Stamford Zoning Board Squares Off with BLT, Approves Application

The public turned out in force Monday night to attend the Stamford Zoning Board public hearing where issues regarding a Building Land & Technology application for approval of the 205 Magee Avenue project was discussed.

The meeting included no public commentary on the subject, but featured a healthy back-and-forth between board members and Vice President and general counsel John Freeman.

The status of the application was at stake and, after much discussion on various projects and promises on the table as part of the land-swap deal proposed by the mayor and the company to bring Bridgewater Associates to Stamford, it was ultimately accepted.

Not to escape without commentary or criticism, Freeman heard strong opinions from all at the table, most prominent among them Audrey Cosentini and chair Thomas R. Mills.

"Aren't we putting the cart before the horse here?" Cosentini asked at one point, struggling to grasp how the application could be presented without further input on the project from state DEEP or Stamford's Harbor Commission.

Cosentini made the point that she understood the zoning board's approval unclogs a choking point the boatyard plan has been stuck in for quite a while now, but also questioned why the application made no mention of the other items presented during the unveiling of the company's master plan with the city.

City Counsel Joe Capalbo explained certain items don't need zoning approval based on the designation of use of the land.

"The type of approvals you need are directly related to the type of grant you provide," Capalbo said, referring to the entities which may or may not be exchanging land, and under which title the exchange takes place. "Some types of conveyances need board approval and some do not."

Mills pointed out to Freeman during a discussion on various possible projects Freeman's company has in the works, particularly of the use and handling of the tenants who are a part of the Loft Artists Association, that the company would not participate in any more unapproved projects.

Mill's concern was the company, by removing the artists from the building, would be destroying a cultural institution without replacing what they've taken away from the city.

"The thing that I would like to reiterate is, until we get clarity, I would hate to see them displaced all together," Mills said, adding, "[You will] get another cease and desist on a whole nother [sic] location than where you currently have cease and desist."

Freeman sounded confident his company was in the right, legally, and assured the board he's working towards to most amicable outcome possible.

"We would work with you to comply with that regulation [not to destroy a ultural institution,] but as you said, it's not specific to the Loft Artists," Freeman said. "All of the agreements to have [the Loft Artists] in that space expired some time ago. If you wanted to take a point of view that was strictly legal and remove them from the premises, we could have. Three months ago. That wasn't the goal of what we're trying to do."