to our rent and cost of living is going up. So we need to look at this issue and create more affordable and workforce housing wherever we can. But keep in mind a couple of facts. Number one is Stratford already has both an affordable housing statute, and you heard earlier from a lobbyist in Hartford that even the state doesn’t have a definition on workforce housing, but our regulations do. Okay, so Stratford has already taken that next step and put in its regulations a workforce housing that is in accordance with the way Stratford would like to see this developed. The next point is that HUD, the Housing and Urban Development, when you look at the actual affordable housing based on actual economic terms, which is a third of the income for the region, Stratford is not at less than 10% like we are under the restrictive 8-30G statute. We’re actually more at 20 to 25% from an actual economic perspective because the state’s definition of affordable is so restrictive it doesn’t give us credit, for instance, like Success Village. We’ve all seen that in the news, how that’s been impacted. Those don’t count towards our affordable housing definition but yet when you look at it under HUD statistics, Stratford is actually affordable. And so the question always remains, while it can always be more affordable, and I think people would say that because the inflation and cost of living is so high, we also have to keep in mind that we want more housing, we want more affordable housing, but we don’t want to abrogate our duty to make sure that the housing that is created that is available is safe, is healthy, and is environmentally sound. It doesn’t, in other words, impact and degradate those finite and precious resources. So the other parties have put in the record tonight some information. There will be forthcoming more information from the town by December 11th, and I do, again, thank you for your service to the town. We wouldn’t be able to do this without your efforts and your volunteerism, and so from that perspective, I certainly appreciate all you do for the town of Stratford.
Robert Daniel: I’m the Stratford Fire Marshal. Just a few things that I had heard by a few of the individuals earlier. You all received a copy of my form. Just want to reiterate the importance of site plans. Specifically, that’s the first thing we look at when we do a plan review for a project, because it’s important for the fire department specifically, is the water supply. Do we have enough water to fight a fire? Typically, now with structures, the code requires 2,000 GPMs minimum, which is about a 12-inch fire main. So that’s one of the things we look at. We’re also looking at the access for our fire apparatus. Can we hit three sides of a building? Is the road big enough for our fire apparatus, and specifically, is there enough turning radius for our biggest fire truck, which is our ladder truck, which is quite long. One of the other things we also look at is building setbacks and building heights. So part of the plan review process and the permitting process is that site plan. So it’s very important. I ask that you don’t eliminate a site plan review. And how my department has worked with other town departments has been, we work together real well. And I think it shows with what’s going on in town and with the construction and how well the building fire department works together. Specifically, also, the consideration for electric vehicle charging. Right now, currently, there is very limited codes as it pertains to electric vehicle charging. There’s really no regulations to it. The city of Milford actually just passed its own ordinance to prevent electric vehicle charging stations from being in underground parking garages. And I think that’s a great step, and I would like to model that in Stratford. I think that would have to be an ordinance, but I think it is something that we should look into, along with also the location of electric vehicle charging stations when it pertains to multifamily apartment buildings. I feel there should be a distance away from the buildings, minimum 75 feet if possible. And there should also be a water supply close by, because we haven’t, Knock On Wood, in Stratford had an electric vehicle fire yet, but we will. And they take thousands and thousands, tens to 20,000 gallons of water to put out. They don’t go out. Also, I would like to see, with the parking spaces for electric vehicles, that they possibly re-enlarge them so that the electric vehicles are farther apart, because these fires are a disaster, and they’re difficult for us to fight, and they’re a safety hazard. So that’s just a few of my recommendations.
Chair Watson accepted a motion by Ms. Manos to keep this public hearing open, noting that the next Public Hearing will be held on Monday, December 11, 2024, at 6 p.m. in council chamber, seconded by Mr. Joseph, to close the Public Hearing. The motion passed unanimously
