PZC revisits public hearing, approves changes to allow rear lots

Back in August, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) held two public hearing to consider text amendments to section 3.12 Rear Lots; sections 4.2.2 Schedule of Permitted Uses two-family dwelling, 4.9 Dimensional Standards for Residence Districts, and 4.17 Parking, Landscaping, and Buffers. In layman’s terms, they were considering changing regulations around rear lots and regulations concerning two-family dwellings in AA Zones. The commission approved the changes regarding allowing two-family dwellings but continued the public hearing concerning rear lots after Commissioner Rich Shuck raised concerns about the potential impacts of the change. (You can read about that meeting in more depth in this article.) 

During the September 3, 2026, PZC meeting the commission revisited the question about rear lots. To recap: Elizabeth Ouellette, who owns more than 40 acres at 53 Wales Road wants to downsize from her current home, but stay on the property. The solution Attorney Carl Landolina came up with was to propose a text amendment that would allow people with with a single family house on 10 acres or more as of October 1, 2026 to apply for a special use permit to create a rear lot with a shared driveway, provided they have at least 45 feet of road frontage.

In the interim between the two meetings, Shuck prepared a regulatory analysis to dive deeper into what the change would mean to other regulations. The extensive document highlighted the potential impact the changes could have on related regulations. It would be impossible to recap the document here, but Shuck summed it up, “If we are to implement this correctly, then this is what needs to be done.” 

The analysis included a breakdown of how many properties would be impacted by this change. According to the Parcel/GIS Impact Analysis section, 114 residentially zoned properties could qualify under this change. 

One of the problems the commission faced was that it could not act on the extensive revisions suggested by Shuck, as the public hearing notice did not say anything about those text amendments—and Attorney Landolina indicated his client did not want to continue the hearing again. So, the commission voted 4-1 to approve the applicant’s text amendment with some small tweaks. The yes votes agreed they could address Shuck’s suggested changes after further review. On his end, Shuck voted no, saying, “I fundamentally do not believe we should pass regulations that are ambiguous and create conflicts.”

Revisiting statutory requirements

The PZC had not originally planned to revisit its hearing and decision regarding two-family dwellings in AA Zones, but the topic almost found its way back to another public hearing. After the last meeting, some residents raised concern that the separate public hearing notice had not been published on Stafford’s website. PZC Chair Dave Palmberg said that the state statute only requires public hearings to be noticed in the newspapers, and that posting it on the website is essentially a courtesy. 

Additionally—and perhaps more importantly—no one had shown up for the September hearing that had not also attended the August meeting. “The person who raised the biggest concerts is again not in attendance,” said Palmberg. With no statutory reason to rehash the hearing, or anyone new to give their thoughts, they voted not to rehash the otherwise settled matter, letting the August decision stand.

However, they had prepared an info sheet just in case the public actually showed up, so here it is.

---