Button.

Okay, not a problem.

All right.

Good evening.

This is the August 26th meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

I'm Jennifer Gadzenho Chair.

Vice Chair Jay Tupper as present.

Our is Robbie.

Ravi's out today.

Okay.

And board member Jeremy Linder and our two alternates, Bill Levin and Chet Salad.

First on our agenda is the planning board minutes from uh June 24th.

That was our last meeting before our um well that was that was the last meeting before our July break.

Um and present at that meeting and able to vote.

Um myself, Robbie, Jeremy, Bill, and Chad.

Are there any amendments to the minutes?

Yes.

Okay.

Um for the minutes of uh June 24th.

Um I checked my own.

I am in attendance at this meeting, but it's none of the items are showing how I voted.

And um, so all of them that currently say 4-0, Godzino Levin, Linder, and Sub Romanian should actually be five-zero, including me.

Thank you for catching that.

And that's that's it for me.

Okay.

Um so with that amendment noted and Lindsay, you'll follow up with Leslie.

Um do I have a motion for the minutes.

Uh oh, Jay, you can't move on this because you were absent.

Oh yeah, my line.

Um, so motion from Bill, second from chat for approval.

All in favor, um, please raise your hand.

Jeremy, I can't see you, so voice uh will be great.

Thank you.

All right, and a little bit more housekeeping.

Uh next on the agenda is the minutes from the August 8th special meeting.

Um present and able to vote were Jay Tupper, Jeremy Linder, Chet Salad, and other members were absent.

Um, but the three was sufficient for a quorum.

Um are there any amendments to the minutes for the special meeting on Friday, August 8th?

All right, do I have a motion for the minutes?

Um so Jeremy moves approval.

Do I have a second?

Second from Chet.

All in favor, switch your hand.

And passes unanimously.

Thank you.

A lot of paper today, so trying to make sure I manage it all.

Um, and finally we have the uh minutes from the August 12th regular meeting.

Um present at that meeting were Jay Tupper, Robbie Subramanian, Jeremy Linder, Bill Levin, and Chet Salad.

Um are there any amendments to the minutes for the August 12th meeting, which focused on the comprehensive plan?

Yes, I think just one quick uh question.

Um let me just see.

Um discussion um planning board completed a thorough review of the comprehensive plan.

Um I just think we should uh strike the thorough that that sounds fair.

Um I know that we can talk about this more either now or at the end of the meeting about okay.

So seconding the amendment.

Um all right, so with that amendment, uh yeah, it's I don't know how you raise your hand.

Oh I guess there's a way to raise your hand, but it doesn't.

Uh anyway, I to me it didn't seem like we conducted a review of the plan.

We just heard a presentation about it, so it seems like that's still kind of giving a false impression of what took place.

Well, if you'd like to propose that as uh an amendment, I'll second that.

Um can I just for clarity revised language can be the planning board received a presentation regarding the comprehensive plan?

Yes.

Okay.

Or sorry, receive presentations, uh, because that's the way the grammar is the comprehensive plan.

All right.

Um so with those with that being the final amendment, um, I guess Bill, you or move the one who's moving approval with that amendment.

There's a second from chat.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

My hand was not up because I was not there.

Um so next on our agenda, and I'm just making sure because I know there were a couple of revisions.

Uh next on our agenda is a lease agreement between the state of Connecticut Department of Transportation and the City of Stanford for a portion of Blachley Road.

Um, and we have representatives uh from the city uh to discuss.

Um, but briefly in April 2010, the city leased a portion of Blachley Road adjacent to I95 from the state of Connecticut Department of Transportation to allow for a walkway to and from Rogers International School that lease expired on March 31st, 2025.

And CDOT approved a renewal and uh with basic terms of the lease, which I will allow our presenters to speak about.

Thank you.

And uh Lindsay also uh 203641 3323 is Chris Dallasalva.

If you can just promote him as well, please.

Great.

If you could introduce yourself for the record, please.

Sure.

Um so good evening, everyone.

Um Luke Wattenweiser, um, the city transportation planner and the transportation traffic and parking department.

I'm here tonight just to present this item.

So um as the chair indicated, uh in April 2010, uh there's a section of Interstate 95 between Bleachley Road and um Mara Road that the city um basically leases as a pedestrian walkway or pedestrian easement uh between those two roads, primarily for pedestrian mobility enhancements, um especially to get kids to uh at that time, the new Rogers School, um which is still today, the Rogers School.

So basically the lease has run out and we're here to renew the lease.

There is no um monetary uh transaction between um the city and the state for this.

We're responsible for all maintenance components.

Um it's a five-year term with two additional five-year extensions for a total term of 15 years.

Um, and it's basically for as a pedestrian walkway.

Um it's essentially acts, you know, for you know, day-to-day purposes is like a normal city sidewalk essentially.

We're responsible for maintenance of it.

There's no financial transaction component um between the state and the city, um, and it helps to promote uh mobility basically from you know, students are just general pedestrians who live in the you know lower east side um of the city, uh Orange Street uh Lockwood Avenue area, be able to walk up to Bleachley Road uh without have necessary I haven't go around um the bridges on the East Main Street.

So uh just a re-up of an existing lease we've had since 2010, but happy to take any questions.

Yeah, um inasmuch as this this is virtually a permanent arrangement, or at least that's my impression.

Um is there some reason why this is um you know um two five-year renewals in you know instead of some longer term thing.

Um I may have to defer to uh attorney Delsava on the term uh timeline.

Okay.

Yeah, so I tried changing the role, but let me just try allowing him to um mute.

Oh yep, now he's a presenter.

Chris, you may unmute yourself.

Um I have a question.

I I can't figure out how to mute and unmute on this.

I don't have a button like we used to have to mute and also the hand raising thing says it's disabled.

Does it say the same on on everybody's?

I actually uh my hand raise is also disabled.

Okay.

Well, Jeremy raised the hand.

Bill, do you have a mic option on the top row?

It just I don't have the uh the option to mute.

If you just click on the microphone, it will it will raise those options.

Now you're muted.

Okay.

But now you have to unmute yourself, Bill.

Click click the microphone again.

Okay, I I see how that works, but I'm I do have a problem.

I can't raise my hand except.

Yeah, I think that's all yeah.

Okay.

Do we have to text him now?

Um he's saying because it's the owner's preference, so I guess that's condo's preference.

They probably don't want to do a you know a 99-year term, it is state property.

So that's why there's uh a limited timeline essentially to your point.

Okay, well, I I mean I appreciate the difference between 99 years and two five year terms, but there are some things in the middle.

But if we started in 2010 and we just expired, that was 15, so now we're going for another 15 year timeline.

So okay.

Oh, so this is actually for another 10 years plus another five.

Um it's a five with two five years.

Ah, okay, gotcha.

So for a total of 15 altogether.

Now I get it.

Okay.

Correct.

Thank you.

Yes.

Yep.

Which aligns, I guess, with what the original agreement was, it seems, just based on the 15 years since 2010.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um this is a question not for Luke, but actually for Lindsay procedurally.

So I know that in the um draft comprehensive plan, there is a piece around streamlining some of the budget procedures, um, especially for smaller dollar amount appropriations.

I know that per charter we are required to review all leases, but given that this one is for no consideration.

I wonder if uh I just wanted to kind of put in the thought that perhaps this is the kind of thing that could be handled administratively rather than having to go through all of the channels.

Oh, you are still in.

Yeah, would that require Jen a change of the charter?

Um I believe it would, but I think we would sort of do a batch or well, I mean, so the board of representatives is um charged with holding charter processes.

Um and so um this and I think some other suggested uh amendments around, you know, we've we've had you know we have a lot of votes to accept $5,000 to be able to build a you know a whatever.

Um so I think it would take some time to craft language that would be appropriate amendments.

Um not something that uh I'm expecting for us to do any time in the super near future, but just wanted to note this as another kind of thing that could fit under that umbrella, perhaps.

Okay.

Um and and even the drafting of the language, I assume that the board of reps would be responsible for any any drafting of that language.

Um can we at least provide a recommendation in this particular case back to the board that you know we we would support something along these lines?

Oh yeah, I mean we can definitely seed it for sure.

Okay.

Um thank you for that diversion.

Um if are there any further questions on the actual lease?

Um all right, seeing none, can I have uh motion?

Jeremy motioned for approval.

Can I have a second?

Uh I think chat went up first.

Um all in favor, please raise your hand.

Uh Jay, we need you on this one too.

And pass this unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Everyone is voting today.

Um next on our agenda are um some supplemental capital appropriation requests.

Uh the first being for sidewalk extensions, uh project CP 8706, total amount requested 50,000.

Pedestrian safety and sidewalk upgrades as part of the zoning approval for 120 Hamilton Avenue.

Back.

Um so this is part of our um part of our zoning approval.

Uh this is a fee and loop payment.

Um actually it's not fee and loop payment, it's part of our zoning approval um for the uh 120 Hamilton, I guess is a warehouse building.

The developer uh was required to give us a check for uh $50,000 for roadway safety improvements on Hamilton Avenue um and Lawn Avenue in the vicinity of the um building.

So the city is actually working on uh right now uh design plans for a sidewalk on Lawn Avenue.

Um there's actually no sidewalk on Lawn Avenue right now between Hamilton and Custer Street.

Um so this funding will go to that sidewalk extension as well as a safe crossing across the street to Hamilton Avenue along the property frontage where the existing sidewalk is and as part of their um building, they will be rebuilding the sidewalk as well.

So any questions not a question per se, but just a comment.

Um Jennifer, this might be another example of the kind of thing, especially when it's incoming money as opposed to outgoing money.

Right.

Yeah, and I think what I noted earlier too was incoming money.

So um surely there would need to be some sort of threshold because at a certain point I think there does need to be scrutiny about the money that's coming in, but when it's something of this amount and it's in compliance with an agreement that already exists.

Yeah, so um all right.

Uh so um do I have a motion?

Uh motion for approval from Jay, second from Jeremy, all in favor?

Fix your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a good night, everyone.

You too.

All right.

And our second uh supplemental capital request um is from the library for HVAC equipment equipment replacement project CP 2650 total amount requested is 400,000.

This request is to formally allocate the Ferguson Library's um ARPA funding, uh, federal funding to this HVAC project, ensuring the funds are applied toward the planned infrastructure improvements and associated project costs.

And presenting on this will be I'm here.

Hey everyone, my name is Josh Noggle.

I'm with the city engineering department.

I know that uh Alice Knapp is here as well.

I don't think she set up as a presenter, but um I can I can take it.

Um for the library, uh we have um uh uh various HVAC upgrades happening.

It's been broken up into three different phases.

Um this is uh infrastructure upgrades for the cooling equipment.

We have currently phase one is uh is underway is underway.

We have various controls updates happening throughout the library.

We're removing the outdated pneumatic systems and updating all the controllers on all the existing equipment.

We have new VAV boxes being installed on the fourth floor of the library, and then we've broken out the pre-purchase of a new chiller for the library and a new cooling tower, and that equipment will be uh installed in later phases.

Um so that phase uh phase one is currently uh in in construction right now.

We have phase two out to bid, which will be the installation of the cooling tower and that chiller.

We also have an ice storage tank as part of that, and there's structural work happening to reinforce the penthouse where those ice storage tanks will uh live.

We have uh the uh the balance of the floors one, two, and three having the VAVs installed, and we have a air handling unit uh refurbishment, uh actually a replacement rather in the penthouse unit.

Um, and then along with all new controls for uh all of this new equipment uh and the existing equipment.

And then finally in phase three of the project, there's a new air handling unit being installed in the basement.

Um and again with controls upgrades for uh for any other uh equipment um that hasn't been tied up with the other phases.

So it's a holistic upgrade for the the library, bringing everything up to code um and um yeah, modernizing the existing equipment there.

All right, great.

Thank you, Jay.

These are ARPA funds, no city funds involved.

This is actually this here.

Good to see everybody.

Hi, Josh.

Thank you.

Did a great job because I would have messed that up.

Um but it this is um state ARPA dollars that were um came to the library actually for another project, and we want we're so in need of an HBA C system.

We reallocated it to this project.

It's being administered by the Connecticut State Library, and so the only way we could this is the best way we could get the money um over to the city.

Um because it's right now it's coming to the library, but the city is managing the project.

I see chat.

Yeah.

Um Joshua, the um is the total HVAC replacement upgrade project the three phases, or are those the first three of more?

No, those are the first three.

Yep, the the three that we're we're currently in phase one of three, and the three being the the total package, the total, yeah.

Okay.

And and um what what's the approximate budget uh overall for the three phases?

The the estimate we have is roughly in the bar in the ballpark of about three million dollars, roughly a million a phase.

Okay, so this is uh a down payment toward it.

Correct.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right, great.

Um I know during capital budget time we've heard much about the need for this for many years, and not only for the library, but to serve as a cooling center and all of the things.

So I'm glad that uh there's an opportunity to add to funding for that.

Um, do I have a motion on this item?

That move a curve from Bill, second from chat.

All in favor, search your hand.

And pass it unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, everyone.

All right.

Uh next on the agenda, um, zoning board referrals.

Um CB application 225-23, Continental Family Holdings, LLC, um, at 23 Barry Place, uh, site and architectural plans um and requested uses and special permit.

The applicant is proposing to construct 60 townhomes and a 201 unit apartment building with a total of 474 parking spaces and associated amenities.

Um presenting on this will be.

We have Mike Case and uh Mike, please let me know if you have other folks um that you want me to pull forward.

Um if you could unmute yourself by uh clicking the mic button on the top panel.

There you go.

Very good.

Thank you.

Yeah, Madam Chairperson, members of the planning board.

My name is Michael Case.

I'm a partner in the firm of Cacase Tush and Sanagata representing the applicant uh this evening in connection with the matters before you.

I do have several other members of our team here, including Derek Dunays of Rocco V DeAndria, our engineer uh and surveyors.

Uh we have Ravi Ahuya, our architect.

Uh we have Kimberly Guthrie, who is with SLR, our traffic consultant.

We have Matt Pop uh who is our landscape architect, and uh I think I saw Len DeAndrea as well uh in the audience.

Uh our presentation will be essentially by me.

Uh and any questions uh that come up will be answered by the the full team.

Um to set the stage, let me just say that we are excited uh to present this plan uh which will produce 261 units of housing, takes an industrial site and transforms it into a handsome residential development.

We've listened carefully to both the planning board and the zoning board over the last 18 months or so in converting commercial areas into residential development, and this actually is a mix of housing units, including 60 townhouses, uh, and the balance in uh apartment style living.

Number two, uh we expect that the townhouses, the 60 units will be uh owner occupied, so they will be for sale as opposed to renting, assuming the market supports that.

The balance of the units will be rental units.

If you recall, uh, we appeared in front of you about a year ago and presented an application for the master plan change, uh, which was to change the property which was in an MG or industrial zone into two residential categories.

The front four acres were to be in a category three, and the back five acres or so were to be in high density residential.

At the same time we presented that, and parenthetically, I'll note you unanimously approved that application.

You asked us to simultaneously submit an application to the zoning board indicating so that you knew uh which zones we would change the property to.

And the proposal then, as it is now, was to have the front four acres in an RM1 and the back five or so acres in an RMF district.

We took that and were prepared to go forward with that application in front of the zoning board, and they asked us to simultaneously process an application for a site plan review and uh the special permit.

Let me note at the outset, and this I think is fairly unusual, that the applicant seeks no variances or bonuses uh in the special permits.

The only special permit that is required is because it's a large-scale development.

Uh, and we are not seeking any bonuses or extras in regard to this plan.

The plan before you was taken to some of the neighbors and was adjusted.

In fact, although originally we thought we would get 267 units, we lost a few units by moving uh the project away from some of our neighbors.

And let me just remind you that this is a unique site.

The entire northerly boundary is either Metro North Railroad tracks or commercial and industrial uses.

The entire westerly and uh southerly border of this property is bordered by the Innes Arden Golf Club.

Across the street and to the east, most of the property abuts uh St.

Clement's church.

Um, and we have a letter of support from the pastor uh of the church.

So we have a project now which is completely compliant with existing zoning in terms of height, area, and bulk, uh, and will result in 261 units of housing, 26 of which will be affordable under your regulator or under the zoning regulations, which would include the six units in the townhouses, which, if sold would also be deed restricted and affordable.

Um interestingly enough, the units themselves uh are actually uh rather large.

There are no studios, uh, the one bedrooms, there's 27 of them, two bedrooms, there's a hundred and thirty two, and twenty two three-bedroom units in the RMF district, and in the townhouse or uh low density area where there are 60 units, there will be 54 units uh that are three-bedroom and actually all 60 are three-bedroom uh in those townhouse units.

I have slides if you want to see the site or the development, but I think this is exactly consistent with what you saw a year ago and you approved.

Uh, and we're prepared to go forward to the zoning board to have them approve the zone change, the special permit application, and the site plan application.

And with that, I'll stop and respectfully request that you recommend approval and this entire team is here to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Uh chat question, and then I have one after you.

Yes, um, Michael, thank you for that.

But since we do have um some new uh brand new members who were not on the board uh at the time, is there like a five-minute version of your presentation?

I'd be uh happy to do that.

Is there a way I can share my screen?

Yes.

Yeah.

You have to click a few things before it just shares.

So perfect.

Great.

We can see an aerial.

Yep.

All right.

So this is an aerial view of the waterside section of Stamford.

And we have shown the site in question.

I'll tell you that it has been in an industrial zone and most recently was used as a warehouse and offices for the Conair Company at that site.

Originally, the site also included a piece over to the north east, which was subdivided out and was approved by this board and the zoning board as a skating rink facility, which very recently opened.

And you can see on this aerial shot that, as I indicated, the Metro North line is on the entire north border of a portion of the property.

Immediately to the south and to the west, the entire border is the Innes Arden golf course.

And immediately to the east is mostly the church I spoke about here.

That entire parcel is St.

Clement's.

Thank you.

This is, is that large enough?

It's actually a little larger than seeing the whole site.

So you can see the townhouses are in the easterly portion with green space essentially in the upper right-hand corner.

Are you still seeing the image?

No.

No, we are not.

And I'll note just um.

Can you see it here?

Yes, we can.

And we do have a paper copy of it as well.

It's one of the comparatively smaller uh fold-out uh exhibits with the same diagram.

All right, and can you see it now?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

And just so you get the scale of the project, the image you see here is the entryway into the townhouse development with the larger rental units at the westerly portion of the project.

Is there anything else you would like me to go over in terms of our presentation at this point?

I see a hand up from Jeremy.

You know, I there's it's a you know, as you alluded to a large development.

I don't see any wastewater studies on this.

I will turn that over to Derek, our engineering uh representative uh who can address that because it is addressed.

Derek.

Well, I see the drainage study, but but in terms of yes, sewage.

Yeah.

That that doesn't seem to be.

I think he can address that.

Uh hello everyone.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Good evening.

This is Derek Donay from D'Andrea Surveying and Engineering.

We are the site engineers and surveyors for the project.

Uh, you were asking about um uh waste, so we have a connection to the Sanitario sewer system.

Uh right, uh there's a pump station on the property the city owns, and we will be tying into um uh the city main line that goes right to that.

No, I understand that, but but a study you know of the impact of of you know the the impact of you know how much sewage is this be producing, you know, and impacting on the system.

Understood.

Um did we I'm not I can't verify off top of my head, I don't know if we submitted that or not, but we are working with the WPCA who has uh done their initial comments and stuff already.

So we will be working with them on that.

Meaning if if they requested it, we will we can put together the impact study.

And um, I'll just step in and note that uh I think we've been asked many times about uh the capacity of WPCA to handle additional development, and they've assured us that they have plenty of additional capacity.

That's great.

I'd love to see a study though.

We'd we'd be happy uh to include a condition that says if the WPCA uh requests a study, we'll provide it.

Okay.

I'd like to make the referral that a study be provided.

Okay, cool.

Lindsay, actually, could you weigh in procedurally on this?

Because um I think I want to make sure that we're in uh conformance with the what we typically ask of these applications.

Yeah.

Um so that's not part of the typical application as you alluded to, Jennifer.

Um, and it's something that is left to WPCA that is their um their system their equipment, their system.

So um they're the experts at that.

Um with respect to the planning board's role.

Um, it is really kind of confined to the master plan and and conformance thereof.

Um thinking about this 2015 master plan.

I'm not, I'm not, nothing off the top of my head is is kind of coming to mind with respect to infrastructure.

It's a bit different when it comes to this 2035 plan.

Um, but I can I can dive in a bit more, but that would be um something new.

Uh likely outside of the bounds of the mass of the planning board's request.

Okay.

Understood.

All right.

Um, chat, I see your hand up.

Yes, thank you.

Um and uh can you give us the um upshot of the results of the traffic studies and and uh the like the impact on the streets specifically.

Well, our our traffic consultant is on uh and can certainly address that.

Uh I think there would be uh Kimberly, are you available to address that?

I'm just making her presenter now.

Hello, can everyone hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Yes.

Hi, yes, I'm Kimberly Guthrie with SLR Consulting.

Um reviewing the traffic related impacts of this development.

I do have the traffic study um here with me.

I will say that we um received comments from the um traffic and transportation department at the city, and we have a meeting with them to discuss some potential revisions to the study.

We have a meeting with them next week to discuss some revisions.

I can um share my screen with some impacts to level of service that we have of the study that we did complete, if that would be of interest.

Sure, sure.

I'd like to see any of that at all possible.

Okay.

Uh Bill, do you have a question related to this?

Actually, I just wanted to say that I'm I'm having some lower back problems, so I have to lie on the couch next, so you won't see me, but I'm still on them in the meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um great.

Okay.

Can everyone see my screen here?

Yes.

Yes.

So this is a table showing the level of service impacts during the three conditions we analyzed the morning peak hour, afternoon peak hour, and Saturday peak hour for all of the study intersections within the project area.

In general, we found that there was no impact to the level of service or very minimal impact in some cases where you see a level of service change from oh, sorry, I should explain the background condition is the future 2027 condition.

If a development were not to be built, the combined condition is the 2027 condition with the development of the residential um facility.

So as I started to say, um there is just a couple of instances where you might see of a change in level of service, but likely that was just a result of a few seconds or a second of change and overall there wasn't a uh significant impact to the delay experienced at these intersections.

I'd be happy to elaborate further if anyone has any questions.

Just one quick one, if I may.

The um so the the um principal exit and entrance is from Barry Place.

Um, but from Barry is the principal route um, you know, away from the section of town um intended to be by Melrose or by Fairfield.

So this is something that was brought up by the city um and something we need to discuss with them further because um just considering what we know to be the condition of Melrose Melrose Place and the limited pavement area um on Melrose Place, we have to discuss with them further exactly how much traffic could be anticipated to go on Melrose Place and what improvements would need to be done to Melrose Place if that were the case.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

You've answered my question.

Thank you very much.

Um could you also speak to um the traffic uh or trip generation for this residential use versus the previous as of right uh industrial use?

Yes, I believe we prepared a table which compared the two.

Yes, so that is our background trip generation, I believe.

Yes, so this is a comparison of the different chip trip generation based on the existing use, um, which as Michael stated is a mix of manufacturing and warehousing versus the proposed uh mix of single family housing and multifamily housing.

Um as shown here, we had an estimate of how many trips could be anticipated by the two.

Um and in general, found that the residential facility would produce similar um and in some instances less traffic.

I'd also point out that the prior use generated a number of truck trips, which will be significantly reduced in that regard.

So not only will traffic trip generation not increase, it'll decrease the amount of trucks in that neighborhood.

Thank you for that clarification.

Are there further questions about the traffic studies?

Um are there any further questions on the application?

All right.

Um so uh do I have a motion?

Oh, Bill.

Yeah, I just was wondering the use of uh being um multifamily.

Do we have recent data on what the demand is for that?

Because I've heard some reports that some other projects that we approve similar large projects have not gone forward because I've heard differing stories, but that a couple of projects have not proceeded partly because demand is not there for hundreds of more units.

I just wondered if the applicant could speak to that.

Well, first of all, we think there is a significant demand for the ownership type units, and as to the rental units, uh our uh information is that there is still a robust uh demand.

I think some of the projects you may have referred to uh are the uh are experiencing some delay due to rising interest rates and uh the costs of construction, not necessarily the absence of demand for uh rental units.

And I and I would submit that if you check, and I have with many of the developers who have completed large multifamily projects, they are uh essentially uh in the 90% range of occupancy.

Okay, thank you.

Um I will also, I guess as a procedural note though, I think our role, especially as a referral board on this application is to uh weigh the specific or the fit for the proposal to the site and that the economic feasibility of it is is left to the owner and applicant to work out on their own.

Are there any further questions?

No.

Jay.

Right.

Uh do I have a second.

All right.

Okay.

Let me pause.

Is there um are there any amendments that need to be made or are we just sort of is it just a hot day?

Okay, so we have a first from Jay, second from chat.

Um, all in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I'm certainly glad that we have this opportunity for ownership units.

We hear all the time at hearings that there is much demand for that.

Um next on the agenda is CB application 225-24, 492 Glenbrook Road, LLC at 488 Glenbrook Road and 37 and 41 Parker Avenue.

Uh site and architectural plans and requested uses and special permit.

The applicant is proposing to construct a multifamily residential community containing 19 apartments, 28 off-street parking spaces, and associated site improvements.

And presenting on this application.

Thank you.

You can unmute yourself and here I am.

Sorry about that.

Would you also mind adding Madison Smith who raised her hand?

I'm sorry, I'm going to I'll d raise my hand if I can.

For the record, I'm Jay Klein of Carmedy Torrent Sandack and Hennessy here tonight on the applic on behalf of the applicants, 492 Glenbrook Road LLC.

We're excited to share this project with you all this evening, but I'm also very excited to introduce Madison Smith, who is down and to the right of me on our checkerboard of faces here.

This is Madison's, I think eighth or ninth day with the Carmody zoning team.

So we're excited that she's she's working with us.

And I know that you all will be seeing much more of her as uh she continues uh you know her time here with us.

So with those introductions aside, we'll get back to what brings us here tonight.

Uh is a project at uh 488 Glenbrook Road, which is you know, short walk a few steps away from the Glenbrook uh uh metro station.

Uh Lindsay, I do have a quick PowerPoint.

Is it okay if I share my screen and just walk through that?

Sweet.

Thank you so much.

Perfect.

Everyone, if anyone has trouble seeing or hearing, please let me know and we'll figure out a solution.

Uh in any event, um, as I mentioned, we're here to discuss uh redevelopment uh very stone throws away from the uh uh stones throw away from the Glenbrook Metro station uh at 488 Glenbrook Road and 37 and 41 Parker Avenue.

This is an assemblage of properties that together is just shy of 20,000 square feet.

Um historically, this site has been owned and utilized by a company called Associated Water Industries for industrial and office storage related purposes.

And as you can see just from this photo that we took of the site not too long ago, um, you know, kind of out of line with what uh we have come to expect and want to continue to see in the village commercial district.

This is a view uh from the Glenbrook Road frontage of the assemblage.

Um, and this is a view, our next image is a view of the assemblage from the Parker Avenue uh side of the property.

Um if these properties sound familiar to you, look familiar to you, it's because they they are for those folks who were on the board last summer and fall.

Um, we sought a zone map change application to rezone those Parker Avenue properties to put them into the village commercial zone so that all three properties would be zoned for VC use or for the VC and could be put to uses permitted in the VC, particularly um multifamily, multi-family development.

This is just a copy of the uh recommendation of approval that you all issued for the or some of you, I guess, for the for those of you that were here last year for that zone change.

Unfortunately, your colleagues on the zoning board uh agreed with you and approved that zone change.

And that allows us to bring the site plan and special permit application that we're proposing here this evening.

As you can see in our site plan, uh it is a uniquely shaped lot.

It's long and narrow on Glenbrook Road, and then uh a nicer square shape on Parker Avenue.

But what we're able to deliver here is a three-story uh building that contains 19 apartment homes.

Uh of the 19, 16 will be two-family uh apartments, and the remainder will be uh the remaining three will be one bedroom uh apartments in accordance with the uh uh uh the uh uh inclusionary zoning standards, three of them will be restricted to residents earning no more than 50 percent of the area median income.

Uh, in addition to providing uh you know needed housing and housing that's that's in demand, that's a short walk away from uh public transit.

Um, this is also uh a big step towards bringing this property closer to conformity with the underlying zoning.

Even before our rezoning application, this property was uh non-conforming in in in many respects.

Um, if you look, remember the picture of the Glenbrook Road site.

I mean, that site uh is effectively 100% impervious coverage, right?

Well above the cap that's allowed in the VC zone.

The building is set back 70 feet from uh the street line, well above the 20-foot maximum that's typically permitted in the VC, and it has that um you know uh parking lot in front of the building that aesthetically leaves something to be desired to to say the least.

And all of those issues are being corrected by by virtue of this application.

We think that's a significant improvement that will um not just provide homes for uh current and future Stanford residents, um, but will also help to uh uh further activate the Glenbrook Road uh streetscape, because of course eliminating that parking lot that's right on the frontage and bringing a building closer to the street will help to uh really improve and enhance the pedestrian experience.

And that'll be complemented by um, you know, street trees, uh, three of them along Glenbrook Road and several uh along the Parker Avenue uh frontage.

Um, you know, other features here, you know, we've got our uh usable open space for residents of uh uh of the site.

Uh we have three EV parking areas in compliance with section 12, a couple, I think it's six uh bike rack within the building itself in compliance with section 12 too, uh, all really helped to make this uh a nice living opportunity for folks who will decide to um to call it home.

Something else that I should mention too.

Um the folks who own and and are seeking approval to build this uh community also own the adjacent property at 492 Glenbrook Road, which some of you uh were part of the board that approved the construction of the multi or the mixed use project uh uh on that property.

And because um, you know, of the close relations because of the fact that we own both parcels, um, what we're able to do is we're able to really optimize uh site uh uh the ability of drivers getting out of uh out of this property.

You'll see that we do have a uh two-way curb cut on Parker Avenue.

Uh and we also provide, if you follow my cursor here, you'll see as I'm traversing through our proposed parking area, you'll see this curb cut that is along the northerly side of our property boundary.

This will allow residents of the 488 assemblage to uh uh go on to uh access the four the exit from 492 Glenbrook Road and provide an exit for residents on Glenbrook Road so that our traffic, you know, it's not only folks going in and out of Parker Avenue, folks leaving the property are able to get out uh onto Glenbrook Road as well.

So we think that's a good thing in terms of site operations uh and also is consistent.

There's a line in the in the VC regulations that encourages the consolidation and sharing of driveways uh to reduce curb cuts and optimize traffic.

So we're pleased that we're able to deliver that with this project too.

Um the TTP at the transportation traffic and parking department has reviewed this.

They've seen no issues in terms of traffic and parking and things of that nature.

So that's a good thing.

Um and and certainly something that we're we're glad to see and not surprised to see uh in this instance.

Uh we do have some elevations.

Um, and I can zoom in on some of these if if the screen's a little small, but the facades will be primarily treated with hardy plank siding uh in the areas that I'm kind of highlighting with my cursor.

Uh the crown molding and trim will be ASAC trim panels.

Uh, this is the Glenbrook Road uh elevation right here that I'm circling with my cursor, very similar and in keeping with the building at 492 Glenbrook Road.

Um, and then the north and south elevations similarly treated.

Um, but those you know won't really be as visible as the north and south facades.

So as uh the chair of this board is is mentioned, and Jennifer in the pat uh uh and uh uh Lindsay uh this evening too, you know, obviously what's at the top of your mind is whether or not this is in conformance with the master plan.

And uh there's several ways in which it is in conformance, certainly furthers the goals of category six for the reasons that I mentioned a moment ago, you know, that industrial building that's set back 70 or 80 feet from the street, certainly not helping like a streetscape, doesn't feel like main street to me anyway, bringing an attractive building closer to the Glenbrook Road frontage and uh uh treating it with street trees and nice sidewalk and things of that nature all help further category six goals, uh not to mention uh goals related to the Glenbrook neighborhood and the Glenbrook plan itself, uh, and infill policies that help to provide more more homes uh here in Stanford.

Also, you know, uh as we um you know like to see uh in conformance with the housing plan that was adopted several years ago, uh, which really you know seeks to provide more housing options for folks, um folks here in Stanford.

So uh we're excited to bring this uh to you.

We're hoping that as I said last summer we took the first step and in getting the zone changed, we're hoping to take this important second step uh in getting a site plan special permit approved.

So we can get this off the street and bring something that um is is attractive and and needed uh in the community.

So happy to answer any questions that folks have uh tonight.

Uh Chad.

See your hand.

Jay, unfortunately, since all the package that was distributed to us is missing sheet A.003, which I assume is the ground floor plan of the front building fronting on Glenbrook.

Can you tell us what's going to be occupying that space?

Yeah, there'll be a ground level.

Is there an opportunity for retail?

And that's really not a space that's sized for retail.

And I mean it'll be between six and seven hundred square feet, not really optimized for that.

And there's a decent amount of fairly new and available retail space on Glenbrook Road.

And some retail or commercial space that you know maybe folks want to convert to homes.

The demand is in residential and not necessarily for new commercial.

We want to we want to provide supply to meet demand.

And so that's why that ground level will be an apartment, not a commercial use.

Okay, so it won't really uh entail the kind of street activation that our village commercial was was I think striving for, which is you know, pedestrian traffic generated as a result of uh commercial there and and drawing people past and in into the um with a ground level apartment uh in that in that space.

Well, no, I mean I think the pedestrian activity, what we want to have, I think we get more people living in Glenbrook, that'll allow for the opportunity for more commercial space and more successful commercial space in the spaces that are vacant at the at the moment.

So uh I think it's you know they both help each other, I guess, is how I look at it.

Sure, sure.

Um and I and I assume uh so half half of the ground floor.

Um do you happen to have a plan that you could put up uh of that ground floor space?

Sure, thank you.

Get that up.

Share my screen here again.

So this is the ground floor that you see.

And I'm sorry, I I neglected to mention the lobby for folks, of course, to get into the building uh and the bike rack that I mentioned uh earlier is also securely located and indoors.

So and there's the there's the residence that I mentioned a moment ago.

Okay.

All right, thank you very much.

I appreciate that.

Great.

Of course.

Yeah, thank you for asking.

Any additional questions.

Um seeing none, do we have the motion on this application?

All right, Jeremy move approval.

And do I have a second?

Second from Jay.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, everyone.

Enjoy uh the last last days of summer here.

Thank you.

You too.

Thank you.

All right.

Um next on our agenda is uh ZB application 225-25, uh Stamford Hospital 31 Wright Street map change.

Applicant is proposing a map change for the 31 Wright Street property from the current R5, multifamily medium density design zoning district to the proposed HCD hospital complex design district zoning.

I'll go ahead and read the uh next one into the record as well since they are related.

Uh ZB application 225-26, Stamford Hospital 31 Wright Street site and architectural plans interrequested uses and general development plan.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new parking lot and to modify the general development plan to incorporate the right street property.

And our presenter this evening.

Oh yes, here's Karina as well.

Okay.

Karina, you are able to unmute yourself and yeah, great.

Great.

So I disappeared.

Ms.

Consino, may I proceed?

Yes.

I'm happy to.

And good evening to all of you.

These applications are uh connected.

Sorry, if you could introduce yourself for the record.

I know you hear a lot.

No, no, I won't.

And for the record, I'm William Hennessy from Carmeny Torrent Sandack and Hennessy, and I'm here with my colleague Karina Arradondo, who is manning the uh controls of the technology tonight.

Um this uh application uh as uh as you as you noted uh Madam Chairwoman uh is related to the uh following application, and they are really uh in my mind just uh sort of the the next step, maybe the completion of the assemblage of the uh the hospital campus.

Uh about uh 12 years ago, the hospital uh embarked on a uh project to rebuild its campus, added about 10 acres to the overall site, and that was done through the uh uh uh various land use boards, certainly including the planning board, the zoning board, the board of representatives.

There were private purchases, there were road discontinuances, there were uh uh public purchases, and it all wound up uh enlarging the campus from about 20 acres to uh nearly 30 acres.

And uh at that time it was also completely rezoned from various zones, uh R5, R7 and a half and things of that nature, to a new zone created called the hospital complex design district.

And uh it's resulted in the hospital uh campus and the improvements on that campus that we see today and use and generally considered a you know uh state-of-the-art class A uh healthcare facility.

Uh this application tonight uh relates to the one parcel in that entire block now that was not purchased uh back uh when the campus was planned, and it wasn't purchased because the family that owned it had a desire to remain there was a multi-generational uh housing situation.

They didn't want to move.

Hospital worked very cooperatively with them, they were very cooperative, and we arrived at a point where we just did a lot of landscaping and adjusted some of the construction uh dynamics to you know respect their uh privacy and peace of mind.

And it worked very well, and it came to the point in time where they uh the family was uh ready to sell and uh the hospital purchased 31 Wright Street to small property it's in the master plan category three, it's in the R5 zone, it's a little bit under 0.2 acres, about 8,600 square feet in size, at a uh two to three family uh uh uh frame house on it with a garage in the back, and uh the hospital constructed to the north of it a parking facility to the south of it, a uh parking facility, I say parking facility.

They are the surface lots and serve as a um sort of an adjunct to the uh uh places you would park if you were going into the main entrance of the new building, and sometimes the valets will use it as well.

Uh the very nice parking lots, uh, but they uh are not connected because there's 31 Wright Street smack in the middle of them.

So this application simply seeks to rezone uh from R5 to HCD, that tiny lot area, and to um expand the parking lots that already exist to the north and the south and connect them so it functions as one lot, and that's the entirety of the application.

Happy to take questions.

It strikes me as very straightforward.

Um yeah, um so straightforward that it it it actually begs my question.

Um it looks like there this does not require any map change to the master plan.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

We we are not seeking to change the master plan.

What we are doing, uh Mr.

Sale is changing the zone.

And the zone, the zone uh uh anticipates that a property could be a master plan category three, and indeed most of the campus is, yeah.

So I guess uh Jennifer, I was simply questioning what why the zoning board even needed the planning board's referral in this particular case.

Because any time uh I can answer that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anytime the zone, any time this uh under the charter, any time the zoning board receives an application to uh change a zone, it needs to be referred to you, and your duty is to determine whether it's in conformance uh with the uh master plan, in this case the 2015 master plan.

And we would note that it certainly is uh for many reasons, but an overriding one is at uh WS 1.8, which uh uh indicates that you should be supportive of planned expansion of the hospital and the Vida Health Wellness District, uh, which will be considered uh by the city to be its primary health services district.

And this certainly advances but I help you to see a picture of this site.

We can show you a picture from the year.

I mean, it really is.

I think we uh described it as the the missing tooth and the smile.

Yeah, yeah.

By including it in here, we it completes the campus.

Yeah, the the uh current planning map actually shows still shows the tooth, even though it's in the right plan category.

Yes.

So okay, thank you very much.

It's a very simple.

Well, there's two very simple applications.

Right.

Yes.

Um yeah, the the connected application because there is a modification of the general development plan.

Yes, yes.

To review that.

We included the site plan out of a courtesy.

All right.

Um, uh let's do I have a motion on the map change.

Uh move approval from Bill.

Do I have a second?

Second from chat.

All in favor, please.

And it passes unanimously.

And that's both of them.

Uh that well, that is for the um for the map change.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

Um, and now for the site and architectural plans and general development plan modification.

Again, it will be a parking lot.

So do I have a motion?

Uh move approval by Chet, second from Jeremy.

All in favor.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Good night now.

Good night.

Okay.

Um, just a couple more items.

Um the zoning board referrals, application 225-3.1, uh, Raymond Mazio of Redness and Mead, a zoning text change.

Uh, the purpose of this text change is to revise section two permits and approvals to match the expiration and extension timing of variance approvals to be consistent with both site plan and special permit approvals.

Uh so Ray, you are able to unmute yourself.

There you go.

Yep.

Thanks.

Um, good evening, everyone.

Ray Mazio uh of Redness and Mead, and I am the applicant in this case.

Um, I think that the description is pretty self-explanatory, and the text change itself is relatively simple.

Um, in short, we're just trying to make the timing for uh approvals and extensions for variances match um what we have on the books for special permits and site plan approvals.

Um I'm happy to go into more detail, but uh I don't uh if you have questions, happy to answer, but it's it's really fairly simple.

Question from the board.

All right.

Make sense to me.

Uh do I have uh motion on this text change.

We have a curve from Jay.

I have a second.

Second by Bill, all in favor.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you for helping us clean up our zoning code.

Happy to all right.

Um we have zoning board of appeals referrals.

Um first is uh ZBA application uh 019-25, Miguel Sostair representing Jason Gaynor, 32 Apple Tree Lane variants of Table 2 appendix B.

clean up our zoning code all right um now uh we have zoning board of appeals referrals um first is uh zba application uh 019-25 Miguel Sostair representing Jason Gainer 32 Apple tree lane variants of table two appendix B applicant owns a single family dwelling with a shed and is requesting one variance to allow for an addition on the dwelling applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 12.6 feet in lieu of the 15 feet required and I do not see um the applicant on apparently um but there are two numbers and some initials um so if you are the applicant and you would like to speak um please use the raised hand button that looks like a a hand at the top okay um let's see in that case happy to briefly describe my comments in the memo uh this is in master plan category number two um it's all you know surrounded by single family homes um close to high ridge road um to the to the west of it um the variance you know is minor there's no hardship or specific reason um that they couldn't have done this addition anywhere else um and uh you know my comments state that the use of this property complies with the master plan category uh with or without the variance are there any questions or comments from the board uh yes chat um this may be a question for you then lindsay um uh assuming um the encroachment is on us into a side yard setback okay have we gotten any any um issue communication of uh of any kind from that adjacent neighbor um so the noticing the neighbor noticing wouldn't happen until the zoning board of appeals meeting okay um so we haven't gotten any uh uh any communication as the planning board um but we there also are not required to notice in front of the planning board meeting okay okay thank you yeah you're welcome um yeah i will say this one is kind of funny because as you stated there's no actual hardship i mean there are other places on the lot where they could have done this but also the um amount of encroachment is quite minor um do i do i have a motion from the board uh jay move for approval yes okay second from jeremy all in favor and it passes unanimously and goes to the zoning board of appeals okay all right next uh zb a application uh 020-25 uh john and olivia downing at 276 den road variants of table two appendix b applicant owns a single family dwelling and is requesting variants to allow for an addition on the dwelling applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 2.3 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required and it looks like the owners are here today so I just um made miss downing uh able to speak and I see he's unmuted um so if you want to um explain your project a little bit that would be super yeah hi everyone um I'm Olivia Downing my husband and I are the homeowners at 276 den road um we are requesting a variance um to the side yard setback we um currently have an existing side yard setback of that 2.3 feet um that's how the home is always been um and so we are not requesting to go any further toward the property line obviously um we our home has a flat roof on part of it needs a new roof um so we would like to um transform the existing flat roof into a normal pitched roof adding some existing living space um over the just the current footprint of the home um and then adding um adding a screened in porch um would still be within the setback but um further onto our property not any closer to our neighbor's property

So we would like to transform the existing flat roof into a normal pitched roof, adding some existing living space over the just the current footprint of the home.

And then adding adding a screened in porch would still be within the setback, but um further onto our property, not any closer to our neighbor's property.

And that's pretty much it.

Pretty simple addition.

Now, are you saying that you have an existing 2.3 foot setback?

Yes.

Yeah, and it wasn't the main.

Or did that pre uh pre-date zoning?

I think it pre-yeah, predated zoning.

That's what our surveyor told us.

Yeah.

It's a pretty funny looking lot, kind of long in the skinny.

Yes, it's a very funny little cottage.

Um are there further questions from the board?

Right.

Uh yeah, that does not worsen the existing non-conformity and is in scale.

So I have a motion on this item.

Second.

Second from Chutch.

All in favor, please.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you.

And we have CBA application.

013-25, Chris Russo of Russo and Rizzo LLC representing the McDonald's real estate company at uh 1103 East Main Street variants of section 11F, Section 12 D 10B, and Section 10B1.

Uh this item was tabled from the May 20th, 2025 meeting and the June 10th, 2025 meeting.

Uh, because we were awaiting comment from or rather TTP was awaiting comment on uh updated transportation uh study.

Um and presenting for uh the applicant.

Uh go ahead and introduce yourself.

Yes, um uh chair members of the board, Chris Russo with Russo and Rizzio LLC uh offices at 10 Sasco Hill Road uh in Fairfield.

Um here on behalf of the applicant.

Can everybody hear me okay?

Yep, good.

Okay, great.

Um and um Lindsay, I if you see Ethan, he's on there.

Uh he's our traffic expert.

Um in Tariq should also be on uh in case uh anybody has questions for them.

Um so uh again, yes, we represent McDonald's restaurant.

Um it's applications, uh an application for variances.

Um really variances all essentially really derive from um proposing to create a second drive-thru lane.

Um they all kind of tie back to that.

Um I know uh Ethan Tariq were here last time.

Unfortunately, I was absent for uh the last meeting uh in uh I think got into it uh into the application somewhat.

Um so I won't belabor going through uh a full presentation, but just to highlight some of the main points.

Um it is a proposal for a uh uh a second drive-thru lane.

Um there's an existing one there, as I'm sure you all know.

Um there's a number of things going along with that.

Uh there is actually a seat reduction inside the restaurant, it's going from 90 to 87, so just slight reduction.

Um, and the number of off-street parking spaces, which is one of the variances we're going for, um, is gonna go from 61 to 37.

Um, and um, you know, that numbers based on uh counts that Ethan made and uh observed at the site.

Um I'll get into that a little bit.

Um and the other uh big change is that the queue, which is currently able to hold 11 vehicles, um, would be able to hold hold 23 um and the site itself, because there's some space between the the queue lane and the uh entrance off the East Main Street would be able to accommodate uh possibly 25 vehicles.

Um 47% increase in capacity of that queue, um, which we think is gonna solve the issue uh that we've had at the site with some backing up of vehicles out onto East Main Street, which obviously um you know negatively impacts that roadway.

Um so you know, since the original McDonald's was built, the drive-thru facility has increasingly represented where uh customers place their order.

It's approximately 70% that fluctuates, but um uh about 70% comes through the drive-thru lane.

Um, and you know, McDonald's is obviously one of the faces of drive-thru restaurants, um, probably the most identifiable.

Um, and they spend uh an unbelievable amount of effort um trying to figure out how to increase efficiency.

There's a whole university dedicated to it basically.

Um and um, you know, with they're proposing to create this double drive-thru lane.

It's just that it's not proposing to change uh to the building footprint to make the restaurant bigger.

Um, it's simply to have this site work uh more efficiently.

Um obviously a pre-existing site that has been around for a long time um but has seen its business and um how they service their customers change, you know, during that that time.

Um the additional lane uh and you know, Ethan could kind of speak to some of the details of this, but generally um it allows McDonald's uh to better address um the choke point they have found in the research of drive-throughs, um, which occurs during taking the customers' orders.

Um one of the biggest delays that they will have in their queue comes from either a long order or a mistake being made in the customer's orders.

And when there's one lane, like what's existing, um, this backs up the whole queue.

But when there's two lanes, if somebody's holding up one lane, it allows um the queue to still flow around them.

And allowing that would ensure you know, not having a backup um onto uh onto East Main Street.

Um it improves the flow, which will better protect the surrounding uh public roadways.

Um and it's an improvement I'm sure you've seen throughout the country.

Um if you've seen McDonald's double double drive-throughs are becoming the norm.

I I know personally I've worked on uh obtaining approvals in Newington.

I I did three in Bridgeport.

Uh Ethan worked on one uh in Norwalk.

Um I know there's one I didn't work on it, but there was one Fairfield um that was recently done.

Um it's something you're seeing kind of become commonplace to help these um uh drive-thru restaurants uh operate uh properly.

So with this balance um at the McDonald's restaurant skewing towards drive-thru rather than inside the restaurant, the demand for parking has significantly dropped at the restaurants.

Um for this site's resulted in the site being tremendously overparked.

Um, and so this application seeks to kind of rebalance um the site towards where you know the bulk of the demand is um at its peak times, and again, that you think could go into more details on this, but um the site's experiencing queue length of 15 vehicles.

Um, so the existing queue is insufficient to handle that.

Um, it regularly backs up, um, but the proposed queue um can accommodate um accommodate that.

And uh alternatively for the parking end, that peak was observed at uh 31 parking spaces.

Um so the 37 parking spaces proposed to remain would still provide um uh plenty of sufficient parking um with an added reserve.

Uh and I want to just highlight one thing.

Um our traffic expert had said in his study, which is because of insufficiencies in the queue, the existing queue, um, to accommodate the customers, it actually increases the parking demand.

So that the parking number that's there, it actually is driven up by the fact that the queue isn't sufficient because which you know makes practical sense in that if the if if the queue's too backed up for you, you're going to park the car and go into the restaurant.

And so, you know, we believe in you know, increasing the queue efficiency, that will actually reduce the parking demand um even even further.

Um regarding the drive-thru signage, um, because that's what one of the variances uh relates to.

It's it's basically the the same signage that's on the single drive-thru lane, but just replicated over for for the second drive-through lane.

Um, there's a pre-browse menu.

Um, this is another thing that McDonald's has found through its research.

If it has this menu with the pre-browse menu before you get to your order, the what's called the springboard canopy, which is the other structure where we're asking for a variance for um before you get to that speaker, right?

And you're you're giving your order, if they put on there some of the most popular orders, uh, it you have the order then ready to go.

And when you get to the speaker, um you you already know what you're looking for.

You're not searching the menu um and and taking time.

You're ready, you put you place your order and then you go.

Um, so it's another one of these things that they've studied um to uh to increase efficiency.

And then the other is these outdoor digital menu boards, um, which are really helpful um because if you've noticed if you've ever gone to one, one of the things it does is it gives your order back to you.

And so you could see it come up on the board and check if it's right.

Um, one of the things without that, the problem is somebody places their order, they get it all the way up to the window, and something's wrong, and then they're either uh dealing with it there, or if you ever had somebody say pull ahead, and you know, it just turns into a bit of a mess.

This outdoor the the digital menu board really helps make sure you reduce those mistakes and therefore you know improves the efficiency uh of the drive-thru.

Um regarding your planning goals, uh, you know, because obviously it's a planning board.

Um, one thing I'd like to point out um in relation to your master plan, um there's there's considerable time in your master plan talking about pedestrian improvements.

Um, and I know that the double drive-thru gets the the bulk of the attention here, um, but they're currently no uh connection for pedestrians on the site.

Um and we've redesigned with this plan um to have a straightaway pedestrian connection.

Um it's one that we've been working on with staff um in redesigning.

Now it used to be angled, and then we straight in our subsequent revisions, we were able to straighten it.

And then we also um, based on comments from staff, put a five-foot buffer on each side from the parking spaces that you see on the plan.

So all those things to um improve pedestrian connection to the restaurant.

Um, as you may know, there's a bus stop right there.

So it is convenient for people who might be taking the bus if they want to you know grab a coffee from work, or when they get off the bus, they want to grab dinner.

Um you know, they can they can walk through that now what would be the delineated um pedestrian uh connection into the restaurant.

Um it also makes the restaurant significantly more ADA accessible, um, which which is another important improvement.

Um another one of your your planning goals um is available evaluating opportunities to reduce parking rate uh parking ratios.

And um, you know, I think this is a perfect example.

Um you have a business.

This was originally approved in 86.

Actually, it was originally approved in 84, it was built in 85.

Um, and um uh you know, it's a business that's changed over the years, uh, even though it's been the exact same user um from you know restaurant to drive-thru, and you're faced with an existing condition where the site's clearly overparked, um, as our analysis had showed.

Um and so I think this is an opportunity to address that and uh achieve your your planning goal to reduce a parking ratio.

Um so um with that, I think you know, there were a number of improvements that we proposed uh to the site um to try to help the traffic flow.

So Ethan, if if if you're ready, if if you want to kind of go walk through um those improvements that we've made with this latest revised plan and responding to uh TTP's comments.

Yeah, sure.

Uh for the record, Ethan Chikoski, I'm with uh TPD engineering.

Um we were formerly known as Atlantic Traffic when we originally prepared the report here.

Uh it was in in that name, but it's the same company, and and I prepared the original report.

Um if I can share my screen.

I'd like to just I think it'd be easiest to just run through it on this on the screen here.

So if you'll see, can everybody see the aerial I have up?

The existing condition.

Yeah, okay.

Um so you know, I yeah, I I think Chris did a uh a really good job running through kind of what the idea is here and what the goals are.

Um basically what we're trying to achieve here is to very much modernize the site.

Um McDonald's does years of of research on on how to best lay out these sites, how to improve traffic flow, um, because obviously it helps their business, but it it also improves safety uh on their sites, which which is everyone's ultimate goal as well.

Um so this this site's been here a long time.

It is um what I would consider outdated.

Uh you can even see here in the existing aerial, you know, you have a single drive-thru lane, it kind of wraps around the building, a bit of an irregular shape here.

Um, and you can even see in the aerial it's backing up, it's blocking parking.

Um, you know, we did observe when we were out there on a few occasions that that cars would cut back up back to East Main Street here.

Um so what you have currently is a single order point, uh, well, two actually two different order points, but in a single lane.

Um they have two different menu boards um for for people to pull up and take additional orders, but it's still a single lane that wraps around the building and a single pickup window.

So in the revised configuration, can everyone see the the plan I have now?

So in the revised consideration, we're we're no changes to the building as as uh Chris mentioned, but we are uh we are improving the site layout.

Um, you know, it's it's my professional opinion and McDonald's opinion that this is an improved layout for the circulation uh per, you know, modern design and modern, you know, uh demand.

So what it does, and Chris mentioned that it it you break it out into two, you know, two lanes, um, not really two drive-throughs per se, because you do have to merge into a single pickup spot.

Um, but it it opens up these two order points.

Um so obviously significant improvement in the amount of capacity generally, it's a 47% increase in capacity.

So you're just fitting more physical cars on in the drive-thru lanes, not conflicting with parking, not conflicting with Main Street.

Um, but in addition to that, it's as Chris kind of went into a little bit, um, through our research, we found that uh it it really improves the efficiency of the drive-through as well.

Um basically by allowing uh McDonald's to take during very busy peak periods, allowing them to take two orders at a time.

Um, and when one order goes slower than the other, they can continue to process that drive-thru and process cars through the site.

Um this obviously changes um the the layout of parking.

Uh there's a lot less parking uh in the current design than the former.

Um based on our parking observations, um, and observations we take on other McDonald's in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey.

Um, you know, there is more than sufficient parking on site for current demand.

Um I think it's very, you know, true if you it if you look at the research that there has been a huge shift, especially since COVID to drive-through.

Um, there's been innovations in in mobile ordering, which is very popular at all quick service restaurants, uh, but especially McDonald's, and having those digital menu boards, uh able to process those mobile orders quicker and more efficiently, um, really helped the the flow of traffic.

Um there was a comment from TTP.

Uh they had some concerns that basically uh the question was whether we're really increasing the I I think the word was intensity of the site, the traffic intensity of the site.

Um there is evidence to show that you know the drive-thru is now able to process more cars.

So um, you know, you're you're able to get more traffic through there.

Um we consider that current unmet demand.

So what I mean by that is currently if you're passing by the site and you see the drive-thru and it's full, you're gonna keep going, you're gonna go to the next restaurant.

Um now, if you have a more efficient drive-thru layout and site layout, you may decide to enter the store and um and then you would have more traffic entering the store and through the drive-thru.

But by nature, that's what we consider a pass-by trip.

You know, that's a trip that's already on West Main Street, who's either making the decision to go into McDonald's or not going to McDonald's.

And you know, the the second ordering point in the drive-thru is not going to change that traffic.

It's not adding any new traffic to to Main Street.

Um, so you know, for that reason, it, you know, it's my opinion that you're not adding significant traffic to the roadway network.

You're just helping meet that current unmet demand on the roadway and getting cars off safely and in the drive-thru and helping your circulation of the site uh more efficiently.

Um we did also talk to TTP about the um movements at this East Main Street access point.

Uh there's concern about um traffic basically cutting across and making the left into the site, which which is not uh maneuver that is intended.

And the current design is restricted to right in right out.

Um, but we did want to sort of enhance that uh restriction because we do agree that this should be a write-in, right out only driveway.

Um so we're proposing some additional curb improvements, um, some flexible delineators, um, which those are just basically those little vertical tubes with the um um reflectors on them.

Uh they and then uh some additional signage.

Um to basically reinforce that that this is a uh left turn restricted driveway.

Um I think that pretty much covers the the presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions, uh discuss the study we performed or really how McDonald's operates in these newer type of drive-through facilities.

Um I've worked on a more than a dozen of them in the last several years.

Chat guy.

Yeah, thank you.

And let me uh lower my hand.

Um Ethan, I think that the reason why we couldn't take action a year ago when you were first here was because you had not um I guess we did not have the um the tra the results of the traffic impact study.

Um so it was you mentioned um have you mentioned to us or or in your presentation presented all of TTP's um comments, or or were there any others um that they had raised.

I I had some comments from TCP um that were issued uh back in 2022.

I'm not sure if there were newer comments.

I'm not sure if Lindsay or Chris, I haven't seen any.

I mean, I I can speak to each one of these comments.

Um might be easier.

I'm just gonna put it over here just so it might be easier to point to things as I'm answering.

But I mean what one of their comments issued in their 2022 letter, that's how long this has been around, is um whether the traffic counts that we took in August um were accurate.

Um we looked at um transactional data for the McDonald's uh each month of the year for this particular location.

We found August to be about five percent higher than the yearly average.

I think that's reasonable when you consider how close we are to I-95.

Um, you know, you're gonna get a significant traffic off of off of the um, you know, off that roadway, um, especially during the summertime.

Um you know, I think I was running through a few of the comments from TTP here.

I already touched on some of them.

So um uh they we talked about um other locations where the side-by-side has has been implemented.

Uh we have studied some other locations where they've added a side-by-side.

Um we looked at the site in Waterbury, Connecticut and a site in Farmingville, New York, which is on Long Island.

Uh, we found for both those sites a maximum uh drive-thru queue of of eight vehicles from the order point.

Um we have much more than that at this location.

Um which wouldn't impact East Main Street.

Well, and and I think too, if I could just jump in, uh Commissioner, one one of the things um because Luke had sent us an email and Ethan addressed this in his presentation.

One of the questions was all right.

Well, if you're if you are able to um process customers quicker, and you're able, you know, so instead of you know, let's say processing 80, you'd be able to process 100.

Are you driving more traffic?

And and I and I and Ethan, maybe you could reiterate this point.

It it's that because Ethan, we had had a call and Ethan did me a comment regarding, you know, we are now able to accept the customer who is already on East Main Street, who's who before would look at the queue and say, pass, it's too long.

Now they will be able to be accommodated.

So that will drive up the number that um that we process in an hour, but it's it's somebody who is on East Main Street.

So as far as its impact on East Main Street, it's it's not really changing much because they're already on.

Yeah, yeah, correct.

I mean, it I mentioned this, but yeah, it any increase in traffic would be passed by in nature, and that they would be not new trips to the roadway.

And I'm sure and obviously one of the biggest negative impacts there now is this backup that happens onto East Main Street.

And and you know, Ethan, you're right.

You I mean, you think this is going to address that issue and and remove them.

Based based on our research and the data I've seen that you know, it it's my opinion that this would significantly improve the drive-thru queuing.

Um and and significantly reduce the the risk of queuing onto East Main Street.

Right.

Okay.

Um one other question then I have.

Thank you for that.

Um with a from um, I I guess this is um US one um or the East Main Street on the Yes, we believe so.

This okay, yeah.

Um the new driveway is intended to be uh right in right out only.

Um I I assume the presumption for anyone going um eastbound on Route One or Westbound on Route One, or particularly the westbound here.

Um, I guess uh not eastbound.

If someone's traveling westbound and wants to come in, the expectation is that they'll entrance via Blachley Road, I assume.

That's correct.

And that's that's an existing condition.

I just like to point out, right?

Uh it's currently right in, right out restricted.

And and your intention is to make a left onto Blanchley and then another left into the site, which you you have a turn lane to queue for that left turn.

Um the proposal for the driveway is just to enhance that restriction.

Sure.

So I'm assuming you don't need to um because it's an existing condition, you don't need to add any more signage um fronting or you know, either on on site or or fronting facing the um uh east main street to to make it clear that you know you're expected to use botchley road for this.

No, no, um, we are proposing the turn restriction signs just just to reinforce it, but we're not at yeah, we don't believe we have to add like uh yeah, I think you're you're referencing like a directional sign, is that we mean like use Blanchley Road or something like that.

Uh-huh.

But on site, you could see there we are adding for people who are exiting out onto East Main Street and they have to take the right turn.

One, there's a stop sign that we're proposing there, and then a sign that tells them you know, traffic this way.

So nobody gets the idea of all right, I'm gonna take a left out onto uh out onto East Main Street directly.

And then the other the other thing which I think is is is maybe even more effective is if they try and do that, they're gonna run into these, you know, tubes, um, those plastic tubes that you see.

And I and I also believe Ethan, we're slightly increasing the width of that island.

Um we we can't do it too much, I know, because then you start impacting turning radiuses, but we're go ahead.

Oh, I was yes, and we're a slight increase in the in the the width of the driveway, and then with the intention um to also um sort of move this crosswalk this this crosswalk striping is not currently there, so we're gonna try to enhance it with the pedestrian safety as well.

Um adding the tubular delineators, um and just refreshing all the the striping and and and everything, yeah, as best we could with with what we had.

I mean, this this driveway it's already as far from the trunk the signal as as possible.

So, you know, there wasn't really a better place to put it on site.

Um, but but just trying to enhance what we can.

Um and then uh Chris also mentioned this, but current we're proposing this pedestrian walkway from the bus stop.

Um currently there isn't any 88 pedestrian connection between the sidewalk on either Blanchley or East Main Street to the site.

If you're walking to the site, you have to walk in the drive aisles, um, which uh which isn't uh ideal.

Um, so just providing a basically a direct connection from the bus stop here to the site uh for pedestrians.

So in connection with that, will will there be any um signage basically um making it clear to cars waiting in the order placement lines that they shouldn't be blocking that um access way?

We don't have any signage.

We have the striping proposed currently.

Um we can certainly add some signage there.

I don't that would be yeah, we we'd be happy to have it additional signage, yeah.

Yeah, I think it would be necessary because the the the striping is not universal enough.

Right, right.

No, I I that's that's a that's a good idea.

Uh we we would have no issue with doing that.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

You've answered my questions.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um can I actually add an uh similarly focused on the crosswalk?

Whether you might actually consider a slightly raised crosswalk so that uh cars would have to kind of go over a little bit of a bump.

I think that also can help to reinforce uh um I I would have to consult with the site civil engineer to see if that could be arranged with the drainage.

Okay on site, because I wouldn't want to mess with the drainage, but assuming that isn't the case.

Uh I think Tariq's raising his hands probably answer to that.

Yes, hello, this tartic mohadin with course days group 5944 Pensby Drive, Aubury, Texas, 76227.

Thank you.

Um yes, we can definitely look into it.

Uh yeah, well, uh it's going to be associated with the drainage, but it should be minor.

Definitely based on uh the signage, we can provide that and see if we can elevate it or have it slide like two, three inches.

We'll we'll look into that for sure.

I wouldn't I wouldn't make it a condition of approval, but just wanted to suggest that as a design solution.

Thank you, of course.

Um are there any other questions or comments from the board.

All right.

None on the proposal.

Um I have actually kind of a slightly nerdy question.

Um it was interesting to hear about how the nature of the drive-throughs um and the parking utilization sounds like it has changed quite a bit.

Um has ITE revised their um their trip generation guidelines to reflect that?

Um so they just the IT parking generation manual hasn't been updated yet.

Uh but they did just release a new IT trip generation manual just last week.

Still diving through that data, but um I I think there is slightly more information on it, but I I haven't gotten into it yet.

Oh I'll put it that way.

It's just released last week.

Sure.

Right.

Yeah, I just asked, um, I guess if the ITE guidance has shifted, then I think that might um prompt us to review our associated parking guidelines to be in conformance if there's um consensus that a reduction makes sense.

Um all right.

Uh do I have a motion from the board on this item?

All right, Jay, move approval.

Okay, do I have a second?

Anyone?

All right, second from chat.

All in favor.

Please raise your hand.

All right.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

This was my first time.

Thanks everyone.

Thank you for presenting.

Have a good night.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

Um, that is the final item on our agenda.

I will note um there is printed the um the next three scheduled meetings.

Um, Lindsay, have we confirmed that we will have quorum for September 2nd?

Um no, but I would love to take the opportunity to do that.

Um, Jeremy responded he's available.

Um Bill, is are you available on the second?

Yes, you are.

Okay.

Um I will I will decide if Lindsay is able to convince me to stay on for another three meetings.

Okay.

If she is the answer is yes.

I'll triple your salary this time.

See, now I'm even using your jokes, Jay.

Bobby, we can afford dinner tomorrow night.

Lobster.

So I I have a I have a question in this regard relative to the schedule of future meetings.

Sure.

The um Jen, when you and I talked last, I think um we both agreed that this board has not had any opportunity whatsoever to talk amongst ourselves before we're asked to vote on this item.

And I think you were in agreement that uh voting on it uh uh on the 16th was probably a bad idea.

Uh did I misunderstand?

Uh that is that is what I had expressed both, I think in conversation and then in some follow-up email with the board.

So um so I think that our current hearing schedule, um, the two-part hearing schedule, one uh virtual on the ninth, um, and then one in person.

Uh will that be hybrid actually on the 16th, or will it just be in person?

Hybrid.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, we have to I think we have to do hybrid now.

Yeah.

Okay.

So then uh we're whereas this um agenda points to the 16th as being a public hearing comprehensive plan adoption.

I I'm assuming it will no longer be the adoption part.

Is that correct?

So the reason why we've been using that language and it's not properly reflected here is that the charter, it's the charter uses the terminology public hearing on adoption.

Um both of them should say public hearing on adoption, correct?

Yeah.

So that's not an indication of when we're gonna vote, it's an indication of the purpose of the hearing.

That's right.

Okay.

So um, so does that mean you technically to be correct, you have to add the word adoption to the September 9th one as well.

I don't think that negates the fact that it's being noticed as a public hearing.

Sure.

Um, right.

Yeah.

So uh for consistency, since they're the ninth and the 16th um meetings have the same purpose uh on this agenda, I would recommend that they state that same purpose in words, you know, on any published agenda item.

Okay.

Is the meeting on the second not on the uh it is no longer on the comprehensive plan uh that originally we had scheduled the virtual hearing for September 2nd, but given that it is the day after Labor Day and we were concerned if we would even have forum because it is a big travel time.

Um the public um hearing for the plan was moved to the ninth.

However, we have had a regularly scheduled meeting for September 2nd, and so it is my understanding that some just kind of regular planning board items have been put on the agenda for September 2nd.

That's fair.

Okay.

And how does the how do these um meetings uh jive um my understanding is that the outside planning consultants are in the process of uh incorporating adjustments to the plan that um we haven't yet even discussed.

So how how does that all jive together?

So um we have been asking for planning board comments.

I have been offering um meetings one-on-one.

I can't meet with more than two people at one time.

No, I understand.

Lindsay, I understand that, but what I'm saying is that we we as a group need an opportunity, not one-on-one, whether people are listening by video or not.

We as a group need the opportunity to talk amongst ourselves.

So that can apps that can happen on the ninth and the 16th as well.

Like that's that would be part of the purpose of those meetings.

Um we we can set parameters around uh how long testimony can go on both evenings, and so we could um kind of set a time uh when we will, I guess pause the hearing on the ninth to um have time for discussion.

And um the plan had always been for the 16th to have a time at which the um the public testimony would close.

Um I've also been talking a bit with Lindsay about how we might um provide a bit of uh uh public guidance around um, you know, I think sometimes people think they have to come and speak before us in order for their comment to count, but all of the comments that we've been receiving by email or that have gone into the form count just as much.

And coming and reading it in front of us doesn't really um make a difference in terms of uh taking that information in.

Um so hopefully that may uh shorten things.

That said, though, I still am of the opinion that if we can figure out how to schedule it, and I I also actually think that it would be received better by the public.

I think that um, especially if we do end up receiving comments that um might indicate some further um revisions or modifications, um, even from what the consultants uh will uh present on the 9th and 16th, I think that we should plan to have some time to digest the public feedback and have a vote on another date afterward.

Um that would allow us to, if we wanted to work with the um land use beer staff and and the consultants to um to propose any further um amendments uh in response, then that would create the time for that.

Um I know that we are constrained schedule-wise, um we are starting um in October on October 7th, um, our series of uh capital plan um meetings.

Uh Jeremy, we should make sure before we start all of that that you get a little bit of a briefing on the capital plan, how that all works.

Um, and I guess I should be scheduling some meetings soon with the various department heads pre-meetings uh before their presentations.

Um that is one of several considerations uh around um the timeline for approval so that this doesn't string out too long.

Also, we are already almost a year out from when we were supposed to have this done.

We are supposed to have it done at the end of or in December of 2024.

Um, but we have shown that we're making good effort, good faith effort to complete that.

And so we're not out of compliance with the state at the moment.

Um but I think if we go too much further, um certainly we should not go into next year.

Um that, but because we have um back-to-back every week meetings through October for the capital budget and uh just having regular um meetings in there as well to approve normal items.

Um if we were to push it any, if we were to approve push our approval any further than the end of September, we would have to agree to some special meetings um on other days.

Um we also have the constraint that we have um our Jewish holidays coming up, and one of them does actually fall on the 23rd, um, which um I think I will say um it if if none of the planning board members are observant, uh I think it and if the purpose of the meeting really was for our our discussion, I think it would be okay to meet.

Um I wouldn't want to have a public hearing on such a day, but um, if it is if it works for everyone here, um that could be a potential date um or um or we can do it on uh September 30th.

I I'm sorry to be the killjoy then in this particular case, but I do observe the uh high holidays.

Okay, you're not a killjoy, you should observe your holiday.

So um so would um having the opportunity for um discussion and aiming for approval on the 30th feel sufficient.

Are there additional um special meetings that we should convene?

Um again, not for public hearing, but for us to discuss amongst ourselves.

We don't necessarily have to decide that right this minute, but if if if folks have thoughts, question about the overall process.

I I keep getting things several a day about the various meetings that the um subcommittee of the board of reps have had.

They've had sounds like they've had several public hearings.

They too already.

Um I thought the last time we did this that the planning board was first and then it went to the board of reps later.

It doesn't go to the board of reps at all.

Well so they've decided to reps for public hearing.

Um I'm sorry, you were both offering it once and there was overlap.

All right, so by charter, it is the province of the planning board to um draft and adopt um and approve the um comprehensive plan.

Um and there is not a statutory obligation for us to engage the other boards in that process.

Um, however, uh the steering committee for the um comprehensive plan process um this time, and I know also in 2015 has included uh members of several boards so that they're at the table during the uh drafting period.

Um and so um we've had representatives from zoning.

Um we have had uh representatives from various city agencies.

Um and uh we did have um, you know, on the inside cover of the comprehensive plan is Nina Sherwit's name as the person who had volunteered to be the representative or to be the conduit between the planning board and the board of representatives.

Um so there you know has been opportunity extended for that coordination.

And I know that there also was a presentation at some point to the land use committee um earlier on uh in this process uh for discussion with those members.

Um so the public hearings that have been convened um in the last few weeks, those have been well, the first one was done really not in coordination with land use as I understand it.

It kind of got scheduled with a couple days' notice, and so no one was able to present the plan.

So they just kind of opened the room for people to come comment on it.

Um, and then there was uh some representation from land use and the um consultant at the most recent uh hearing, which again was uh uh convened and hosted by the board of representatives.

They, you know, they're well within their rights to hold hearings about whatever they want, um, and we can determine how we uh incorporate that information.

Well, well, given that they did, um and the second one that sounds like is more official than the first one.

Um how are what is the intention for us to be informed under the guise of coordination um of their of their comments and their thoughts.

Well, so um there are a couple of mechanisms.

One um on the upcoming agenda for the um board of representatives, uh the the full board, um they will be considering a resolution that was drafted and uh adopted by the um land use committee with a number of um suggested changes and revisions and some other items that we would have to figure out if they're actionable or not.

Um and also there is posted um on the board of representatives site.

Uh there is extensive documentation of the comments.

There's even the, you know, they um we we typically when we have our meetings, we don't have the the group chat function, but they apparently had the group chat function, and so the whole record of that uh with the public is there.

So you are certainly um welcome to review it if you would like to.

Um the um and uh those hearings because they were convened by the board of representatives, um, kind of fairly, you know, completely independent of the planning board.

They didn't invite any of us to come, right?

Um they you know, we can determine what we do with that input.

Okay, just as we will be weighing input from uh all of the other points of input.

Um there again, there's been an official form for people to submit comments um on the website.

People have been emailing uh comments in, people will come for public testimony.

Um so um there is there's no process by which there, you know, kind of like zoning relative to referrals to planning before zoning takes action on their stuff.

Um actually no, it's not even that formal.

Okay, we have a statutory obligation to review, and actually in certain cases, like if we review something on referral to zoning and we vote denial, then the zoning board actually has to have a supermajority in order to approve it.

There's no such mechanism for the comprehensive plan between us and the board of representatives.

Understood.

Um, but at least uh at least there's an understanding, if nothing else, uh uh by zoning that they won't take action until they have our our input.

Um is there any it is it's not an understanding, it's actually a requirement.

Okay.

Okay.

Now to my point, is there anything comparable relative to the master plan and the planning board's input on the board of reps resolution.

No.

No.

There's not it's a hell of a way to run an airline.

I mean I I think that you know the the board of representatives they've they've um passed resolutions about a lot of things um some of them more actionable than others it is well within their right as that body to um conduct uh their business that way and uh again it's um it is up to because there isn't the statutory obligation um we don't uh there isn't a formal mechanism by which um we need to reconcile that input um I will um I will it if you would like to read the resolution um you can do it is posted um again I I um I would like to be I'm trying my best to be um as neutral process wise as I can um but I think it's fair to say that the resolution has a combination of some requested changes or disagreements around values but then also some characterizations of the plan that um may or may not actually factually align with what the content of the plan is so um just want to put that um into context uh yes Jay uh Jen so the board can consider me temporarily we required retired um I will call Lindsay tomorrow or Thursday to see if she can change my mind otherwise it's been great working with you guys all right well thank you very much Jay it's been um it's been how many years um I I'm actually how many years has it been Jay Yeah it's you know uh just the fact that uh we've got people from different parties and uh almost never any kind of a party line vote in this group um uh that that also speaks quite a bit uh toward your leadership of the uh of the board um which is greatly appreciated by me um and the uh camaraderie of the board members right um well you know Jay I you know I I appreciate um you were vice chair for a very long time alongside Terry um um briefly served as our chair um and uh so really deeply appreciate all of your years of service here I was smart enough to find very competent chairs to be vice under well thank you um so uh assuming Jay's uh retirement and resignation holds um after you've had some sleep um then uh we will need to at some point um in the near future have an officer election for the vice chair lindsay I will speak to you tomorrow or Thursday sure sounds good all right um and uh Lindsay will you reach out to um uh see if um uh I know that our uh our additional member had had um mentioned they had a conflict this evening but um if you could verify if they'll be available on um on September 2nd or not for forum yep yeah they will thank you all right um well um if there's no other business um I know we've sort of left a bit outstanding I think um whether uh beyond September 30th there should be any additional conversations among the board I think we can work that out um uh by email but um we have um at this point uh extended uh slightly the timeline for the projected uh conversation and adoption so um thank you all for your um your thoughtfulness in reviewing things um and for taking in the public's comments um I uh while I don't want to um inappropriately preview anything I will say that uh for the record that you know we have been receiving the comments we each understand um that there are concerns about how um some of the language is drafted and that we are um discussing revisions to address those so um the comments are appreciated and and who's the we just out of curiosity Jen the we of the drafting no the uh discussing revisions oh um well um I mean thus far I mean I sorry the steering committee um no actually well I mean at this point really you know I you know we've amongst the board there has been a little bit of back and forth I think that um

I uh while I don't want to um inappropriately preview anything I will say that uh for the record that you know we have been receiving the comments we each understand um that there are concerns about how um some of the language is drafted and that we are um discussing revisions to address those so um the comments are appreciated and and who's the we just out of curiosity Jen the we of the drafting no the uh discussing revisions oh um well um i mean thus far I mean I sorry the steering committee um no actually well I mean at this point really you know I you know we've amongst the board there has been a little bit of back and forth I think that um uh the uh board members I think either you know through written communication uh in this group um or in one-to-one or two to one conversation with Lindsay I think can um continue to propose how we might um uh clarify and amend uh the text in in different sections to make sure that it is um consistent with the values of the comprehensive plan and that it's very clear to the public what is intended um by that language um and uh I think that I mean and I know that because the um consultants and the land use bureau staff have also been reviewing the other public comments that have come through again through the forum um there have been um I think some some refinements that um are in process um and so um we will see the first cut of that on uh on the ninth um I don't know if it makes sense for perhaps for the board to at least like have slides of it before um the the hearing on the ninth um even if we wait till then for a presentation but I think that would be helpful um but procedurally any board member um can uh propose uh revisions uh to the text in any of the sections I know that there are um a couple in particular that have gotten the most attention but it is a plan covering a number of different um aspects um and then uh again the intention of shifting the timeline for approval from September 16th to the 30th is to allow for um the members of the planning board uh to work with land use bureau staff and the consultants to make any further revisions based on the public input does that is that clear enough okay I I just uh Lindsay I'm not sure uh if I've uh you you know that I'm not here on the second but I uh I didn't I don't know if you're you're aware that I am also not here on the ninth.

Yes I am aware.

Okay thank you.

Um and uh Lindsay I don't know if you uh you may not know but um I I am assuming that the presentation on the ninth and on the 16th will be fairly similar because I I don't imagine that there will be a lot of substantive um additions made in the middle of that that hearing process I don't think there's anything that would prohibit changes but I'm assuming that the that that overview uh will be substantively the same in both settings.

Yeah um unless there's anything that comes up between you know at the ninth hearing that the planning board asks us to institute before the 16th or the 30th would likely be the same.

Yep.

Okay.

Are both of those going to be um uh teams uh meetings or or any are either of them going to be in person the 16th is in person um the ninth is uh virtual um I actually I would be curious actually to um consult with uh the legal department on for the in-person hearing if we are required to um include uh call in testimony um I only say that both I mean in general I I'm sure many of you have experienced how um clunky virtual meetings or hybrid meetings can be um I think that there is a lot of accessibility benefit actually to having uh virtual and kind of virtual only meetings I think the ninth will work much more smoothly as a virtual only setting um I certainly would like for people if they're not able to be there in person on the 16th to be able to listen in um but I think logistically it could actually be it could really be quite complicating to have people call in for testimony um and I mean the just the technology that's in the room uh is really not designed to make that easy on us so I would hate for the logistical piece to really gum up the hearing.

in um but I think logistically it could actually be it could really be quite complicating to have people call in for testimony um and I mean the just the technology that's in the room uh is really not designed to make that easy on us so I would hate for the logistical piece to really gum up the hearing I mean before the age of Zoom we just had the meeting in person um it was recorded so that there were um and there was video um that was available afterwards so that it was viewable but there but prior to you know COVID and all of this there was never a requirement for us to have um hybrid hearings where people could could chime in if they were not in the room I wanted to mention that I will also not most likely will not be able to attend on the 9th I'll be out of town I'm not sure there's a slight chance I could be there but probably not okay I know this is a busy time of year for travel so okay um well so with uh knowing that I um well I don't think anything would you know I think that it could make sense for us to have some discussion um on the 9th but probably not a lot I think primarily the the purpose of the the virtual meeting on the 9th will be to present um an overview of the plan including the revisions to have time for public testimony um and then we'll uh suspend uh and continue the hearing to the 16th um and procedurally um just so that it's clear here and we'll make sure this is noticed to the public the ninth and the 16th are one hearing um and so um if you speak at one you um not only do not need to speak at the other actually we you know we would prefer if uh uh and and can place uh the condition that members of the public speak once for three minutes um and that that is how we will be um conducting that um and again i uh for the record and we'll put this out there um written testimony counts just as much i know for many people public speaking is a face is a fate worse than death so um if it's easier to write it down please do um and sometimes it's easier for us to process that way as well all right um well thank you everyone very much um i know that the comprehensive plan adds a lot of time and processing um at this time of year right before we do the capital budget um it's been looking forward to being able to um pull it all together have a good evening um and our meeting is adjourned thank you bye everybody bye it is 8 58 thank you