In a significant development, the Stamford Zoning Board has rejected a petition from residents aiming to overturn a controversial zoning change for the River Bend office park. This decision comes amidst procedural complexities and public concern over potential housing developments in the area.
The Petition and its Denial
The Zoning Board voted to deny the petition on Monday night, citing a lack of sufficient signatures. According to the city charter, a petition must have a minimum of 100 signatures to be eligible for referral to the Board of Representatives. However, the petition, supported by over 70 signatures from local residents and the Stamford Neighborhoods Coalition, fell short, gathering only 76 signatures.
- Key Points:
- Petition did not meet the 100-signature requirement.
- Majority of Zoning Board members ruled on procedural grounds.
- The Zoning Board’s decision is based on city charter regulations.
Legal and Procedural Complications
Steve Garst, an organizer of the signature drive, expressed frustration over the decision. He stated that further appeals are in the pipeline, indicating the residents’ determination to challenge the ruling.
In an email, Garst noted, “Stamford Neighborhoods Coalition submitted the proper number of signatures. Aggrieved petitioners are looking into having their petition reviewed by the Board of Representatives and potential legal remedies.”
Understanding the Threshold
The city charter specifies that a petition also needs signatures from 20% of impacted property owners within 500 feet of the zone. This requirement proved problematic:
- Total Property Owners: There are 246 property owners in the affected area, spanning both Stamford and the adjoining town of Darien.
- Signatures Collected: Only 67 property owners (15.7%) signed the petition, falling short of the 20% threshold needed.
- Stamford-Only Count: Even when considering only Stamford property owners, the signature count reached only 19.5%.
Ralph Blessing, the Land Use Bureau Chief, informed the board that these additional legal requirements complicated the petition’s validity, as the inclusion of property owners from Darien was necessary for an accurate count.
Timing and Decision-Making Pressure
The Zoning Board faced strict time constraints regarding the petition process. They had only 10 days from receiving the petition on October 11 to act.
This led to frustration among board members, particularly as they received crucial information about the inclusion of Darien landowners just before the vote.
Chairman David Stein articulated the board’s position by stating that, “the land use bureau determined that the petition did not receive the required number of signatures; therefore, it is not valid and cannot be referred to the Board of Representatives.”
Vote Outcome
The vote was split, with three members supporting the resolution and one dissenting:
- Votes Cast:
- For the Resolution: Chairman David Stein, William Morris, and Rosanne McManus.
- Against the Resolution: Jerry Bozak, who expressed concerns about making decisions based on “last-minute” information.
- Abstention: Racquel Smith-Anderson.
The Future of River Bend
The Zoning Board had approved a text change for the River Bend site last month, allowing various building options within the designated high-technology district zoning classification (HT-D). This area has been mired in controversy and litigation as River Bend Center, LLC aims to create housing in a previously failing office space.
Community Reaction and Next Steps
The rejection of the petition signals ongoing tension between local residents and zoning authorities over the future of the River Bend area. Community members are eager to voice their concerns and explore further legal avenues to challenge the board’s decision.
Conclusion: What’s Next?
The rejection of the petition by the Stamford Zoning Board marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate surrounding the River Bend office park. Residents are not backing down; they are actively seeking ways to voice their concerns and challenge the board’s decision.
As the situation develops, it’s clear that community engagement will play a critical role in shaping the future of this contested space. With appeals on the horizon, the conversation surrounding the River Bend development is far from over.
