Admitting all.

Hi folks, thanks for joining.

I just have to get a few things situated and we'll get started in a minute.

Thank you.

Lindsay, her initials are coming up as AG.

Me, I'm coming up as AJ.

No, Jennifer is.

Oh.

I see I I see Jennifer G.

There she is.

Okay.

Um presenter.

Okay.

Oi.

It had leaving next to her.

No, please don't.

Okay, let's see.

All right.

Jennifer, are you there?

You should be able to unmute yourself.

There you are.

Cool.

All right.

Um with uh let's see, with Bill and Chat out.

And um Jay officially um retired of his duties.

Jennifer, uh, we have a quorum and the folks that are gonna join the meeting.

Um have done so.

All right.

Great.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

All right.

Um good evening.

Thank you all for gathering for um the uh first installment of a hearing uh for the process for comprehensive plan uh approval by the planning board.

Um I will uh have uh Robbie, our secretary read the legal notice into the record um and then say a bit more about uh the uh format uh gonna go ahead and read the notice.

Okay.

Uh uh good evening folks.

Uh I'm just reading the legal notice into the records.

Uh in accordance with the section C six-30-5 of the Stanford Charter, the Stanford Planning Board will hold the first of the two public hearings on Tuesday, September 9, 2025 at 6 30 p.m.

via phone and internet video conference to hear public comments on the proposed comprehensive plan 2025 to 2035.

The city of Stanford's comprehensive plan updated once every decade as required by CGS section 823, provides a strategic framework to guide the city's growth through 2025 based on extensive community and stakeholder input.

This plan sets out goals and actions supporting land use, housing, business development, transportation, public facilities, and sustainability, reflecting the shared vision of residents and local government to enhance quality of life.

It serves as a guiding framework for future policies and projects that influence daily life, such as prioritizing capital funding for the city sidewalk network or initiating a comprehensive infrastructure assessment.

The Stanford 2020 35 plan includes updates to the future land use map, adjusting for inconsistencies between the 2015 plan and existing uses, often reflecting existing conditions and future vision.

Copies of the comprehensive plan may be reviewed as follows.gov slash standford 2035.

The land use bureau office, government center seventh floor during regular business hours, uh, or in the town clerk's office at the government center first floor during regular business hours.

At the above named time and place, all persons interested will be given an opportunity to be heard.

Definitely and such attendance meeting.gov.

At least two working days prior to the meeting.

All right, great.

Thank you very much.

So as noted, this is the first of uh two dates uh that the planning board has set aside for hearings uh on the comprehensive plan.

Uh this hearing uh this evening is going to be fully virtual and will be recorded uh as noted.

The we are we have two of our members who are out traveling, but they will review the tape afterward, um, and we'll all be present for an in-person uh hearing on uh September 16th.

Uh, that will be at the government center.

Um this evening, uh, our plan uh time to uh pause uh public comment will be uh 9 p.m.

At which time we will plan to continue the meeting.

So it's the same hearing uh to continue the meeting to September 16th.

Um that said, if you know if we just have one or two people left in the queue, um, we're not gonna make you go away and come back on the 16th.

Um just uh, and then the uh intention of the planning board is that after we've received those public comments, we will have our regular meeting on Tuesday, September 30th to uh further deliberate on the plan and determine uh conditions for approval.

Uh, just first to note uh where we are in the plan process.

Um, so as um as is uh typically as is custom, the plan was uh shared, uh published for the public um actually in July uh 14th.

Um and so there's been a long uh comment period already open.

Um, and while that filing is uh what is required for this process, it was determined that because there is so much feedback that has already been received in written form that it made sense to um add an additional um revision, which will be presented this evening that clarifies uh the existing principles of the comprehensive plan for 2035.

Um we you will hear more uh during the presentation.

Um, but our uh this revision felt really important and timely because uh there was a fair amount of confusion about the intentions and uh future direction of the comprehensive plan as previously released.

Um I will just note and I'll repeat this before we open for uh public hearing.

Um you uh so uh Lindsay Cohen will um promote you to speaker uh when it is your turn to speak.

Um you have a limit of three minutes.

Um you don't have to use all three minutes, but that is your limit.

Um, we also encourage but do not require um that you submit uh your remarks in writing.

I find that very helpful.

Uh we'll note for all who are present that you do not have to um speak at this hearing or the hearing on the 16th in order for your comments to make it into the public record.

As noted, we've received already many written comments since July 14th.

We will continue to receive written comments.

All of those will be collated for the public record and considered by all planning board members.

Um again, noting that because the 16th is a continuation of this evening's hearing.

We are asking that if you um have given testimony this evening to not then also give testimony on the 16th.

So before we have the presentation uh by our consultants, um, we have been asked uh by the mayor uh to uh for her to give a couple of remarks.

Um I'll say a little bit more um about uh the board and our charge, um, and then we'll go ahead and proceed with the presentation.

Thank you very much, Chair Gardeno, and uh thank you to the members of the planning board and all the members of the public.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak tonight regarding the 2035 comprehensive plan.

I want to start by expressing my gratitude to our city's land use bureau, in particular Lindsay Cohen, um, as well as Sasaki Associates, James Lima planning my architecture workshops and all of the partners who are involved in this process.

Thank you for your technical expertise and professionalism throughout this year-long planning process.

Every 10 years, we have an exciting opportunity to craft a guiding framework for city policies, capital improvement projects, land use transportation, sustainability, and economic development priorities, and to set a long-term vision for how we want to use and preserve land.

The Stanford 2035 Comprehensive Plan fulfills this requirement by offering a thoughtful forward-looking roadmap that reflects the values of our community.

From the start, our administration has emphasized the importance of this process, incorporating public feedback.

And I want to commend the robust public engagement that shaped this plan, resulting in more than 25,000 individual engagements with residents of all ages, including open house meetings, surveys, neighborhood workshops, and student and family engagement through Stanford Public Schools, ensuring that every generation had an opportunity to participate and share their feedback on the future of our city.

That feedback has been invaluable in highlighting key priorities and areas of concern for residents.

Based on this input, I recommended that revisions to the plan include clarification of terminology and future land use categories, specifically changing the RES2 areas with single family zoning to RES One to make clear the lower density intent and to preserve those areas.

I understand the concerns that have been voiced by residents around this, and I believe that the revisions help incorporate that feedback.

At the same time, the plan charts a path forward by supporting transit-oriented development and continued growth in our downtown, where new housing and economic activity can be concentrated near public transit.

With this balanced approach, I'm confident that Stanford can meet our affordable housing goals and future growth while preserving the qualities that make our neighborhoods distinct.

Affordability is one of the key priorities of this comprehensive plan, including creating more pathways for affordable homeownership and affordable rental units so that there are diverse housing opportunities for all residents across our city.

Together, these revisions and priorities form the foundation of the plan's broader vision, which is shaped by five key goals for the future of our city, that Stanford will be a city of opportunity, health, connection, affordability, and prosperity.

These principles will guide and strengthen our community moving forward.

And I'm so proud that the plan reflects the voices of many residents and advances key priorities, including improving accessibility and mobility with safer pedestrian and bike access, expanded transit connections and strategies to reduce traffic congestion, expanding and maintaining open space while protecting and enhancing recreational opportunities, investing in green infrastructure and sustainability to better manage stormwater, reduce flooding, and strengthen our city's resiliency so that we can keep residents safe, supporting local businesses and vibrant local centers as gathering spots while preserving the qualities that define Stanford's identity, diversifying housing options with a focus on affordability and making it easier for seniors to age in place.

I believe this plan offers a thoughtful approach to managing growth in a smart and balanced way with strategies that combine statewide best practices and the goals voiced by our Stanford residents.

There are also innovative proven approaches from peer cities that are included in this plan that can help us address some of the most pressing issues of our time, from reducing health and economic disparities to making our city more sustainable for generations to come.

These ideas include everything from creating neighborhood wellness centers to enhancing public health, establishing mobility hubs that integrate walking and biking, designing more dynamic public spaces with tree canopies and more tree planning to mitigate rising heat levels, and creating a historic historic signage program to celebrate our city's history.

The future of our city is bright, and I look forward to turning many of these innovative ideas in this plan into action together in the years ahead and to continuing to work together on creative solutions to solving the challenges of our time and making our city a better place for everyone.

I want to again thank the members of the public for their input and participation in shaping this plan and thank the members of the planning board for your commitment and careful review of the Stanford 2035 comprehensive plan as you move toward final adoption.

Thanks to your commitment and the commitment of all who call Stanford home.

I know we can move forward and achieve bold progress together to continue building the best version of the city that we all love.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mayor Simmons, for those remarks and grounding us this evening.

So I'd like to make sure that the public is clear on the role in charge for the planning board in this comprehensive plan process.

Per the charter, we are responsible for ensuring that a comprehensive plan is drafted and adopted per state uh statutes that require that we file one every 10 years in order to remain eligible for uh various types of uh state assistance.

Um as uh as has been the custom for the 2015 and 2002 plans in order to uh execute on the drafting of the plan.

Uh we have enlisted uh consultants to gather data and to design and facilitate public engagement opportunities.

Uh the role of the consultant has been to pull together and collate all of that feedback.

Um, and we had a charge uh to the consultant in particular to make sure that participation was representative of the entirety of the Stanford population, and I'm very impressed.

Um, if you look in at the appendix of the plan, there is a chart that outlines uh based on age, uh neighborhood uh and uh racial demographics, um, the proportion of Stanford residents who have participated.

Um, and there's a very incredibly close, honestly, uh, relationship between um who in who was engaged and who lives in this very diverse city.

Um so we're appreciative of uh that effort.

Um so the purpose of this hearing is to uh continue to receive comments from the public uh to ensure that uh the vision for uh Stanford as set forth in the 2035 plan uh is clear and accessible so that we can use that to guide uh further actions that the uh city will take in order to move toward that vision.

Um I do want to note that uh the role of the planning board um as the steward of the comprehensive plan is not to uh change any zoning in the city.

That is the purview of the zoning board.

And uh though the comprehensive plan is able to set forth uh particular principles that guide actions by the city and its boards.

Um we're not able to uh make any pronouncements that either um prohibit a certain type of action or compel or require a certain type of action that is not legally binding on our end, uh, nor is it actually legal.

Um so uh I would like now to um before we hand it over to the consultants, just take a moment uh to introduce the members of the planning board.

Uh we have a number of new members, um, and I also believe it's important for the public to understand um the perspectives and experiences that each of us are bringing.

Um so again, my name is Jennifer Gadzenno.

Uh, the AICP there that appears is um indicates that I'm a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners.

Um I was first appointed to the planning board a little bit over 10 years ago by Mayor Martin as a democratic appointee.

Um in the past year I have shifted my party uh affiliation to the working families party, which if you're not aware is sort of a cousin to the Democratic Party.

It often cross-endorses uh progressive candidates in those contests.

Um I live in Glenbrook.

Um I have two children here, and that is one of the main reasons why I'm really invested in uh stewarding the future of the city.

And I just happen to live uh in a townhouse that's about five blocks away from where uh my children's great-grandparents raised their grandmother.

Um I'll go ahead and uh hand it over to our secretary Ravi.

Yes, uh so my name is uh Rabisa Bramanian.

I'm a ex-corporated finance exhibitor, uh being in Stanford for more than eight years now.

Uh my family and two children and my father-in-law, they all stay with us.

Uh I live in the Vistola region.

I'm uh independent and uh um I think uh really like Stanford for the uh label CP and inclusiveness and um quality of life that uh we have in the giant so that I'm really excited to be in the planning board from end of last year and looking forward to working on this comprehensive plan to the day and concluding it to nobody successfully.

Jeremy, you want to go ahead?

Thank you, Chairman uh Gonzino.

Jeremy Linder, uh, I've lived in Stanford since 2013.

My professional background is a project manager in construction and did high-rise construction and a lot of development side for 10 years prior to me moving over to working in Connecticut.

But I live downtown, right on the other side of Melbourne Park.

And appreciate being appointed and can hopefully continue to use some of my professional background to help the future of the city.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

I will note if you're not aware, we are all volunteers.

And I'll also note again, there are two members who are not present this evening, but that a majority of the board at this point is appointees who have been added in the past year.

And with that, I will hand it over to Eliza Decker.

Thank you, Jennifer.

And thank you, Robbie and Jeremy for having me tonight.

So my name is Eliza Decker, and I'm an urban planner and project manager at Sasaki.

We're an interdisciplinary design firm based out of New York City that has been working with the city and my architecture workshops, the Stanford-based engagement practice and James Lima Planning and Development, who are experts in housing and economic development over the past year to develop the comprehensive plan in partnership with those of you in attendance this evening.

So this evening, we'll do a few things.

First, wanted to kind of piggyback on Mayor Sennon's message to kind of get everyone up to speed on the key components of the plan, the process, and then also spend a lot of time reviewing some of the key updates to the plan since we've released the first draft of the plan back in July.

And then Jennifer will be opening the floor open for public commentary.

So as Clinton was mentioned, the comprehensive plan is a land use land use document that is a guiding framework for the city.

It's required by the state to be updated by every new body in Connecticut every decade.

It really strives to balance the high-level aspirations of Stanford residents with specific action items.

So the plan includes over 200 action items that the land use bureau in partnership with other city departments and key kind of stakeholders can choose to act on over the next decade.

It's designed, you know, important to note to be a living document with regular kind of report out so that the city can make sure that the plan aligns with any changes to conditions or purely to kind of keep everyone informed of the planning process and kind of progress over the course of the next decade.

So some of you may have kind of attended every open house neighborhood workshop or kind of filled in every survey that we've had along the way.

But some of you, you know, might just be learning about the plan for the first time.

You know, while we've conducted an extensive amount of outreach over the past year, um, we definitely acknowledge that, you know, the plan doesn't kind of knock on every um every door in town.

But this year um we were really kind of pleased to um reach 25,000 um planning and press impressions, which in practical terms means that you know, every every time someone attended an open house or filled out a survey or interacted with our teams at events, kind of like the the public school engagement, um, in which um all you know public school children conducted the half day planning workshop and then took a survey back home to fill out with their families to get their you know visions and aspirations for the city, or you know, interacting with our team at various events around the city.

Um it also you know includes metrics like eyeballs on social media posts and newsletter updates like the mayor's weekly newsletter, um, or you know, things like cross-promotion with with Hay Stanford's um social media content.

Um, just for context, the last the 2015 master plan reached about 600 people.

Um, and so we're really pleased to kind of you know improve upon this progress and reach about 4,000 um, you know, more kind of impressions than the previous effort.

Um so you know, through all of these different um kind of venues, open houses, neighborhood workshops, surveys, engagement with youth.

Um, we were really intentional in tracking um through self-reported data, such as neighborhood, the um age of attendees, race and ethnicity to ensure that we are reaching a record representative sample of Stanford's population.

So as Jennifer mentioned in her remarks earlier, this chart that you'll see on the bottom right of your screen is the is the can be found in the appendix of the plan, and it shows who we've reached across the city in comparison to kind of representative population of each neighborhood statistical area.

And so we were pleased to kind of have a pretty representative sample in plan.

And then throughout the process in neighborhoods that we weren't seeing as much engagement, we worked with the team at My Architecture Workshops to ensure, you know, we conducted a little more outreach in those areas ahead of major planning events.

And so that's kind of been the process over the past year.

So I know we reviewed the process in kind of introductory remarks.

So I won't spend too much time on this, but kind of zooming back out.

So we conducted about a 10-month or a year planning process, which included all of those different public engagement events, released the draft plan for public review back in July, and then have been undertaking this two-month process on adoption with a planning board.

Last week we released a revised future land use map to help clarify some of the intent around that map.

And then last Friday, we released an updated draft plan, sorry, last Monday.

And then tonight is the first of two public hearing sessions before the planning board targets the vote on adoption on their regular meeting on September 30th.

So before we get into specific updates to the draft plan, I'd like to just kind of take a quick second to get everyone up to speed on the plan's five visions, as the mayor kind of really well pointed out.

So the plan includes five kind of overarching visions, as we heard from the community, and then is articulated by a series of 18 goals, over 30 strategies and over 200 actions, each getting more specific as we go.

So multiple public open houses and surveys and workshops resulted in this series of five overarching visions.

In that in 2035, Stanford will be a city of opportunity, health, connection, affordability, and prosperity.

The City of Opportunity Vision focuses on helping the city direct development in alignment with improved infrastructure coordination and monitoring in areas that are close to train stations, or you might have heard the term transit-oriented development.

It also highlights the preservation of single-family neighborhoods, the celebration of historic districts, and influencing high-quality design and development, as well as improving kind of participatory planning practices.

The healthy vision focuses on all things sustainability and resilience.

So from protecting Stanford's harbor to upland ecosystems or improving tree planting and stewardship, improving connections to parks, or anything, you know, in relationship to building and transit efficiency and energy, or even things like promoting community health through landscape buffers along highways, improving the senior center or better access to libraries, all of these kind of disparate community health strategies are in the healthy section.

Connected focuses on all things mobility.

So we've heard kind of consistently that traffic congestion is definitely a pain point in the city, but what are some concrete ways that the city can make traffic flow and parking management more efficient?

Things like how does the city work with the state to improve bus service or creating protected bike lanes and sidewalk connections so that people can bike and walk around the city more easily.

And then affordable highlights specific steps to better incentivize the production of more affordable housing stocks so that everyone from you know the young family looking to purchase their first home to the senior looking to downsize our kind of agent place is able to do so.

And then finally, Prosperous builds on the city's position as this really robust regional job center to help it maintain and attract businesses while also upscaling existing residents for job opportunities in the city today through things like workforce development programs or institutional partnerships with institutions like UConn Stanford.

So with that said, I'd like to just kind of take a second to, you know, turn to some of the refinements to the plan since we released the draft back in July.

So since then, we've received over 110 comments from residents like yourselves, most of whom were really concentrated on specific specifics regarding future land use, especially this residential to neighborhood category.

So of all of the commons, 75% of comments were focused on that one land use category.

So more on this in a second when we turn to kind of the future land use updates.

But amid some of that kind of overwhelming concern about that land use category, there was this general consistent thread of praise for the depth, the formatting and the professionalism of the plan.

So we were really heartened to hear that as well.

So in terms of future land use and some of the refinements we've made on September 4th, we released an update to the future land use map based on public feedback.

So you told us that some of the future land use categories read too much like zoning districts.

We really wanted to make this distinction clear.

So we revised the plan to rename this R1 and R2, the residential, single family, and residential neighborhood categories to Res One and Res 2 to better make that distinction.

Also mentioned that it's not clear what's envisioned in each future land use category.

And so we created more kind of intentional table of uses for each future land use category to clarify exactly what types of kind of homes or activities are imagined in each kind of category over the next decade.

We also heard that you know many of you do not want to see any kind of new multifamily buildings in the middle of existing single family neighborhoods.

And with that, you know, we kind of wanted to set the record straight that the intention is to accommodate growth primarily in some of these higher density categories like mixed-use core and mixed use urban while balancing kind of the neighborhood context and city needs.

And then finally, a lot of comments were focused on the revisions to this residential two neighborhood boundary.

And so we have updated these categories to better kind of clarify the intent for how the city is balancing single family neighborhoods, but also promoting kind of this diversity of housing stock that is seen widely throughout the city right now.

So the map that you'll see on the right hand side of the screen, every area that is hatched with kind of this dark gray hatching are areas that were revised in the kind of process of draft future land use plan refinements.

And so many of these areas we refine from the residential two to the residential one, just to clarify again the intent that these areas um, you know, are kind of currently single family neighborhoods and kind of will continue to operate as such over the course of the next decade.

We've also, as I mentioned, updated the kind of this detailed future land use table.

And we've added specific kind of columns for future land use and ties to expected population growth, um, just to get much more specific on some of the things like, you know, in for example, in this mixed-use core category, which is primarily located downtown, um, that'll be kind of a lot of the high density multifamily housing or destination retail, major commercial office.

Um, but then you know, in this residential single family category, that'll primarily be single family detached dwellings or civic uses compatible with residential areas like libraries or schools.

Um, so that's kind of um some of some of the updates that we've taken as well as um kind of I think this kind of gives you a better picture of some of the intent behind each future land use category if you're a visual learner like myself.

Um so in each of these images, you'll kind of see um kind of the intent of each future land use category and how they tie to some of the existing conditions in Stanford today.

Um areas with this kind of um brown star areas that um are you know have the infrastructure, the transit access, and kind of the existing land use mix to support and accommodate um future population growth or the majority of it.

So um hopefully this helps to kind of really understand um what we mean by each future land use category.

And then just to kind of continue on with a little bit of data around future land use and how it relates to the 2015 plan.

So only 3% of um you know area throughout the city changed its land use kind of intent from the 2015 master plan.

So for example, this would look like um a kind of master plan, low density multifamily category, that's the 2015 category.

It might move to a mixed use one or a mixed-use neighborhood center.

That's kind of a shift in intent.

But some categories for 14% of area have been reclassified to kind of better fit and align to existing additions.

So for example, when undertaking this process of review, we noticed that a lot of the kind of conservation lands, open spaces were in kind of formerly in the Master Plan One category, and we wanted to separate those out so that they were able to be kind of preserved and conserved as natural areas moving forward.

Expanding on that, this chart also shows the kind of change in land use by category from 2015 to 2035.

Just noting that there is really no substantial change to kind of any of the residential categories except for kind of reclassification to open space conservation or just to kind of section out roads and infrastructure as well.

So with that, I'll now turn to specific updates to each section of the plan.

So each of the five visions as you know was informed by public comment and meetings of the planning board over the past few months.

So this first section, the City of Opportunity, you told us, you know, some of the comments were centered around increasing the emphasis around transit oriented development, around the STC downtown, providing additional kind of avenues for developer contributions to public space and infrastructure improvements for any new development, the dislike of kind of some of the ACU actions, also clarifying historic preservation execution responsibilities and highlighting accessibility and public engagement recommendations.

So in terms of updates to this section, many of the updates focused on kind of clarifying historic preservation execution, adding various accessibility actions and highlighting transit oriented development in this section.

So without kind of going through all of the specific updates, just running through a few.

So just a few updates here where we've added notes for accessible pedestrian signals, improving east-west travel for all modes of transit, as well as coordinating the bus schedules with Metro North and Amtrak Times to ensure that you know the city and the state and Amtrak are working together to make sure that transit service is running smoothly.

In the affordable section, there was kind of a broad support for missing middle housing among young families and renters.

And when I say missing middle, that means everything that's kind of not a single family home, but also not a kind of high-rise multifamily house.

Anything like a town home or a duplex is seen as kind of this opportunity to buy and plant roots in Stanford.

Also, there was a kind of note to clarify the intent that the ADU action is just a study to understand what is best for Stanford in terms of revisions to kind of current ADU regulations, as well as some kind of skepticism of the supply and demand relationship in the housing market, and that an increased supply of housing leads to broader affordability.

So we have clarified the intent of the ADU kind of regulation study, but it is in fact a study and not kind of a broad change in any kind of existing regulation.

And then finally, the prosperous vision, broadly speaking, the kind of only point of feedback here was that we wanted to kind of emphasize Yukon Stanford's physical and programmatic role in the city's growth.

And so this is something that we have done throughout a multiple strategies in the Prosperous section to add UConn Stanford a little bit more in terms of some of the physical and programmatic, you know, kind of recommendations that the team sawfit.

And then finally in the appendix, we have added kind of a note an overview of the public school engagement and some of the outcomes of that effort, which was a tremendous effort by the My Architecture Workshops team.

And we have also added a data appendix for most of the housing and economic economic development data.

So if you'd like to take a closer look at some of the data behind the plan, you can feel free to do so.

So with that, um looking forward to next steps with the planning board, the second um, you know, kind of the continuation of the this public hearing on the 16th and then the public meeting on the 30th.

So thank you so much, um, Jennifer and the board for the presentation this evening, and I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you very much for that overview of the process as well as the changes that already have been made in response to public feedback.

Um, I'll note that uh the board members really wanted to make sure that you know, not none of us here want to see disruptive wide-scale change in this community, um, including within the single family areas.

And so this revision really makes very clear the intention of the plan to retain that character while concentrating growth in specific uh parts of uh our city that are better equipped to handle population growth.

Um currently we have 20 people who are signed up to speak.

Um, and so we have plenty of time uh for each of you to have your up to three minutes at the mic.

Um Lindsay Cohen will call on uh on you individually, um, and then you can come off of mute in order to speak.

Um, if you were not able to sign up ahead of time, you are still invited to uh sign up if you would like by raising your hand in the uh team's function.

Uh there's just there is a picture of a hand and it says raise.

Um, and so you'll be added to the queue uh for the evening.

Um I do want to say I really really do appreciate um all of you for coming out on a Tuesday evening to uh to testify and to help to make this plan even clearer and better.

Um I actually got involved in the planning board after testifying at the 2015 master plan hearing um and afterward where the uh one of Mayor Martin's staff tapped me and was like, Do you think you might be interested in joining one of the land use boards?

And first I was like, gosh, that sounds really boring, but uh but here I am, and still um, and uh we actually you may know we actually have a couple of vacancies on the board as well.

So perhaps you two can join in on uh this wonderful work for the city.

Um I'll note uh before I open testimony, you are welcome to say um really whatever you would like as pertains to the plan in support of or um wanting to suggest revisions to specific sections.

Um, as noted at the beginning, we are required as a planning board to at some point in the near future approve a plan.

And so what is most useful is very specific feedback uh again about uh what we might change um for clarity or to better illustrate the values uh of the plan and your understanding of what is best for the community, um, as well as what elements of the plan that you would like to make sure that we keep.

Um, and with that, I will go ahead and uh have Lindsay uh open up our queue.

All right, great.

Um, and my dog just started barking.

So um I'm gonna start with Catherine Barrios.

Hold on one second.

Very excited for the public comment period.

Um so we'll start with uh Catherine Barrios.

What this is going to take me a minute till I get into the swing of things, so please uh bear with me.

Um, after Catherine uh Celeste Perelli is on deck.

All right, Catherine uh should be allowed to speak and unmute yourself, Catherine.

It's oh am I okay?

Yes, I can hear you.

Okay, perfect.

So I'll start on my three minutes.

My name is Catherine Barrios.

In 1984, we purchased a house on Three Cambridge Road, which is located in the cove and which we still occupy today.

I am a in, I am against the plan as currently written.

And tonight I want to speak about a particular segment of Stanford residents whom I believe have been totally ignored in the discussions thus far.

May I direct your attention to page 44 in the plan.

If you go to page 44, you will see there is a bright red triangle, which seems to, which represents the concentration of the Hispanic population in Stanford.

The triangle appears to be encompassing the cove, some areas which are currently zoned multifamily, and other areas which are going to pass from single family to res to underneath this plan.

Um I have spent two days in Cove Island and one day at Chelsea Piers with fellow concerned citizens, and the majority of the people we have spoken with have absolutely no idea or knowledge of this plan.

I spoke to at least 60 Hispanics who are renters in the two in the little area encompassed by the red triangle.

And I can sum up what the renters had to say by one Hispanic gentleman.

He stated, there is already too much housing density.

We don't want more.

And they do not support this plan.

So I'm speaking against it.

And I would like to ask you a question.

I think affordable housing is a red herring that is being thrown up.

Because think to yourself, will housing being built by private developers on small lots and narrow straits be affordable?

I would like to offer some statistics.

In the cove, a one room, one room rents for a thousand dollars a month, an apartment on East Main Street, three beds, two baths, 1,400 square feet, 3,400 a month, a house on Dora Street, 2,000 square feet, rents for $4,750 a month.

So if you look, the residential areas are very dense in the cove.

And before you vote on this, I would suggest that you drive through the streets in my area and take a look for yourself.

Cove Road, Seaside Dora, Givens, Lockwood, and many other seat streets are totally impassable.

This is why the residents do not want more density in this area.

So there's a whole question where can affordable housing exist in these areas.

Thank you.

Thank you, Catherine.

Let's see.

Going forward, um, I'll probably give a quiet 30-second um warning, just uh to let folks know.

Um Celeste Preli, you can unmute yourself on deck.

It is Richard Pizakara.

Hi, good evening.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Yes, great.

My name is Celeste Perilli, and I'm a proud resident of the cove.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

The revised 2035 plan allows for multi multiplexed housing in my neighborhood.

The revised plan does not safeguard me, my neighbors, or our community.

It undermines safety, strains infrastructure, and erode to the character of our neighborhood.

The cove simply cannot sustain additional multifamily housing.

We only need to look at the areas behind ShopRite, Cummings Park, anywhere from Shop Right to the back area of Cummings Park to see the consequences.

Cars and trucks spilling onto front lawns, lawns paved over for parking, and a growing number of commercial vans and trucks with business signage crowding our streets.

Trees, bushes, and grass, the very character of a neighborhood are disappearing.

The little green space we have left is vanishing, replaced by pavement and congestion and cars.

In areas where multifamily homes already exist, the results are plain.

Transient individuals leaving discarded mattresses, broken air conditioners, and other household debris piled at the end of the month.

The proposed comprehensive plan would not solve these problems.

It would magnify them.

Many of our single family homes are modest in size and sit on small parcels of land.

Multifamily homes bring more people and even more vehicles because they park both personal and work vehicles on the road.

Parking on both sides of narrow streets forces two-way traffic to slow to a crawl with one guard pulling over, pulling aside to let another pass.

I worry about what happens when an ambulance or fire truck needs to get through.

Lives could be at stake.

Density already exists here.

Getting more will only make our roads less safe, our air less clean, and our neighborhoods less livable.

On August 12th, I attended the planning board's public meeting on the comprehensive plan.

At that meeting, Miss Cohen, you stated that the city is conducting a study on illegal housing in the cove.

I respectfully request to know when and how I can access that study and its findings.

And I'm also concerned that this comprehensive plan will be a fast pass for those illegal homes and illegal apartments to be, you know, approved.

You've got 30 seconds.

I do not want to live next to multiplexed housing that undermines safety, strains infrastructure, and erodes the character of my neighborhood.

I urge you preserve what's left of the cove and preserve all of Stanford's neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you, Celeste.

Richard Pizakara, next to his name it says leaving, so I can't um allow him to speak or anything.

Um perhaps if they could log out and try logging back in, um, that might help.

So I'm going to move on to the next.

Uh Rosanna Colangelo.

You can unmute yourself.

Rosana Colangelo.

Okay, I will come back to Rosanna.

Um, let's uh moving on to Nicola Tarzia.

Nicola Tarzia, here we are.

All right, you can unmute yourself.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Lizzie.

Uh my name is Nicole Letarsia.

I am a lifetime resident of Stanford, and I have several concerns over the plan.

As I've spoken about at several meetings, um plan is written very well, but it's it's it's riddled with uh contradictions and a lot of density issues.

For example, we all know all the neighborhood of coalitions and people on this meeting know about the R2 zone, which is our main focus, which drives more density.

Then we have the R1 zone, which drives more larger ADUs and more density.

Then there's nobody mentioned really about the MU1 and MU2 zones, which are the uh corporate campuses and structures, which drives more density.

So all these four categories of the 12 land use categories drive more density, which which uh is more neighborhood disruption, there's more traffic, there's more safety concerns as people spoken about, and more environmental concerns.

So I'm trying to encompass most of the plan or good parts of the plan in this three minutes.

So I plead with the planning board.

I feel the planning board is ill-prepared to pass this plan.

I feel they need to be advised and listened to the residents and the neighborhood coalitions who have been strongly opposed to this plan.

And how can the planning board be accountable if we pass this plan?

I mean, we need, I'm glad Mayor Caroline Simmons is here, but we need some government governance over the planning board.

And and if you listen to all the people that are gonna be speaking tonight, you're they're gonna be great agreeing with me and saying the planning board needs to just slow it down, revise the plans, focus on these on these uh R2 zones, RES, sorry, the new one is RES2 and RES one.

But those are the two big concerns there, and and the other corporate campuses.

But and another person brought up um something there's already too much density and illegal housing.

So if we keep expanding Stanford at this rapid pace without focusing on city service and infrastructure, there could be more uh violations in the legal housing.

So I just want to say I stand with the uh with the neighborhood coalitions and most of the people on this on this uh opinion of this plan, and just hopefully the planning board can postpone it or be listened to the residents, please.

So thank you.

I just try to keep it short and sweet, but thank you for listening.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh next, Paul Brindak.

Paul B.

Okay.

All right, Paul.

You can unmute yourself.

Next up is Kimberly Klepper Schneck.

Paul, you can unmute yourself uh by clicking the mic button at the top of the screen.

Looks like uh old school microphone.

All right, I can let me find Kimberly.

See if all right, Kim.

All right, Kim Schneck, you may unmute yourself and uh speak.

Thank you.

There you go, we can hear you.

Thanks to my son for telling me how to unmute my phone.

Um I just want to start off by saying thank you to everyone who's been involved uh and doing the heavy lifting of the original um draft of the plan and also um very appreciative for you taking the input um of public feedback over the past month or so.

It's been really um uplifting or reassuring to see that that our voices are being heard.

That said, um, as a resident of historic hovered heights, um you know, we we are very thankful that you know our status has been shifted back into R1, but we've continue to be concerned about the potential the density and congestion impacts uh that would be detrimental to the historic nature of the neighborhood, should ADUs um be allowed um as they continue to be.

What we would like to urge you to consider and include in the next and final draft of the plan would be to lift language similar to that of the 2015 uh master plan that had very specific protections around historic neighborhoods within Stanford, such as um zoning that would not allow um lot sizes to be reduced and parking traffic, uh parking regulations to be broadened and loosened.

Um we're already over congestion as we've we've spoken before with the city um with the traffic concerns and the safety, and we just implore you to reconsider using some of that language um from 2015 to protect uh the nature of our and the safety of our neighborhood, certainly in order to the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have uh David Mehilov not in the Dr.

Actually not seeing David on right now, so I'm going down to move move to the next.

Uh is Lyle Fischle.

And I did see Lyle on.

Here's Lyle.

Um, all right, Lyle, you can unmute yourself.

Um, on deck is Mike Moore, DSSD.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

All right.

So actually, I wasn't sure whether I could talk at both this meeting and next week's meeting.

So uh, do we have a clarification on that?

Any buddy, there's been some confusion as to um if you could speak at both meetings.

Um so the procedure is because it is one hearing, it's just that this evening's hearing is being continued to the 16th.

Um, you uh you may speak at either this evening or on the 16th.

I'm gonna speak on the 16th, so I excuse myself from this um meeting.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

All right, uh Mike Moore, you are uh able to um unmute yourself and uh turn on your camera if you choose.

Good evening, and thank you.

Uh, my name is Mike Moore.

I'm the president of Stanford Downtown, Chairwoman Godzino and members of the planning board.

Stanford Downtown wishes to offer support for the proposed 2035 plan.

Stanford Downtown wishes to acknowledge City of Stanford staff and the consultant team that drafted the plan.

Specifically, I wish to thank Lindsay Cohen, Leah Kagan, and Luke Buntweeser of the City of Stanford and Zeke Zoo and Eliza Decker of Suzaki Associates for the proactive engagement with and responsiveness to Stanford Downtown's requests for information and presentations to its board of commissioners and subcommittees.

And reviewing the draft document, it is important to note the steps identified to plan for and address the needs of our growing community.

Specifically, the plan calls for the creation of a capital working group to coordinate long-term capital improvements, the creation of a detailed long-term infrastructure master plan to forecast infrastructure services based on population growth and climate predictions, and the creation of a comprehensive infrastructure assessment tool.

Such steps are needed to ensure Stamford continues to improve and maintain the sewer, water, and rotary network needed for our dynamic community.

The plan also calls for increased investment in technology to further improve the land use and building permitting process.

For example, the creation of unified online AI-powered platform platform for permit applications, reviews, inspections, and the payments and payments across all operations departments.

I also wish to call attention to the climate resilience elements of the plan and the need to expand investments in green infrastructure, such as street trees.

Such investments, including the branching out initiative, will help ensure the health of our street tree canopy and supplement efforts to clean supplement efforts to clean stormwater before it enters Long Island Sound.

The plan office also emphasizes the importance of complete streets concepts in Vision Zero.

And that will and the Vision Zero philosophy that will ensure pedestrian-friendly multimodal streets.

I want to bring attention to the recommendations associated with low carbon transportation option options, such as the permanent adoption of the Stamp Forward Transit on Demand initiative.

I do wish to revisit the comments and that Stanford Downtown submitted in writing to the planning board just prior to Labor Day, including comments concerning Stanford Transportation Center, transit-oriented development, and proposed master plan land use categories.

There's no more important note of transit service, bikeability, and walkability than the Stanford Transportation Center.

And as such, the redesign and reconstruction of the Transportation Center and redevelopment of the adjoining properties must stand as the highest priority within the 2035 plan.

The transportation center is the linchprint of the city's economy.

Its reconstruction is necessary necessary to further leverage Stanford's accessibility to New York City and other regional job and population centers.

And to position adjoining properties as the city's most competitive location for Class A commercial real estate development, as well as mixed use construction.

Stanford Downtown asks for additional language, making clear that the area around the transportation center and downtown in particular must have privacy for transit-oriented development and serve as the focus of federal, state, and local infrastructure investments to support growth and density.

Sorry, Mike, that'll that's that's your time.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Sincerest apologies.

Thank you.

All right.

So uh Paul Brindak uh raised his hand.

Um, so I know he is here now.

Uh I will allow your mic.

Paul, you can unmute yourself.

Uh there is a uh microphone button at the top of your screen between camera and share.

If I could unmute you, I would, but I cannot.

All right.

Um unfortunately, I think we'll have to move on to the next speaker.

Uh I am a lot continuing to allow you, Paul, to unmute yourself.

So if you do figure that out, um, please.

Uh, you know, just wait until the next speaker is available uh finished.

Uh let's see.

Uh Richard Pizzico.

Um Rosanna Colangelo uh also disabled Mike.

You can unmute yourself.

Okay.

Let's move on.

Um, we'll go uh Jennifer Edwards, and then on deck is Evelyn Simpson.

So I'm not seeing Jennifer Edwards on.

I'm going to move on to Evelyn Simpson.

Here's Evelyn Simpson.

Evelyn, you may unmute yourself.

Evelyn Simpson, you can unmute yourself.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Took me a minute to figure out.

Um, um, thank you for letting me speak.

Good evening.

My name is Evelyn Simpson, and I am a 35-plus year resident at Glenbrook, and I am voicing tonight my opposition to the plan as it currently stands.

Um regarding um, and I'm also requesting that the planning board delay the September vote to continue to get more actual feedback from residents.

There are claims of a robust community engagement with 25,000 points of input or impressions.

However, 16,000 of those impressions were from school-aged children, including five, six, and seven-year-old children.

And I don't think that they really can understand what it means to have input into a master plan that's going to take place for 10 years.

Furthermore, I have never been contacted by any of my neighborhood ambassadors.

And I was told that we would have engagement with ambassadors, that they could voice our concerns, that they could go back to the various committees.

I have never been contacted.

I don't know anyone that knows their ambassadors.

Most people that I have spoken to about this plan don't even know that it exists.

They don't understand why we're doing this, and they have never heard of it.

So the communication for this plan, even though it claims to have been advertised widely, doesn't seem to have really hit the mark with most of the community, uh, most of the Stanford community.

Um it seems that the only robust engagement has been from developers and their lawyers who stand to profit a lot from these proposed changes.

It would be nice for the board to hear from more voices from all neighborhoods before it votes on the proposed plan.

One of my questions to the planning board is even why we need such drastic changes to the master plan.

We know that the planning board and zoning have been changed making changes and that ADUs are being built all over the city, and townhomes are being built on single family zoned areas.

I know that from experience because currently around the corner from me, we have 26 three and a half story townhomes going up on property that partly was single family zoned.

They are chopping down trees, they are getting rid of a lot of the green space, and it seems to be contrary and not alignment with the master plan, which is supposed to promote green space.

So we're going to have more um concrete heat from this development because there are fewer trees and fewer lawns, et cetera.

30 seconds.

Okay.

Um also um getting rid of the lot sizes, parking minimums, etc.

Is seems to be developing um enriching the developers, the expense of neighborhood residents.

Um our streets are clogged, and lack of parking on site will only increase the parking um challenges further.

And it will be not only for residents, but for city vehicles such as snow plows, buses, and garbage trucks, as well as emergency vehicles.

So I request that the planning board really consider and have the have the consultants go around and really look at what's happening in the city instead of using other city plans to make their decisions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh next speaker.

Um let me get to you.

Oh, you were right there.

All right, you uh can unmute yourself.

And then on deck, uh Mike Batinelli.

Hello, everyone.

Uh, my name is Kasoom, and I am a resident of the historic Hubbard Heights neighborhood.

Uh thank you to the commission for moving Hubbard Heights to the Res1 category in the future land use uh map.

We really appreciate you hearing us and um recognizing this single family historic area.

The Stanford 2035 comprehensive plan states that it will preserve historic neighborhoods.

This is very important to us, the residents of Hubbard Heights, as much as it is to the residents of Rivona, Historic South End, Long Ridge Village, etc.

Building houses with density such as cluster homes, etc., does not foster the distinct architectural and community identity of this historic neighborhood.

Not to mention we already have traffic congestion congestion and traffic safety issues in and around the Hubbard Heights area.

I kindly ask that the commission further protect Stanford's historic areas by adding language that prevents increased densities and maintains the current zoning.

Thank you very much, everyone, for the time and the work you're doing.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh Mike Batinelli, you can unmute yourself.

On deck is Rebecca Shannon House.

Uh Mike Batinelli.

You are allowed to unmute yourself.

Perhaps we move on to Rebecca Shannon House.

Oh wait, here we are.

Hi Mike.

Oh did you hear me?

Yes, we yes, I hear you.

Okay.

I was sorry about that.

I couldn't get myself unmuted with this thing.

My name is Mike Batonelli.

I uh live in the Glenbrook section of Stanford.

Glenbrook uh is one of those going to be uh with this new plan one of the hardest hit sections uh along with the Cove and some other sections maybe Springdale and the and uh we've already been beat up quite a bit with over with with overdevelopment and to and and uh not even looking at ADUs I'm looking at the illegal apartments that we have on our streets where we can't even where we can't even get on our streets and get in front of our house to the to go to go home at night uh I I'm looking at some of the I'm uh I'm not looking I'm not I'm not sure exactly what your changes are but uh uh quite a few people I actually very smart people have been trying to read this and decipher all these new changes I don't uh and then uh they're having a hard time figuring out what the difference is now other than the changes in uh uh terminology and changes in in uh uh RA1 and R and RA2 to the that's gonna make a lot of difference but when it comes to um all of uh the these uh single family zones getting uh uh overdeveloped uh right now uh I I don't see anything in this whole plan that says that uh all the existing single family zones are to be are to stay the way they are uh uh a uh the that's really what a lot of these people are going after they we we we've I'm an I'm not even a great one because mine has been beat up quite a bit already um but uh people want us people that bought their houses in single family zones want to keep them like that and I and I I don't see anything there that's gonna stop this in this in this plan uh I'm also in the fire department uh I know that I know the mayor wants to have the biggest the the most populous town city in the state do you know what comes along with that uh we're uh uh in the fire department right now and so many streets are getting so congested and packed we can't even get an engine down it uh the um uh we're getting stretched very thin at this time imagine if we added another 20 30 thousand people to Stanford what do you do they realize how dangerous this is a situation is gonna get no one thinks about stuff like that because all they care about is something they see they're reading on a on on on a uh uh a plan that came from some company out of town uh I see I see inferences to Miami Detroit you've got 30 cents so what do they have to do with Stanford Stanford is nothing like them they're millions they're they're they're major metropolises we you know Stanford is not that type of place Stanford is 150 160 I'm not sure where we're at right now but we don't have we don't have the infrastructure and we don't have the uh uh uh the it's not set up in a way that to be like those towns and I think the more we try to overdo it and try and be and try and make believe we're something we're not we're gonna get ourselves in a lot of trouble uh uh I just uh want to just uh I just think a lot of the a lot of people that come on I heard some of the people talking before with about all kinds of um I mean Mike that's your time thank you so much well I I'm an opposition to this that as you know okay thank you very much thank you uh Lindsay uh can I just actually take a moment to I appreciate that Mike had was kind of asking a question uh about the changes um so um I just want to so if you look at pages 52 and 53 of the comprehensive plan there's an expanded chart that's been added um and I just want to make uh two things clear one the category that is uh labeled as res one uh residential single family and the category that is labeled res two residential neighborhood both of those are labeled in this table as minimal growth um so neither one of these is designated as a growth area uh in the next 10 years um and also that the major change um in response to the public feedback that we received was uh that uh a lot of the area that was included previously in res two residential neighborhood has now been shifted over to res one residential single family and that the uh parcels that were moved uh on the map are uh are pretty much all of the single family currently single family uh lots um in these neighborhoods so that they are now in that res one zone um and so um noting that uh we definitely appreciate if there are further um amendments or clarifications that can be made uh so that the intent uh of retaining the existing uh character of both res one and res two uh feel like they are uh strong uh and robust recommendations thank you uh Rebecca

Uh Rebecca Shannon House, you can unmute yourself.

Uh next up is Regina Gordon, uh but I'm not seeing Regina Gordon online.

There are a few initials and and unverified.

So if I do say your name and I can't find you, you can raise your hand.

Um and that would be helpful.

Uh so after Regina, we would go on to uh Laura Martin.

So Rebecca, if you want to um unmute yourself, Rebecca Shannon House.

Uh good evening.

Uh my name is Rebecca Shannon House, and um thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening about the uh revised comprehensive plan.

Um I'm speaking as a longtime resident of uh Hubbard Heights and a board member of the Hubbard Heights Association.

I also served as the co-chair of the Hubbard Heights Association Committee that worked with the city, state, and federal government more than 10 years ago to earn Hubbard Heights designation as a state and national registered historic district.

Um I'd first like to express full support for Stanford's efforts to address the shortage of affordable housing housing and uh offer uh support and and thanks for all the efforts that are being made to create a workable vision for the city's future.

Um and while the latest revised draft has made a significant improvement by moving some neighborhoods, including Hubbard Heights, from the R2 land use category to the new category called Res One, I respectfully request that further consideration be given to four key points.

Uh number one, the new res one category is not clearly defined.

While the category is referred to single family residential, it is further described as quote low density residential areas dedicated primarily to single family detached homes with existing and enhanced opportunities for senior housing, ADUs or cottage clusters.

To my reading, this description includes conflicting objectives and fails to provide clear guidance.

Number two, as a National Register Historic District, Hubbard Heights underwent a lengthy and rigorous review process to meet national criteria for its historical and architectural significance.

For these reasons, the comprehensive plan should protect the neighborhood's as-of-right single-family status.

Without this protection, there's a strong incentive for historic homes to be demolished and replaced with housing alternatives that are not consistent with Hubbard Heights's long-standing single-family status, which was a key element of the of the neighborhood's historic uh designation.

Number three, Stanford is a certified local government.

In becoming a CLG, Stanford agreed to partner with the state historic preservation office and the National Park Service to actively participate in the Federal Historic Preservation Program, which was federally mandated in 1966.

Quote seeks to develop and maintain local historical preservation programs that will influence the zoning and permitting decisions critical to storic properties.

In becoming a CLG, Stanford made a legal and public commitment to uphold best practices and standards for historic preservation.

And finally, number four, Hubbard Heights was supportive of the city's targeted and thoughtful adoption of ADUs for R10 and larger zones.

The neighborhood saw this as a way to not only get 30 seconds uh 30 seconds.

Thank you all wrap it up.

The neighborhood saw this as a way to not only allow uh seniors to age in place, but also do its part in creating additional housing without disrupting or even destroying the very elements that led to the design designation as a historic district.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that greater consideration uh and uh and protections be incorporated for the Hubbard Heights Historic District.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, I'm still not seeing uh Regina Gordon.

Um, so I'm moving on to Laura Martin.

Oh.

Was that Regina Gordon on the phone?

Is that you?

Regina Gordon on the phone, it seems like okay.

All right.

This is Laura.

Can you hear me?

I hear you, Laura.

Yes, I hear you, Laura.

Why don't you go ahead and whoever is on the phone?

Can we it's Regina?

Okay, Regina.

Um, if you wouldn't mind just uh waiting until Lauren is finished, um we'll do Lauren Martin, Laura Martin, and then Regina Gordon.

Thank you.

No worries.

Hello, my name is Laura Martin.

I'm a lifelong resident of Stanford and uh 60 plus year um living in Hubbard Heights.

I'm opposed to the comp plan for a few reasons.

One of them is of what's being allowed in the res one category.

I was pleased to see more single family neighborhoods were added to that category.

However, there was a small insertion in the revised plan where senior disabled housing will be allowed by right in the res one single family neighborhoods that have city services, even if it's in a historic district.

I am against this idea.

Historic districts like Hubbard Heights, my neighborhood must be exempted from this type of new development, which includes independent living facilities such as cluster housing and condominiumized units, a new term that's being floated around the city.

This approach defeats the intention of recognizing historic districts by preserving and protecting them.

In the comp plan, the city acknowledges the importance of preserving historic areas in the city.

So let's officially write it in by adding language that historic districts are exempt from senior disabled housing, and that they will remain subject to the zoning regulations currently in effect for that neighborhood, so that there's no misunderstanding by the planning and zoning boards in the 2035 companies I am also against loosening the ADU restrictions that would eliminate minimum lot sizes and parking requirements in the comp plan.

This will lead to further density and congestion in single family neighborhoods.

Current ADU requirements must remain in place.

Another issue I have is that Jennifer Gonzano stated at the September 5th special meeting that she lives in a townhouse and people have told her they wish they could live in a place like hers.

I'd like to know how many people have told her that.

Five, 10, 20, more than that.

Is that why during that meeting she was still pushing for duplexes, triplexes be allowed in the revised RS1 single family neighborhoods?

How does that number compare to the thousands of letters emailed speakers who are opposed to this complium?

All right, that's your time, Lauren.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Stephen Garst.

Oh, Lindsay, Regina.

Oh, Regina, sorry, Regina, thank you.

Sorry, no worries.

I just want to get unmuted, so I don't disrupt.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

No worries.

Um, so I'm Regina Gordon.

I am a current resident of Hubbard Heights, have been a resident of Stanford in this neighborhood in this house for 25 plus years, and I am on the board of Hubbard Heights.

Um, if you'll all bear with me, I'm going to echo the concerns of the prior Hubbard Heights residents, both Rebecca and Laura, some of which will be repetitive, but I am reinforcing the view.

Um we thank the mayor for encouraging revisions and the planning board for revising the 2035 master plan to list Hubbard Heights as a single family neighborhood.

However, we remain concerned about the description of the current single family res one.

Rebecca took us through the specific definition, but it allowed for senior housing, ADUs, and cottage clusters.

While well intended, we believe this wording still leaves the door open wide open for opportunistic development.

And we believe it is a way to provide opportunities for senior senior housing, for example, while still maintaining and not destroying the historic and single family integrity of the neighborhood.

But we are against, as Laura had specifically said, we're against loosening the restrictions that would eliminate minimum lot sizes and parking requirements.

Additionally, the term cluster housing seems to fly in the face of intentional single-family preservation efforts.

Without tighter restrictions and more specific language, we fear the stability and the single family identity of Hubbard Heights and a lot of the other single-family neighborhood remains at risk.

Equally important and specific to Hubbard Heights is historic preservation, and it's a critical priority for us.

As you well know, Hubbard Heights is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is included in the Connecticut Cultural Resources Inventory, which speaks to the fact that we consider this neighborhood important in its historic status.

Yet the revised Master Plan Historic Preservation Section is unchanged from the earlier draft and seems to fall short of what is needed.

We believe the recommended recommended language should be modeled after the 2015 plan and urge the planning board to adopt language that clearly protects the historic neighborhood.

We respectfully, and I hope I get through this, put forth suggested language.

The preservation and enhancement of Stanford's neighborhoods and overall quality of life requires the protection of the city's historic resources.

As redevelopment continues at an accelerated pace, it is imperative that Stanford safeguard its designated historic districts and structures, and that future development within these areas remain consistent with their established historical identity.

Accordingly, the city affirms that historic districts shall remain subject to the zoning regulations currently in effect.

Such districts shall not be eligible for additional density incentives, including but not limited to those provided under the senior disability housing amendment or cluster housing provisions.

This policy is essential to ensure the continued protection and integrity of Stanford's historic areas for the benefit of future generations.

Our request is clear.

Clarify and tighten the single family designation language to remove ambiguity and prevent density creep, and please adopt strong, clear historic protections for more consistent that are more consistent with the prior 2015 plan.

Hubbard Heights and all of the Stanford Historic Neighborhoods deserve nothing less.

And we thank you for your consideration and my opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Regina.

Lindsay.

Sorry, Regina, did you have a question?

Probably a little bit out of time, but uh.

All right.

Um, if you want to email me, my email is L Cohen at Stanford CT.gov.

L Cohen at Stanford CT.gov.

Um Steve Garst should be able to unmute yourself.

Hi, Steve Gars.

I'm unmuted.

Um before my time starts, I just wanted to say that um I received an email today stating that we could speak at both meetings with the intention that the people that couldn't attend tonight would speak first.

And that was sent to me by Leslie Capp.

Um, so Steve Garst, uh, good evening planning board.

I'm here tonight to speak about both the process and the substance of the plan.

Back on February 19th, I raised concerns with the planning department about the lack of inclusivity.

I had emailed Lindsay Cohen at the time, noting that when I reached out to residents and neighborhood groups across Stanford, almost no one had heard from the ambassadors or had been contacted or had any awareness of meetings, workshops, or details about the plan.

The only reason some of us were able to meet with ambassadors because we reached out to them.

Some never returned calls, others didn't know details of the plan.

One person didn't even realize they had been selected as an ambassador.

Now, six months later, almost at the end of the process, thousands of residents still have not heard about this plan, never met with ambassadors and not have provided input.

Couldn't there have been a simple mailing or even robocalls to alert people for a city that promotes inclusivity daily?

This process has not been inclusive, especially for the very residents most affected by it.

In the meetings that were held, only eight to twelve boards from 177 page drafts were displayed.

Today the draft has ballooned to 229 pages.

Just now a presentation, which will take time to review and digest.

We need more time to consider these changes.

I appreciate the change in the RS1 maps, but major issues still remain.

The plant puts single family neighborhoods at risk of overdensity, overdevelopment, less open space, less clean air, more congestion, loosening on the ADUs with no lot size minimum, no parking requirements, and larger units, allowing cluster homes and cottage developments, which are multiple units on a single property.

And I'm not 100% sure on ACUs, but if you could answer creating ACUs, which are commercial structures or commercial use in backyards, that means potential for businesses, maybe delis, maybe food stands, maybe cigar smoke shops right behind your home.

Even a planning board member question whether these changes would turn other neighborhoods into the same dense overcrowded conditions we see in parts of the cove and other areas.

These proposals are not consistent with the current general provisions, Section One purpose.

A prevent undue concentration of the population.

B minimize and mitigate development impacts.

D provide adequate open space and light and air.

F lessen congestion in the streets and there are many others.

I urge you to slow down this process, give the residents time and opportunity they deserve to learn to discuss and to weigh in.

Stanford deserves a plan that is truly inclusive, transparent, and respectful of the people who call it home.

Thanks, Dave.

Thank you.

All right.

Mary Amon, you can unmute yourself.

And then on deck is Jeannie Fayan.

Okay, so I understand I can speak at this meeting or the 16th.

Hello.

Yes.

Um, that is that is the guidance that we had previously put out that since this is a continuous hearing.

Can I forego this one and I'm going to reserve to speak at the 16th?

Yes, you may do that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Uh Jeannie Feyon, you can unmute yourself.

Uh hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, hi, thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Jeannie Faye, and I am a resident of Springdale.

First, I want to thank you for your time and effort in developing this plan.

There are positive aspects to the plan, but with three minutes, I don't have time to speak about them, but I do appreciate them.

First, I want to address something that we've heard repeatedly from officials.

Uh, references to residents' confusion and misinformation, that the term R2 or REST has been misunderstood or mixed up with zoning terminology.

We do fully understand that this is a guide, a plan, not zoning itself.

Um, as has been stated by the residents many times at these meetings and in our petition, we know that this plan is a guide, not a legal zoning regulation.

But zoning will look at this plan as a guide for zoning decisions in the future.

That is exactly why we are speaking out now.

We are not confused.

Personally, I live in a neighborhood that was originally designated as R2 in the comprehensive plan.

The recently revised map has now changed many of our neighborhoods, including mine, to res one single family.

After the land use map revision was released on September 4th, I listened to the planning board special meeting held on Friday, September 5th.

Two comments made by planners stood out and raised some concerns for me.

First, Chairperson Godzeno stated that she would like to see the res two area expanded while referring to the new map while making that point.

Second, Ms.

Cohen noted that the comprehensive plan is a living document.

These statements suggest that even if this plan is approved in revised form that allays our concerns, it could be amended within the next 10 years, potentially reverting areas back to increased density in single family home neighborhoods.

This uncertainty raises two questions for me.

One, can we be assured that the changes to this plan in increased density in single family areas won't happen?

If not, then will you contact and inform affected residents and property owners personally and individually before any board vote is taken if changes are proposed.

Robo calls or emails could be used as suggested by my the previous speaker.

We need transparency and a guarantee that our voices will be heard before any change that could impact our homes and neighborhoods is even considered.

Respondents, as evidenced by these meetings and our ongoing petition is telling you to protect single family neighborhoods and to reject any guidance, current or future that opens the door to increased density in these areas.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

So I'm going to go back up to the top.

Let's see.

Looking for Richard Pizakara.

Paul, I see you.

I'm just Paul, you're third on the list.

So Richard P.

Zuccara.

Still not seeing uh uh it still says leaving.

Um so Richie P.

Sicara, if you can fully leave the meeting and rejoin, that would be super.

Our Colangelo, so Rosana, Colangelo.

You can unmute yourself.

Okay.

Uh now we'll go on to Paul Brindack.

Paul, you can unmute yourself.

All right, the 203940 keeps on raising hands.

So I'm thinking that's either Rosanna or Paul.

Um, so 203-940-0495.

You can unmute yourself.

Um not hearing zero four nine five.

Yep.

You're unmuted.

Zero four nine five if you want to speak.

I cannot hear.

Uh, I cannot hear them.

Okay.

Uh David, David Mehalov.

Not seeing them.

All right.

Jennifer Edwards is on.

All right.

Uh Jennifer, you can unmute yourself.

Great, thanks.

And just a little bit of feedback.

I was on the phone before, it wouldn't let me unmute.

The direction said star six, but the phone was telling me star five.

So just some feedback.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I appreciate that.

Yeah, I know.

Challenging and for sure.

But thank you.

So my name is Jennifer Edwards, and I reside in the historic Hubbard Heights neighborhood.

I have lived in my fun 110-year-old home with my family for 27 years.

And I really appreciate the time you're giving us tonight to hear our voice.

We do want to thank you.

Our neighborhood is thrilled to see that Hubbard Heights was moved back into the Res One Future Land Use Area.

The designation certainly reflects the residential character of our community that we have worked and the association, the Hover Heights Association has worked years to preserve.

So thank you for that.

That said, we do have concerns.

As the plan is currently written, there appears to be room for additional density through senior disability housing or cluster housing within the historic neighborhoods.

We recognize the importance of diverse housing options in Stanford, but if you take a look at the historic um certification of our neighborhood, it's not compatible with the scale of the homes, the character of the homes, the architecture, really the historic identity of Hubbard Heights.

In addition, we are against the loosening of the ADU restrictions that would eliminate minimum lot sizes and parking requirements.

All of the above leading to further density and congestion.

To address this, our neighborhood association is recommending additional language that I believe has been sent to you under the section titled preservation of historic districts.

The language emphasizes that protecting historic neighborhoods is essential and calls for designated historic districts to remain subject to their current zoning zoning regulations.

And clarifies that such districts should not be eligible for additional density incentives.

We believe that this is this safeguard, this change of wording is vital to protecting the integrity and the community identity of Stanford's most historic areas.

On behalf of the Hubbard Heights neighborhood, I respectfully ask the planning board to adopt this language into the plan.

Doing so will help strike the right balance between growth and preservation.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Oops sorry, I alright.

So Paul Brindak is trying on the phone.

Let's try this one more time.

Now that I know he's on the phone and got that helpful tip from Miss Edwards.

Paul, can you press star six to unmute yourself, please?

Okay.

All right.

Um we do have uh additional opportunities to comment, either uh writing through email to what myself or coming to the public hearing on September um 16th.

I will continue to work, Paul, with you on email to try and uh allow you to speak now.

Um so in the meantime, let's start with the hands that we have raised.

Starting with Ray Downey.

Ray, you can unmute yourself, uh, followed by Jason uh Polisi.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

You took me away.

Okay.

Uh I have some, I thank you for allowing me to speak.

I have some items I like to bring up.

Based upon the information that you have here showing up, I looked at a couple of things and I realized that in the uh ST 4.3, talk about uh lessening uh the uh amount of parking downtown, the parking lots because you want to put in other buildings.

There's plenty of buildings available downtown.

Remember in Stanford Fairfield County in Stanford is approximately 30% vacant office space.

Certainly we could use those instead of taking up a valuable available parking lot space.

Uh, another was why are we looking at increasing staff under ST-15.3 for neighborhood um neighborhood program, looking to increase staff that we already have staff in the operations department street sweepers.

Why are we looking to hire people to clean the neighborhood streets in addition to what we currently have for employees?

I'm looking at the ABU section, ST-21.1, two, three, seven, eight, nine, and ten, all requests or suggest that we should have ADA units as an example, adding an apartment on top of a garage, uh, making a garage available as a business.

Years ago, you could not do car repairs commercially in your garage because it was unallowed.

It was not illegal.

And this allows things like this to happen in residential neighborhoods.

I'm against those things.

I think that the idea of the ABU will uh not only force us to have more streets like Puritan Lane, Oak Street, Rock Spring Road, Mayflower Avenue, Shro Hill, turning their front lawns and also Oak Lawn Avenue, turning their front lawns into parking lots because there's no space in their property to the driveway because they have too many units in there.

If you're going to allow borders in homes, this is what you're actually doing.

You're just going to increase the density of the neighborhood, and it's already contrary to what the requests are from the community.

I look at ST22 rather than 22.4, looking to give breaks to city workers for housing, teachers, police firemen.

I was a teacher.

I support the fire department.

I've uh family and law enforcement.

Why were you discriminating as every other resident or citizen in Stanford by giving breaks to city workers that you no longer give that you would not give to anyone else?

That's discriminatory program right there.

I also looked at the information that you had regarding uh the 25,000 um what they call it uh impressions that were made.

I wondered do you can you explain to me whether or not those were unique visits or unique impressions?

Or were people allowed to go to variety of things and we have the ability to have those counted on because I probably went to 10 of those individual things, either online or face-to-face visits.

And I'm yes, I said that's your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Uh Jason, you can unmute yourself.

Uh Celeste Fry is up next.

Yeah.

Hello?

Can you hear me?

Hi, we can.

Yeah, my name is Jason Polis.

I've been a Stanford resident for 20 plus years.

Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I want to speak mostly about two uh main points.

I'm a resident of the cove area.

And I have some very deep concerns about traffic in general.

Um, I commute to Greenwich every morning.

This morning it took me an hour to get to exit four from exit nine.

So it takes me about 15, 10 to 15 minutes now to get to 95 from Cove Beach in, you know, around 7:30 in the morning, and then getting on 95, so from exit nine, eight, seven through six, it's just a parking lot.

Um, some days are better than others, but when I when I think about when I hear about that we we need to increase housing just in general, and I'm in the in that traffic every morning, and it's getting worse and worse.

I'm just thinking, why how could we possibly be thinking about increasing housing in this, especially in that area, when if you if you drive down that in the it in the morning, it's there's no there's there's no more room for any more cars.

It's a parking lot.

Um, I urge the members um to take a drive down Seaside Avenue and then maybe take a left on Matthews as just an example of how many of these houses, first of all, there's no parking on Seaside as it is.

How are we going to add a single more car to what we already have?

I know myself, and I know a lot of other residents are thinking this is maxed out.

We can't afford anymore.

So I live the traffic every day just like a lot of you, and I really don't see how when I first looked at the uh the plan, I was looking for oh, they must have some great solutions for traffic.

And I'm seeing things like bike lanes.

Um I didn't see anything in there to address even the current problems.

There's a lot of these houses that I drive by in the morning, even the single family where people have four or five cars at a house, and now you're talking about multifamily houses where some of the ones near Seaside Avenue, some of those houses have eight or nine cars per house.

How are we gonna put more cars in this area?

I just think it's gross, honestly.

Um, the other the other thing that struck me reading the the proposal.

Um, it looked okay, thank you.

Um, the generalization, such as the word affordable housing.

I would like to see specific study that says, okay, this apartment is gonna be this much cheaper when we put in these this housing.

I don't see any numbers that say specifically of how it's going to be cheaper to live here.

Um, and I would appreciate if you guys could address that, at least point that out or include that in the uh future uh plan or proposal.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right, Celeste, you can unmute yourself.

Yeah.

Hi, thank you so much to the planning board and the planning and zoning staff.

My name is Celeste Fry.

I'm a 13-year resident of Chapan Point and also a small business owner.

I'd like to state that I am in support of the Stanford 2035 plan.

Um, healthy growth in Stanford allows our community to fix some of the problems that others on this call have brought up.

If we have healthy growth, that means that we collect more in taxes, and so therefore we can provide better services for our city, better sanitation, more flood control, better public safety, and we can enforce the updated building codes and zoning that comes as a long-term result of this plan.

We need more bus service.

That's what's gonna help get cars off the street.

And we always need great schools for our children.

Um, my young family 13 years ago was able to purchase a small home in Stanford, and I want that for today's young adults, including someday my own children.

There are so many Stanford residents who grow up here and then raise their own families here, and we want that we should want that for everyone.

Apartments and townhomes are crucial elements of our housing to provide for households of different sizes and ages.

This plan enables some smart steps in encouraging housing in walkable neighborhoods and near transit.

We could do even better by providing for more neighborhood centers with retail and services throughout the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up, uh Mark and Susan Anderson.

You can unmute yourself, followed by Roman.

Uh Mark and Susan Anderson.

You can unmute yourself, Mark and Susan Anderson, uh, by clicking the mic button uh at the top of your screen, top right.

Oh, there we go.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Uh my name is Susan Anderson.

I keep getting a lot of echo.

Yeah, you're cutting in and out just a little bit.

Same any better.

If you try cut try to keep talking and and let's see.

Hi there.

Hello.

Okay, this seems okay.

So let's let's keep going and and I'll let you know if you're um if we can't hear you.

It seems like we can't hear them now.

Um, might I advise uh leaving and coming back in.

Uh it's like the IT number one thing to do.

Uh and all I know how to do.

Um, let's move on to Roman and Mark and Susan, we will come back to you.

Um, Roman.

Uh hello.

Um, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Uh, my name is Arman Fleisch.

I live in uh Turnov River.

I wasn't thank you for letting me speak.

I wasn't planning to speak initially.

I wanted to have two comments.

One is about uh this impressions process uh received indeed uh through school.

Somebody mentioned here with my daughter, uh linked to the survey, and I have to tell you that was extremely primitive survey, and so like I did not even give it any much meaning when we I mean we both of us, my daughter and I, we filled it in, but it was extremely primitive questions with extremely sort of in my opinion, primitive or limited answer choices there.

Uh that's about the sort of survey.

Then uh specifically about the plan.

Uh I I don't know how it should be written, and maybe that's my misunderstanding and maybe misunderstanding of others.

I sort of don't like the language uh in the uh descriptions because it's very vague.

So things like uh people mentioned already senior clusters, no uh new large scale increases in density I envisioned while accommodating small scales in in field.

So these things are so vague that nobody knows what they mean, and nobody knows how zoning board will uh uh interpret those words.

So I would like to see more specific.

I don't know if it's possible specific language.

So for example, instead of uh no new large scale increases in density I envisioned, I would replace the vision by allowed, right?

Then it would be specific.

And then if you're talking about uh while accommodating small scale in the fields, give some kind of number in there so that the zoning board would have an opportunity to gauge like how would they do the planning so that this number is uh not uh sort of uh so that threshold is not exceeded.

So, but in in the presence, the way it's uh said right now is basically anything could be done uh because it's very vague.

And then zoning board will be looking for interpretation.

What exactly does it mean?

Is it too large?

Is it is it wasn't envisioned, but is it can be do it and so forth?

So the language is vague and has to be in my opinion more specific.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, we're back to Paul Brindak.

You're still allowed to unmute yourself.

All right.

Um, next speaker is uh Melanie and then you can unmute yourself.

Hey, can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Awesome.

Okay, I'm going to read what I just wrote up really quick.

So thank you for the opportunity to speak and share our thoughts.

My name is Melanie Ng.

I'm a town home home homeowner in Springdale, and I was a neighborhood ambassador for the 2035 plan.

I moved here for work in 2022, and I really do hope to stay for a long time.

I do want to apologize for anyone who felt left out by their ambassador.

I truly did try to post online in our Springdale neighbor page and work with the SNA, and I really do thank Steve for his help and getting connected.

Um, I also appreciate Sasaki and the government's responsiveness to public feedback thus far.

I've been following the Springdale social media comments and Facebook groups, and I hope that they're feeling heard and they continue to feel heard with these hearings and the pushed back date for the adoption of the plan.

I did leave comments on the form, but I wanted to speak in support of the proposed plan for a handful of reasons, even though I will say I am in the REST designation.

So I live directly on Hope Street, uh, but seeing my neighborhood's concern for pedestrian cycling safety being addressed through reinforced support for Vision Zero and more accessibility accessibility and infrastructure is encouraging.

And I'm hoping that safer walking bus and cycling paths can help to counteract traffic congestion.

I also appreciate the inclusion of the healthy city goals and actions in the plan specifically with regard to air and water quality.

I do hope the neighborhoods with minor and major arterial roads like Pope Street will be further evaluated for air and noise pollution as these neighborhoods are definitely impacted, but I recognize less than those directly on the 95 called out in the plan.

Um I do agree with Celeste that more economic growth leads to a more prosperous city, more taxes for us.

And lastly, I respect the data-driven efforts of all those involved to try and find ways to keep our residents safe, healthy, and prosperous.

And I hope that we can find a middle ground to preserve what our community loves about Stanford while allowing people like me, a young professional to purchase and hopefully live in Stanford for many years to come.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh next we have uh a phone number 917 710 5820.

You can unmute yourself.

Um by oh, where'd you go by pressing star six?

Uh yep, you can unmute yourself by pressing star six.

Hi.

Uh if you wouldn't mind just stating your your name for the record.

Sure, Paul Brandack.

I'm on the board of the Cove Neighborhood Association.

I'm the treasurer, and I'd like to read a an amendment that we, the neighborhood associations, over 10 neighborhood associations from the city of Stanford, have created in conjunction with the assistance of three attorneys, all three are residents of the city of Stanford.

We sent this to the board, the board chair, to board uh planner participants, as well as to the mayor.

So I'm entering this for the record as well.

And I'm going to read to you verbatim the amendment.

This is from the Cove Neighborhood Association, Springdale Neighborhood Association, Hubbard Heights, Bell Town, North Stanford, Bullshead, Ridges, Turn of River, South Side, Cove Harbor Neighborhood, West Side Neighborhood Association.

The Stanford Planning Board shall, and this is what we are asking for the planning board to put into the 2035 plan so that there's no ambiguity, there's no confusion, there are no issues with nomenclature, and what we're referencing.

The Stanford Planning Board shall not adopt, approve, recommend, propose, or take action, or refrain from taking any action arising out of in connection with or related to the Stanford 2035 master plan and/or the Stanford 2035 cooperative plan that will in any way, whether directly or indirectly, result in any increase to the existing population density or change to the existing existing official zoning map of the city of Stanford that touches on or concerns any single family home properties within the city of Stanford, including but not limited to subhead one, real property designated zones, RA1, RA2, RA3, RA7.5, RA 10, RA20, collectively.

The specific R1 and R2 zones.

Subhead two, that after applying the most favorable evaluation to the property owners, qualifies or will qualify as residential single family home districts, very low density R1 and residential single family home districts, low density R2, and the general R1 and R2 zones as contained in the official Stanford Master Plan 2015 to 2025, general use plan as of January 2, 2025 for the avoidance of death, the specific R1 and R2 zones and general R1 and R2 zones constitute the excluded single family home properties that are the subject of this amendment.

So that is for the record.

We've already sent that in by mail, and that's something that we all neighborhood associations are strongly supportive of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for reading that into the record.

Anyone acknowledge that the planning board did receive that text.

And upon receiving it forwarded to the land use bureau, and which ultimately forwarded it on to the city's corporation council based on their interpretation of the text.

And so there are two issues with this.

One, the planning board actually doesn't have the power to you know stop the zoning board from taking actions.

And two, it per the concept of pre um uh predetermination.

Uh we're not uh allowed to um just have a blanket uh prohibition on any change of any sort.

That said, um I do want to repeat that in uh the descriptions for Res 1 and Res 2, uh these are both areas um that have uh an expectation of minimal growth.

Um there is no uh plan or expectation uh on the part of the planning board at least to go and do a massive rezoning or to recommend such.

It is inconsistent with uh the values of the plan as well as with the descriptions that are in uh uh here for res one and res two.

Um I certainly um still open to um other language that helps to make clearer uh the commitment to uh stability um in these areas uh while we direct uh the vast majority of new development into areas that have the infrastructure to handle growth.

All right.

Um so moving on to the next hand, uh we have Dr.

Korngold.

You can unmute yourself, uh, followed by Kevin M.

Hi.

Um my name is Dr.

Katie Corngold.

I am a 25-year resident of North Stanford, and um we live on Schofield Town Road.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide feedback.

I want to share that very few of my neighbors are aware of this plan at all, and I only very recently found out about it myself.

I would encourage the board to slow down the process so that you could get more feedback from uh the residents of Stanford and specifically with a letter direct to taxpayers telling them what's happening.

Um I appreciate the desire to preserve the historic nature and character of the historic neighborhoods such as Schofield Town Road and North Stanford, and supporting the green infrastructure, specifically the green canopy of trees.

And so while I support finding ways for pedestrian safety and encouraging healthy habits like children walking to schools and families walking with them, I am very concerned about the plan specifically for sidewalks on our street, which will demolish um long-standing mature trees and the entire canopy along Schofield Town Road, as well as destroying the beautiful stone walls, many of which are historic and contribute to the beauty of this neighborhood and the historic nature of where we live.

There are other towns like Weston and Westport, which have created a safe set safe sidewalks to schools program, but at the same time are replacing the stone walls that they that they take down and um replanting trees.

So I would encourage the board to consider that if they're going to be putting sidewalks on this beautiful street.

And thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

All right, Kevin M, you can unmute yourself.

Kevin M is followed up by Michael Rappaport and then Gina Calabries.

Kevin.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great.

Um first off, I wanted to thank everyone for taking the time to speak tonight.

Um, I want to thank the members of the planning board for uh sort of coming out tonight as well.

And uh I want to thank the volunteers that helped put together the comprehensive plan.

Um, I wanted uh I'm a homeowner here in Bell Town.

I want to speak out in favor of the 2035 comprehensive plan.

Uh I'll speak briefly on the first side of my support, and that's pedestrian and bike safety.

I think the plan is uh working alongside the Vision Zero plan, taking that very seriously.

Um, if you see me in my neighborhood, there's a good chance I'm either out pushing a stroller, walking a dog, or trying desperately to keep up with a three-year-old on a tricycle.

So having a uh safe venue for my family to enjoy the neighborhood to get around, uh, it means a lot to me.

So I do support that aspect of it.

Um, I also want to speak to the second thing that I think is important about this plan, and that's housing.

Um, I appreciate everyone that's kind of shared before, mentioning the situation going on in their neighborhood.

Uh, I I sympathize and I understand when they talk about two to three families cramming into a one-family home, cars parked on the front lawn, and then overflowing into the streets, commercial vehicles being parked in places they shouldn't be.

Um, these are real problems, and I think they should be addressed.

Uh, the issue is this isn't uh a result of dense zoning.

This is happening in defiance of zoning code.

Uh this is a symptom of a larger problem here in Stanford.

We don't have enough homes.

People cram in two families into one, three families into two, not because it's fun, it's the last resort.

Uh, we have one of the lowest vacancy rates in the entire country.

That's reflected in the very high cost of housing today.

It's in demand and we don't have enough supply.

Uh right before this call, I went on Zillow.

In my neighborhood, there's a 2,000 square foot home that's going to sell or asking price of $850,000.

Uh, that is that is uh I'm glad I got my home before now.

Uh and I bought my home when I did, and that's all I'll say about that.

Uh, that's unsustainable.

The comprehensive plan uh accepts that this issue exists and it seeks to resolve it.

I do think that we need to look at each neighborhood.

A lot of people talk about historic preservation, which I think is important, talking about the neighborhoods that already have um a lot of dense housing.

I think that's important.

But this housing needs to go somewhere.

And I think this plan does take that seriously and looks at upzoning close to commercial areas or transportation as a way to house more people without increasing the traffic.

I think that's a really good idea, and I support it.

Um take a look at my neighborhood here in Bell Town, there's a little commercial district.

And if I need to go get groceries and you go to the Delhi, the pizza place corner store, I'm not in my car.

I'm not contributing to traffic because I just walk there.

Um so it really does help the traffic situation if people can live near the things that they would normally drive to.

Anyone in North Stanford that wants to go to a grocery store, they have to drive, they have to contribute to traffic.

Um, so that's why I think uh that's why I do support this comprehensive plan.

I think it takes this idea of building housing seriously and building in smart places that won't increase traffic and the load on our infrastructure.

Um so thank you everyone for your time, and uh hope you'll have a wonderful evening.

Thank you.

All right.

Um Michael Rappapore, you can unmute yourself.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak as an 18-year resident living in the Wallach's Point Park Association area between Kettleworth Drive West to Kettleworth Drive East.

There are some good things about the plan, but I'm going to focus on a couple of issues that I think need to be brought out.

First, I was the principal drafter of that amendment.

And I I heard uh Ms.

Gonzano speak about the objections to it.

If we could get a written response, I'd appreciate that.

And I'd be happy to give you my email address if you would like to write back to me.

And I could share that with the other 11 associations that uh got behind it.

So my email address is M is Michael K's and Keith.

R is in Rapport 3901 at AOL.com.

Thank you on that.

Now second point.

I have total of three points.

Second point.

Nowhere in the plan is there any description of what the cost will be.

We have no idea as taxpayers what the ultimate cost will be to every Stanford resident, particularly for property owners, uh, as you point out in the plan, the property owners are about 47% of the plan.

And by 2035, I believe that percentage will drop to about 43, 44 percent.

That means that the tax base will be borne by a much smaller percentage of property owners.

And without knowing what the cost will be, it's very, very hard to evaluate a plan, even though there are some good aspects about it.

Um so I would tell you, at least my perspective, the plan is premature.

The last point I want to make is that although the planning board does not make zoning, the plan itself calls for expanded zoning throughout.

I'll give you a couple of examples.

This is about expanding the use of ADUs, and the action type is zoning changes, timeline, ongoing status expanded, execution responsibility, zoning board and land use bureau.

There are others.

And in your description of RES 1, you talk about no new large scale increases in density or envisioned.

There's no definition about what large means or envision means.

So it leaves open speculation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Um, if if I may respond briefly, uh specifically about um the language that was referenced that's been drafted.

Um just logistically, I'll say I received an email from the corporation council this afternoon, and they work, and so I just haven't had a chance to reply, but uh certainly would like to make sure that you receive in writing uh the determination that received.

Um so we'll certainly be in touch about that.

Um and uh also want to note regarding uh the the request for more specificity around um items like ADUs, um again to differentiate the um the powers and responsibilities of the planning board from the powers and responsibilities of the zoning board.

Um it's it's really not in the purview of the planning board in the comprehensive plan to be putting in um very very specific recommendations around that.

Um the action that is recommended in the plan is a study of it.

Um and if the zoning board were to undertake that um and have uh in draft some sort of amendment to the uh ADU language that's currently in the zoning uh code that would be subject to further public hearings, um, and four things that are at that level of specificity going through the zoning process is the appropriate place uh for those conversations to occur.

Um, I will note that um at the Friday um a public meeting where the planning board was able to have uh a walkthrough of uh some of the changes uh and revisions.

Um I did note that I think it's important to um to shift the language a bit around ADUs.

Um I think that it may perhaps be too strong to have pronouncements around eliminating minimums uh or anything that seems like a very strong uh change.

And so um I've asked uh for the language to be amended around, you know, studying uh changes to it.

Um and uh I will note that uh currently um that there have actually been very few ADU regul uh applications that have been filed uh in the last couple years since the uh ADU uh provision was added.

Um and so the question is what if any changes uh could occur so that in places where it's appropriate um it might be uh easier for ADUs to be built.

Um so uh that's all I'll note here.

Okay.

So Gina Calabrice is the last person here.

Um to speak.

Uh Mark, the man and woman who were trying to get on, they keep on trying, so I will um keep trying to allow them to speak um one more time after Gina finishes.

Um Gina, you can unmute yourself.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the board.

Um I was planning to speak next week, but when I heard the announcement that people who were here and raised their hand could speak, I decided to take the opportunity.

And I would still like to reserve the right my right to speak next week.

Um we've heard a lot of messages that um so I um I apologies for confusion um and conflicting messages about the procedures, um, what had initially been published um and what I would like to stick with is that because this is one hearing um that begins today and will be continued to the 16th, um, that each speaker can speak once, either on the 9th or on the 16th.

So you're welcome to uh submit further written testimony.

Um, but but that uh was the intended procedure.

Well, I know other information's been passed out.

I don't want to take up my three minutes um arguing this point.

Um, so actually maybe this if I make these points, you can address them by next week.

So a recurring message that we're hearing from the planning board and from the mayor is that the comprehensive plan is just a roadmap, that it won't require the zoning board to do anything, and that the zoning designations are zoning, not planning.

But we know that when the zoning board decides applications, they refer to the master plan.

So it it strikes me as disingenuous to continue to say this.

So I would like, you know, we need some clarification and some honesty.

Um, another point is um, you know, there are a lot of illegal apartments, and the city is not putting enough resources into enforcing our zoning requirements.

I have a neighbor who has um a house next to them with an absentee landlord with 12 people in it and an illegal plumbing system that was discharging human waste into the street.

Yet the city is putting so much into this comprehensive plan and not addressing that.

So what I see happening is this gets approved, and then developers come in, and oh, all of a sudden, all of this illegal housing will get cleaned up and we'll have you know plots with triplexes and quads, more than the cove can handle.

Um my neighbor Jason described his horrendous daily commute.

I take 95 to work every day.

My experience is the same.

I've lived here 20 years and it's gotten much worse.

And the traffic study people deny this with their studies.

Um, but it's certainly for many of us, it's gotten worse.

And it should not take me, I should not have to leave 25 minutes to get to a Metro North train that I live two miles away from because of traffic and parking.

Finally, um, I do agree.

I I will say I disagree with someone who um, well, I'll put it this way.

I do think the city needs to provide workforce housing for our teachers and our first responders.

We don't want them living an hour and a half away.

Silicon Valley has a huge problem with that.

Um I do agree with someone who said we need better bus service.

There's a lot of three minute mark oriented, well, I was you know debating a point before transit-oriented housing.

We obviously need more per more bus servers.

The same person, however, lives in Japan, and frankly, it's rich for someone who lives in Japan, which is unaffected by this to say other neighborhoods should have denser housing.

Our neighborhood residents are accused of being NIMBEs.

I think I've never heard a more NIMBY remark.

Has she offered up her neighborhood?

And I will just mention years ago, Japan stopped a medical cannabis dispensary, medical from going on McGee.

And instead it's on the calibration.

Your time has come.

Thank you.

I'll see you next week.

All right.

So Mark and Susan Anderson, I see you're you're still at your unmuted.

So let's see if we can hear you.

Okay.

I cannot hear them.

I am emailing with them, so hopefully we can figure out either written comments or the 16th.

I'm seeing one more hand up.

Charles Flynn.

You can unmute yourself.

Thank you.

I just want to make a point of order, Ms.

Gazino.

The uh in uh the introductory comments that Ravi made uh uh as we led into this meeting, it was very clear these are two separate meetings.

While you might find it inconvenient, these are two separate meetings.

Anyone who speaks today should be allowed to speak next week.

Uh and I look forward to any kind of objection to that, but that is uh just unacceptable that that you would take that position.

So uh I would urge you to reconsider and that's my comment.

Okay, uh Jennifer Tortolani.

Uh you can unmute yourself, and uh she is the last person that uh is signed up to speak.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Um I am one of the people just fully understanding the gravity of this plan and the impact it could have on the water side neighborhood.

And I haven't really heard Waterside mentioned much this evening.

Uh for the entirety of my time in this neighborhood, and I've lived here for over 30 years.

Building large apartment buildings has actually been a major undertaking here.

Um it's been something that's definitely affected this area.

And now there are more apartments and condos in the works.

I implore you, uh, perhaps Mayor Simmons.

I know that Mayor Mulloy used to do this uh many years ago, to come and visit the Waterside area and take a walk around so you can observe that we are full.

There are multifamily homes, there are mixed in with single family homes, there are cars abound, parking does not.

Um we have a new ice rink built for Greenwich hockey teams.

It's a 25-minute um ride on a good day to any public school.

And we have a pretty significant flooding problem on some of our streets as well.

Roads are highly trafficked and poorly tended to.

And the very last thing that this neighborhood needs is more housing.

So I would say we have a very extremely diverse neighborhood, and frankly, we seem to be bearing the brunt of a lot of the current growth from the previous plan and future growth.

And I don't feel the zombie board is really considering the needs of the current residents, both the homeowners and the renters of Waterside.

Thanks very much for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, that is all the hands we have.

Uh all the folks that are signed up to speak that were here and able to use the mic.

Um, and we are six minutes past the um projected end time.

All right.

Mark and Susan have their hand raised.

You guys are on unmuted, so try one more time.

Try one more time.

Mark and Susan.

Yeah, okay.

Um I too am having difficulties with Microsoft Teams.

So uh I apologize for this inconvenience here.

Yep.

Right.

Um, it's unfortunate that technical difficulties have gotten in the way.

Um, I think that's actually one reason why um it's been helpful to have a couple of different formats uh for this meeting.

Um this is more accessible for some people.

Showing up in person is more accessible for others.

Um so uh Lindsay actually um procedurally, um I believe we need a motion to continue the meeting to continue the hearing to the 16th.

The 16th, yes, yeah.

Specifically.

Yeah.

Yes.

So um if I may have a motion from either of the members um on continuation of the hearing.

Yes, uh Diddy second that okay.

Okay.

So if motion first from Robbie.

I guess we have to officially vote on the motion to continue this hearing, which began on September 9th, specifically to September 16th.

And we will continue public testimony at that time.

So we vote on the motion.

Let's raise your hands, please.

And the motion carries.

Thank you.

Let's see.

I will reiterate again.

We appreciate in addition to the live in-person testimony.

We do appreciate additional written testimony as well.

It counts just as much and it is being compiled for the public record as well.

And Lindsay, I guess just to make sure that we are clear on the um on the procedure, we'll circle up with uh Leslie and also my understanding is that we had uh checked with uh corporation council about the procedure uh of this being one continuous hearing, um but we'll make sure that that is um indeed uh accurate um and if there are any changes to that we'll certainly let the public know.

I will, yes.

Thank you.

Um well thank you uh very much um and we'll see you again soon.

Thank you.

Time is 9 09.