Okay.

Jennifer was here.

Now she's here.

Let's see.

Okay, here she attendees.

Make her presenter change.

All right.

Good afternoon.

Sorry for the scheduling and technical difficulties.

It wasn't recognizing you for who you are, right?

I don't, it was very odd.

I was clicking on the Outlook link and then it said it couldn't verify that the link was safe.

I'm like, it's your own link in the system.

So I'm emailing with Katherine Bobo and she said who is our school construction person.

She says her and the team are in the lobby, but I don't see anybody in the lobby.

So that's uh I know we have some minutes to to approve, so maybe we can hopefully we'll they'll be able to join by the time we get to their agenda item.

Sure.

Yes.

Um I have the minutes.

I'm trying to pull up the updated special meeting agenda.

Okay.

All right.

Um so should I officially open our meeting?

All right.

Uh good afternoon.

Uh this is a special meeting of the Stanford Planning Board uh on Tuesday, September 22nd.

Um we have on our agenda this afternoon first the approval of uh planning board minutes from our last four meetings and then a presentation uh from uh the board of education uh budget representatives uh with an update on West Hill High School.

Um so first with the minutes.

Um we have the minutes for August 26th, uh the minutes from September 2nd, September 9th, and September 16th.

Uh do any of the board members have questions about any of those sets of minutes.

Um I I only uh just as an aside, I um I have an email from Leslie in which he distributed the draft minutes for the 16th, but I don't similarly have a corresponding uh drafts for this uh August this September 2nd or September 9th minutes.

Um so unless they were loading.

There is an email that Leslie sent on Saturday the 20th that had several attachments, um, including the draft minutes for um the four dates as well as the supporting materials for uh the Westell presentation as well as the uh ZPAs.

All right.

Do you want to take a minute to find those?

Um that's okay.

That's okay at this point.

I can't minimize the uh the teams in order to go uh do that, but okay.

All right.

Um of note uh chet and jennifer cannot vote on the September 2nd meeting minutes.

Right, so we'll have to table this.

Or and I can't vote on the ninth meeting because I wasn't there.

Oh good memory.

All right.

So um yep, okay.

So we have the three in order to be able to vote on the minutes.

Yes.

Okay, so I don't uh I think the only minutes that we can take up today are the minutes from the 16th, then the 26th of August.

Yeah.

Um yeah, no, it was actually just Jennifer, Jay, and Jeremy.

So do we need to bring Jay out of retirement to approve these minutes?

No, I I I was at the 26th meeting.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, chat is on here.

So voting members.

Okay, yeah, Jay, Jeremy.

Okay, so we can vote over that on August 26th.

And all right.

Are there any questions about the minutes from the 26th?

No amendments then.

Can I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Approval from Jeremy, second from chat.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes.

So we've approved the minutes for August 26th.

And we are able to review and approve them.

Oh, she froze.

She froze, yep.

Okay.

Huh.

Oh, there you are.

Okay.

I can hear I I could hear you just fine.

So that's weird.

Okay.

So we you cut off after August 26th and then second set of meeting minutes.

Right.

Uh so we are able to review and approve the minutes for the 16th, but I wonder since we need to do the others at a later date anyway, if we might want to just hold off on those and do those as a set since they all pertain to the comp plan.

I have no preference, but um I yeah, I I they're just the meeting minutes.

So I'm it's up to you guys.

Up to you.

I mean, I I'm okay to I I'm willing to pass a motion to approve the minutes of the 16th at least.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so motion from chat for approval.

Do I have a second from Jeremy?

All right, all in favor.

Uh hand.

All right.

And it passes.

So we have approved the minutes for the 16th.

Okay.

Um, so our next order of business is a presentation about the West Hill High School Project.

Um Adam Levitus, uh, professional engineer, senior project manager from Colliers representing the City of Stamford Board of Education.

Um, this into the record.

The new West Hill High School will be a full replacement of the existing aged West Hill High School at 125 Roxbury Road, which is in an RA1 zone.

Per the Board of Education's educational specifications requirement, the students will remain in place in the existing high school during construction of the new building in a phased occupied project.

With the new building and site design, the property will change in appearance with improved function and buffering to neighbors, but will remain unchanged in use as a comprehensive high school.

Uh the new West Hill High School will serve grades nine to twelve for a design enrollment of 2,458 students, which represents a minor increase from the current enrollment of approximately 2,300.

The programs offered at the school and on athletic fields and courts will be largely the same as the existing school.

Improvements will be made to vehicular, pedestrian site circulation and parking to better support these programs.

And with that, uh I'm gonna go ahead and turn it over to our presenters.

If you could each please introduce yourselves for the record, hi, uh my name is Abel Vidis with Collier's project leaders serving as the owner's representative for the project.

Um I'm joined by uh uh Castle Nobelbo, um Craig DeJong, Kemp Moorhart, and then uh Lou Casolo and Pandomic Ramantazzi representing uh both the our design team and SLAM architects as well as the uh city operations and engineering departments uh managing a project on behalf of the city of Stanford.

Um what uh perhaps makes most sense I can provide a brief overview just of the project and sort of the timeline, and then uh turn it over to Kemp and Craig to outline some of the design specifics going into the submission for today's agenda.

Uh as you mentioned, the full scope of the project is to replace the existing West Hill High School with a brand new high school facility that includes both the building itself as well as the ground supporting the building.

Um the major exception to that is the existing vocational agriculture building uh will remain on site in its current form.

Um located at 125 Roxbury Road, R1A zone.

Um a key component to the project is that it is a state grant funded project with up to 80% of the costs being reimbursed by the state.

So uh largely this project is working hand in hand, not only with the local city stakeholders, namely the Board of Education, but also all the various departments, uh teachers, community members, etc., but also with the state as part of their grant application and administrative process.

New high school will largely function the same as the existing in terms of its disposition and programming, grades nine through 12 being served.

The design enrollment is uh increasing as you uh mentioned from approximately 22 to 2300, depending upon the year, to uh an eight-year projected high enrollment of uh 2458.

Um, as part of that, all of the sizing of the uh building spaces and associated site elements have been coordinated with the district in order to ensure that we have the appropriate amount of staff parking and buses and things of that nature.

Uh the design process has been ongoing since 2023 with countless meetings with uh project stakeholders as well as reporting back to the various boards at the city level through the formerly project planning committee and currently the uh school construction planning committee meetings that include uh members of uh Chet Salad is on that, as well as members from the Board of Finance, Board of Education, etc.

to have a comprehensive uh design process.

Uh for the overall project schedule, we're currently wrapping up our local approvals and we'll be shortly submitting to the state for their pre-bid authorization.

So that's a requirement for the grant funding is that the state approve the project to go out to bid in conformance with their uh rules and regulations.

Uh ultimately looking for main construction to start in approximately April of next year, 2026, with the completion of the new building in the summer of 2029 in time for opening uh operations in the new building for the 2029 and 2030 school year.

Construction will continue past that as the demolition of the existing West Hill High School needs to occur after the new building was opened.

So that effort to demolish the existing building would occur starting in uh 2030 or 2029 into 2030.

Um the only other schedule component I'll mention now is that there's some uh ongoing enabling work at the adjacent uh process uh uh emergency medical services site that'll be used to help support the construction activities when we do uh get into construction next year.

Um those uh that activity should be starting shortly.

We're finalizing uh some of the contracts and uh getting that work spun up.

Uh I will pause there in case there's any questions or comments before turning it over to SLAM to get into some of the design considerations.

Yep.

All right, uh Kent, you want to take it away?

Sure.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um my name is Kemp Moorhart, uh principal with the SLEM Collaborative Architects in Glastonbury, Connecticut.

Uh, we are partnered with Amenta Emma Architects in Hartford on this project, but uh Slam is the lead architect of record, and I'm the lead architect on the project.

So I'm gonna go through with me today is uh Craig DeJong as well, he's the project manager for the project.

Uh we've been working side by side uh for the past two and a half years or so working on this on this development of the this design.

And I'm gonna have a brief slide deck for this afternoon to just orient you.

It's primarily um from the perspective of the site plan.

And uh if you if you would like to see more detail on something else, we could go into that detail uh as you wish.

But I thought a good place to start was a comparative um aerial to proposed site plan, just so everybody could see what there is today on the site relative to what is planned for the future.

And we do have uh a red outline superimposed on the future site plan to show the footprint of the existing building relative to what's planned.

Uh as you can imagine, it's a very complex site.

We have the project uh it requires us to build a brand new approximately 450,000 square foot high school on the existing site while the existing school remains operational.

Um quite a challenge.

And uh as Adam mentioned, the existing 42,000 square foot VoAG facility will remain operational as well and remain on site in the end construction.

So this is this building is is kind of not in contract, so to speak, for our documentation, but uh but it is uh a piece of um architecture that will remain.

So you can see currently to the north there are uh ball fields, uh a rectangular field and tennis courts, and to the west of the existing building, there's the main competition track and field with grandstand facilities.

Um, and then as I mentioned, the Boag building.

Uh, there is also a small older Boag building right here, uh, which is planned for demolition.

Uh it's currently being used by the district for storage, but it is planned for demolition in the final project.

So the the plan is to build our new building in one phase, with the exception of the netatorium, which is being um designed in it in its entirety and being bid as an alternate, and I'll get into that a little bit more detail on that in a little bit.

Uh, but um the footprint of the new building is this L-shaped footprint to the north of the existing school.

And we do need to demolish this small gymnasium immediately upon construction, beginning to enable putting this new building up in one phase.

Um, that is the intent.

And then you can see the the lighter shade orange uh footprint would be the alternate for the netatorium, should that be purchased, that would go up in a second phase once the necessary portions of the existing building are demolished.

Any questions on that before I go any further?

Yeah.

The next next slide is going to go into more depth of the the proposed site plan.

Uh for those of you familiar with this site, that there is quite a bit of topography.

Uh there's approximately 45 to 50 feet of elevation change east to west across this portion of the site.

And so the building has been designed to dovetail into that topography as we traverse around the building from east to west.

Uh I think it would be best discussed on the next slide.

So this is um a little bit more enlarged version of the proposed site plan.

Uh as I mentioned, uh the lowest elevation of the proposed building is on, excuse me, on the eastern side, it is at about 125 feet in elevation, uh, which more or less matches the first floor elevation of the Boag building.

And that's important because we have a uh what we call the CTE court drive that is planned for between these two buildings to facilitate uh vehicular access from this building on the north and vehicular access and or just overhead door access to grade from CTE shops that exist here in the proposed building.

Um at the lowest level we enter on this side of the building at 125.

We then come up to the first floor elevation at one about 139 from the south and from the north.

You enter the building basically at these points at that first floor elevation.

So as this drive comes up in elevation as you come around the building, you then go up another story and uh meets existing grades here.

We then go up yet another story as we come around to the west side.

So we are now entering the building at the second floor level on this side.

So that helps you get a feel for how this building is integrated into the into the topography.

Uh, and then we meet we meet existing grades at Roxbury Road in all respects.

Uh so the design is worked, we've worked very hard to separate vehicular traffic, uh, cars and parent drop-off and and other staff and so forth from bus traffic.

You'll note that there's a bus lane that goes around the building in a counterclockwise fashion.

Um, main entrance being here where it is today at Roxbury and West Hill.

Uh, and thus as uh cars and buses come down this main entrance, the buses peel off and come around the building.

So this is this is a two-way roadway around the building, but it is intended to be an isolated one-way roadway for bus drop-off and uh in the morning and pickup in the afternoon.

We have total of um 513 parking spaces for the proposed, and that's uh an increase from 475 for the existing site plan, and that accounts for a slight increase in faculty anticipated to support the larger enrollment design enrollment.

Um primarily keeps the same visitor count, um, and it accounts for the uh the code required um ADA spaces, except handicapped spaces, and then the balance being for students.

We do have um we are accommodating 55 bus parking spaces around the perimeter of the school.

51 full-size standard bus spaces and four special ed uh slightly shorter bus spaces.

Um the way the um the drop-off is designed, it is a split um boulevard style entrance and exitway.

You come in, and this is the uh the main student drop-off for parents, this frontage here, but it is a bypass lane, so that uh cars can go around and uh come around this way.

We have 317 spaces in this main parking lot.

Uh, this star represents a transit bus stop that exists.

Um there is a bus stop for the existing site today, and so we wanted to accommodate that uh in the future design.

You'll note that the um field venues kind of go around the perimeter of the site.

We we maintained the competition field and track in the same location uh primarily because it needs a very large flat area, and it just made sense to keep it where it was.

Uh, the existing grandstands will remain.

This will be resurfaced track and uh a new sports field uh synthetic turf field will be installed as well.

The baseball and softball fields will be natural grass.

Um and then the tennis courts, they are currently in the northwest corner of the site.

They'll be relocated to the southern end of the site, uh, which actually affords the community to have a little bit better access to those in off hours.

Uh, and the existing um practice field in the southeast corner of the site will remain that is intended to remain as is in this project.

You'll also note that there is um what we've labeled as an emergency access, but it will be a construction access road during construction.

Uh, we affectionately call this the hall road that will be going through the EMS property to allow for construction vehicle access during the construction period, and then it will remain in place after the fact it'll be gated and fenced in, but it will remain as an emergency access point to the site in the future.

See what else I can tell you.

Uh part of the project includes uh geothermal well field as part of its physical uh heating and cooling plant, and those geothermal wells will be placed underneath these fields so they will be installed prior to the fields being completed.

See what else I can I think that's about it for an overview.

Um are there any questions?

Camp, could you um comment a little bit on um this spur that's labeled uh with the blue circle 27?

Sure.

This is the there's currently um what was formerly an access um corridor to Route 104 years ago.

From what we've learned years ago, this was a connection point and a an entrance egress point to the high school that was since closed off.

Um earlier in our design, we hadn't contemplated uh making that connection again, but um it got very complicated with with respect to traffic controls.

Uh the state would not support a signal in that location, uh, so that the team has moved forward with not making a traffic connection at this time, and this is largely going to function very similar to the way it functions today, where it is a drive aisle and there's uh 27 parking spaces along this one edge to help us achieve our count.

But the um the grading has been done in this area such that should the city want to make the connection at a later date that would be facilitated by the grading and the utilities that are coming through this corridor.

Uh they're all at a depth that would enable that to happen.

Is um our are uh staff parking and student parking um commingled?

Typically not.

Um today, currently this uh trapezoidal lot is student parking as well as the um the corridor, and then there may be some more student parking down here that might be a little bit commingled with staff, but the the plan is that the northeast lot is staff, um the southwest lot is staff, and then the main lot is staff, and then uh if there is any student parking that may occur in this in the southernmost portion of this main lot that may occur, it's going to be uh managed administratively.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Oh, one thing I didn't mention was uh the loading dock is is back here.

Uh and the intent is that um deliveries come in from the secondary western Roxbury Road, come in.

There's ample um turning uh radii and so forth for trucks, tractor trailer trucks to be able to back up to it and then come back out the same way.

They could go around, but that's the preferred um path is to come in back up and then go back out.

And can I add, can I add something?

Sure.

Your presentation.

Um as you as you said earlier, or maybe it was Adam, that um the planning board has been present during um several of the planning pre-planning meetings as work has progressed, but others have not.

If you can just sort of touch briefly on logistics and high-level schedule, um, that might be helpful to the others that haven't had the time or participating in prior meetings.

Sure.

Um from a perspective of logistics, I do have the logistics um, well, Kemp, before you dive into that, well, you already got it up here so fast.

Go ahead.

But it's okay.

But I also did want to add that um for any general members and members of the public, we post uh the school construction planning committee meeting meeting minutes and agendas on the www.sbsbuilds.com website.

Um you'll see all the meeting minutes and agendas.

Sometimes meeting minutes won't be posted if they haven't been approved yet.

Um also typically are presentations from that meeting um uh renderings uh are also available.

So if you do have time, I would say and you want to just kind of do some of your own get involved, you know, while you have a minute.

Um it's www.spuilds.com and you can go there.

And uh the logistics plans are not posted there, however, though.

So Ken, if you do want to talk to those, you you can feel free to do so.

But I sure yeah, I'll keep it, I'll keep it brief.

They are kind of complex and um and lengthy, but uh at the highest level, um jump back here.

So these were developed by the construction manager Demio Bismarck.

Um, you can see on this, this is the first slide in the series, and along the top is the timeline for the anticipated work that's happening in these shaded regions and so forth.

Uh so the right out of the gate anticipated next spring and over the summer when students are off campus, um, there will be some what we're what we are terming pre-enabling work or enabling work to really kind of launch the main construction phase, which is going to be a three-year-long phase.

You can see the dashed outline of the proposed building here.

Um, but the there's that old Voag building that's currently storage that will be demolished.

Uh utilities will be be brought through the corridor to serve not only the new building, but also uh the existing building during construction, some of the the uh utilities need to be reworked a bit to make sure that we don't have disconnects and so forth.

Uh and this parking area will be developed as well as the um stormwater management facilities, which is that little blue area here.

That will be done in the summer.

Then we get into the next main phase.

Actually, Kemp, I'm gonna stop you for just a second for a point of information.

The football field, while it's shown on that previous slide as being taken over in April.

I don't believe that is actually happening until the summer.

The full football field.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I just wanted to clarify.

I think I know these are very much in progress, uh, and you're continuing to develop them because you've just completed construction documents, but I there is a little bit of a disconnect on the label of that slide.

So I didn't want anybody uh to be confused by that.

All right, thanks for that clarification.

Um part of that work includes what what we're calling some enabling work to relocate the um the existing building loading dock.

There is a secondary loading dock uh adjacent the auditorium in this location.

We plan to make that become the main building loading dock during construction.

Currently it's here, and as you can see, it would be very complicated or nearly impossible to keep it there to build this new building.

So the main construction phase is uh is kind of depicted here.

I know it doesn't show the timeline, so let me jump to the next one.

Uh, this is the really the main construction phase where we have the new building being constructed.

We have some bus parking here as well as along here to facilitate the existing school.

So everything kind of not in orange is school operations, and everything within the orange is construction operation.

And that goes from uh these are kind of uh fine-grained planning diagrams.

So you can see that the main construction will go all the way through from 2026 to 2029, so about three years for the main construction to take place, and then the new building is turned over with fields, uh with at least with the northern fields, um, while the existing building is demolished and the remaining portion of the site is is completed.

So you can get a sense here.

So this is a diagram showing the new school being occupied, and the bus is coming around, the bus loop coming around.

Uh, some of these parking spaces may be diminished depending on how many we can get around the perimeter, but then the old school will be demolished and the site completed in a phased manner until we get to the completed project, which is intended to be complete by uh September 1, 2030.

That's a very high-level uh overview of the logistics.

Yeah, and they're very much still in progress, so kind of getting a preview, sneak peek here of that.

Uh, and if you're interested, I can go through um of the exterior imagery just to give you a sense of what the building's planning to look like.

So this is a package, and I think this is on this the SPS Builds website, uh, because this was a presentation made to the um project planning committee back in July.

Uh so main entrance, uh main entry plaza coming in off of that uh main parking lot, uh, new main main entrance with canopy, gym and gymnasium entrance off to the left.

Um, and this is the administrative single story uh portion of the administrative wing of the building.

So good observation of the parking lot and main entry.

Uh the materials for the building, um, largely uh CMU, which is uh a mix between ground face and uh split face along here.

We have metal panel up above.

We do have some sun shading, uh both horizontal sun shading and vertical sun shading uh to help control some of the solar gain as we come around.

This is the um the bus lane on the east side.

Uh this is where the building presents itself as a five-story building.

Uh this is that main entrance on the east side where most students will be coming in during the morning ingress.

Uh the auditorium volume is here, and you can start to see as the the road traverses around the building, it starts to ramp up as we go around to adjust for that topography change.

This is the same end of the building, just looking at it from a different perspective.

The CTE drive court between the existing Voeg and the new building is here.

So but you can see that it's fenced off to keep it secure for students to pass between the buildings.

This is the north facade of the building.

So we have the cafeteria behind this expansive glass here, media center here, uh special ed small learning community here, and then the two main academic levels up at the top in the uh in the metal panel facade.

As we come around, this is uh looking essentially from the the secondary entrance from Roxbury Road, looking back at the main academic wing.

And this includes the uh the netatorium here in the foreground.

That's looking at it from a bird's eye perspective.

Um you can see that it's that five-story facade here, and then it's a three-story facade on the west side, the two main academic floors forming that L and the gymnasium component underneath that with the netatorium here.

And the existing POAC to remain.

Just looking up from the opposite side.

Again, academic floors.

The uh auditorium volume and then cafeteria volume here.

That gives you a little bit better sense of the three-dimensionality of how it integrates into the site.

So that concludes the presentation that I have for you today.

Are there any other questions?

Um thank you very much for your presentation today.

Um other questions from the board.

Um thank you for updating us on the project practice.

You're welcome.

Um so Jennifer, just for this one, not necessarily just an update, but also um so the charter will has asked, so it states uh municipal improvements are required to be you know come before the planning board for a report.

Um so there will be a letter that Leslie will send, or typically for such projects, um Leslie will then send uh a letter um essentially saying checks up.

Yes, yeah.

It's been reviewed pursuant to this section.

Uh we find it consistent with the charter and the master plan.

Um so I think I think a vote would be not necessarily approving the project, but some we need I I feel like we need something saying that the board, you know, officially unless you think you know it's good as is um without any kind of action from the board.

Um just want to make sure that the board's aware that you know a letter is going to be going from the planning board to uh to the to the mayor saying the planning board reviewed.

Um and it said act it actually says recommended approval of the project.

Um for example, this is one from the Julia Stark Elementary School I'm looking at.

Okay.

Um I think the vote would be a good idea.

All right.

Um should we I wonder procedurally if we should have the letter before us and then vote approval on that.

Um I don't have the exact drafted letter, but I do have one for Julia Stark elementary school.

That was just uh last May, and it'll it'll be exactly the same, just with uh this project's information in it.

Um we don't normally look at the letter when doing such an approval, but I'm happy to pull that up and show if you think that would be helpful.

Um I mean I I'm okay procedurally, just um having a vote to um to affirm that we receive the presentation and support it's continued implementation per the appropriate statutes.

That makes sense.

I'm happy to put forward a motion to that effect if that would help.

Okay.

Uh yes.

Okay.

So chat, um, you're first thing that motion.

Do you want to amend it in any way or no?

All right.

A second from Jeremy.

Um, all in favor.

All right, passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um the next item on our agenda is uh from the zoning board of appeals.

Uh DBA application 21-25, Ryan Salvatore representing Sarah Christensen, 18 Gurley Road.

Variants of Table 2 appendix B and section 12.6.

Applicant owns a single family dwelling with a detached garage above ground spa, pergola, walkways, and driveway.

Applicant is proposing to construct an access and access way to connect the detached garage to the primary dwelling.

Applicant is requesting A, a rear yard setback for the existing garage of 23.5 feet in lieu of the 30 feet required.

B a rear yard setback for stairs of 27 feet in lieu of the 30 feet required, and C parking areas and loading space to be permitted in the front yard between the building lines where it is not permitted.

Um with that, uh if you could please uh introduce yourself for the record and make a presentation.

Hi everyone, thank you very much.

I am Brian Salvatore.

I am the architect for the project.

Um and I think that the materials probably communicate what the ask is.

Uh I would just highlight a couple of um really pertinent um items.

Um of which is that both what exists now is uh an independent house and a detached garage.

The house dates from at least 1922.

Uh we don't have an exact date on it, but it was um originally a barn, at least as I understand it, um, accessory to a house that fronts on Chapin Avenue to the west of this.

The garage was built uh much later in the 70s.

The house is only feet off of uh the rear setback.

And so while the improvements we are proposing is really just a connection between the house and the garage, the ask seems much more intense than what it really is because um those are existing conditions.

The garage exists at that setback and the house exists at that setback.

So we're just connecting the dots between them by virtue of doing that.

We are converting the garage from an accessory building to a principal dwelling, and therefore uh it does not meet the setback for a uh excuse me, not principal primary dwelling, but the the real um existing condition is is the one where the house exists and we're nowhere near that uh level of intensity.

And then the other one that is referenced uh relative to the stairs is just at the point of connection where the breezeway strikes the house.

Um there's a little square that's about four feet by four feet on the south side of the existing house.

So really not injurious to anybody, but we we are uh requesting the variants there just to make the connection a little bit more fluid.

Happy to answer any questions uh if there are any.

Are there any questions?

No.

All right.

Um hearing none, as you said, this is fairly straightforward.

Um do we have a motion from the board.

Uh Jeremy, motion for approval.

Uh second from chat.

All in favor and passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, Lindsay, a bit tangentially, I suppose.

Um I think this is uh one of many examples that come before us of um something that um could be accomplished through administrative approval.

I know that there is a um there's a point on in the comprehensive plan that alludes to streamlining applications like this.

Um and I think that right now it seems like just based on one of the most recent uh letters that we got from one of the members of the board of representatives.

I'm not sure that there's a clear understanding of what's what we mean by streamlining uh approvals.

Um so it it may be worthwhile to have a few um kind of relevant recent items like this, just to clarify.

We're not trying to, you know, grant large variances.

Um so it it may be worthwhile to have a few um kind of relevant recent items like this just to clarify we're not trying to you know grant large variances we're trying to let people do things like this that don't actually increase intensity but just happen to fall within the crosshairs of our zoning regulations similarly with the routine applications that we receive for um lots that predate so the houses were built prior to zoning and so they're trying to build up right they're not um you know just I think having a handful of those to illustrate um I think would be helpful because I think right now it seems like there's a perception that uh we're trying to loosen things up when we're just trying to keep people from having to present to us about things that are pretty um uh minimal in impact has has has any been consideration further consideration been given to um what this what the process then would be under the streamlined conditions it depends on what the condition would be so for example let's use this as an example then because we're talking about this as an example uh so for variances that would be a change to the zoning regulations because it's the zoning regulations that require uh the ZBA to refer variances to the planning board um so that would be a zoning text change uh basically a limit um eliminating the need for planning board referral revising the language um to align with probably what you uh what to align with what we think needs to be done so for example jennifer um said that one um one example well so administrative review on the planning board staff would be something new we don't do that currently it's not written into the regulations um and then defining for example if if it's a building that was built prior to zoning regulations it's already illegally non well I would say built before the zoning regulations is that can we all agree I think the planning board would have to come to an agreement on and the zoning board of appeals would have to come to an agreement on what instances would the planning board not get the variance what instances would the planning board get the variance so yeah right now all variance applications that do not affect the bulk of a building do not get referred to the to the planning board so you guys don't even get all of the variances as it is so it's only those that affect the bulk of the building.

So maybe we need to refine that a bit more um yeah and if that's something that you guys want to do as a board you can say hey Lindsay as my staff member we want you to prioritize this and I'll talk to Ralph and we'll get working on it.

And we'll have discussions and write up text and you'll review it and yeah talk about it and it'll go to the zoning board and they'll be able to talk about it and if it gets approved then it would get written to the zoning and the text would be updated and the book would be updated and so Jennifer in this particular case can you know through this meeting today could we authorize Lindsay to proceed in that way.

Froze again what what funny timing it looks like she's like oh chat no yes really was it something I said oh no no no no I um I I think I'm um I'm erring I'm gonna say an error on the side of caution given that we are in the mid we are in the midst of um finishing out our um approval process for the comprehensive plan.

Again like I said the reason I brought up is because there is a specific action step in the comprehensive plan that addresses exactly this and we received uh recently one comment I think pushing back on or kind of questioning what the parameters would be and so I just thought that it would be worthwhile in the moment to be able to um more concrete compile a few examples of what we mean by that because I think that understandably there is uh some wariness on the part of the public around uh shifting and changing uh our approval processes but I think if we can illustrate you know this is what we mean by the things that ought to be streamlined um that I I think that's that is timely right now and then I think after the um you know after we get through the comp plan process then I I would be glad to proceed with this uh I think this is pretty low-hanging fruit honestly yeah um that makes sense yeah uh um except for the fact that um you know the um using the examples to define what we mean by streamlining oh sure um is going to vary from example to example oh sure sure sure so uh you know we're not in a prepared to um basically tell anyone at this point what we actually mean because we don't actually know what what the streamlining will look like all I was suggesting is that we do we need to wait for the approval of the comprehensive plan to actually set the ball in motion to to study

Um is going to vary from example to example.

Oh, sure, sure, sure.

So uh, you know, we're not prepared to um basically tell anyone at this point what we actually mean because we don't actually know what what the streamlining will look like.

All I was suggesting is that we do we need to wait for the approval of the comprehensive plan to actually set the ball in motion to to study what the streamlining have the staff study what the streamlining, you know, could look like um sure.

I yes, I understand.

I think that um uh to address both.

I mean, so my concern is that we may have some further comments asking us to remove that action from the comprehensive plan to do to do the streamlining.

Granted, it given the nature of the comp plan, it's not like we wouldn't be able to proceed with um kind of studying what it could look like to streamline in particular these ZBA approvals.

Um, but it kind of just I want to make sure that the element of the plan that recommends this action remains intact.

Um so I think that this is um I think one of the first actions that would be involved in studying this would be to compile a few recent examples of the kinds of things that might be more efficiently done through administrative approval without compromising um our procedures.

Um so I think certainly that can that can proceed and again, as I said, would also kind of just help to illustrate um what's meant by that particular bullet.

Um I think there, I think there are a number of bullets in the comprehensive plan where I think we understand what they mean, but because uh you know, various members of the public aren't in the weeds of this, it can read a little bit.

Um it lands a little bit differently.

So I just wanted to acknowledge that.

Well, okay.

I think an example that is we that is pretty clear.

Um that might help um would be um accepting of grant, uh not of grant, not grants because that's good game messy, but accepting a fee in lieu dollars that are required to be paid by the city.

So currently we have the planning board, board of finance and board of reps, I think has to approve the city accepting money that we require the developer to pay.

Right.

Like when they when they say they would pay for putting in a traffic light or something, we have to we have to wait until it makes it through a three-month approval process before we actually get the money.

Yeah, um, even though we're saying please give us the money.

Right.

Um so that might be a pretty clear, generally agreeable example um to streamlining regulations that might not need so much further discussion, like the variance discussion.

Right.

Um I will say though, we can um uh uh this kind of goes the the second part of your question, Chet, about whether or not we can do things without the plan being approved.

It kind of speaks to the plan in and of itself.

If there's a really good policy action or efficiency and operational action that needs to be taken and it's not in a plan somewhere, we can still do it if it's a good idea.

Right, right.

Yeah.

So or if the plan timing would have been next year and and we and and we came up with that idea this year, we can still do it.

Yeah.

Yeah, because it's a good idea.

So yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure.

And I think, you know, I've been suggesting some version of this for some time now.

Um, I think it just uh it helps to reinforce the even if not having in there wouldn't stop us from doing something that makes sense.

Um so yeah, that that is that is all um on that item.

And I believe that takes us to the end of our agenda.

I'm just closing this diagram of the breeze way.

Um, and so our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are uh September 30th uh to discuss uh the comprehensive plan um October 7th uh for the capital budget and October 14th for the capital budget.

And so our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are September 30th to discuss uh the comprehensive plan um October 7th uh for the capital budget and October 14th for the capital budget um and I will take a moment to acknowledge uh thank you chat for stepping in with me to do some of the pre-review for the comprehensive or for the uh capital budget uh meetings uh so that our presenters are uh briefed and prepared um lindsay is there any oh sorry can you tell me where those meetings take place uh that is a question for Lindsay yes so they are in person at government center um I have a um chat message into Tony Romano to see what conference room he has booked so it'll be somewhere usually it's on the 10th floor um some conference room on the 10th floor so I'm I'm working on finding the location yeah thank you you welcome great um and then as pertains to the comprehensive plan um between now and September 30th um I think you know some of us have been sending in thoughts here and there uh for the consultants to review and discussing one on one with each other uh some items for clarification is there anything uh additional the of note Lindsay that we should be doing between now and September 30 um nothing on my end though chat was you know we were chatting before you hopped on you know I think there is a desire amongst planning board members and and I think it's a great idea to to come up with some kind of a consensus on what revisions if any need to be made in order to to you know complete this process um we were discussing Carl Weinberg's um very clear table of comments right um and I'm happy to draft something like that to make sure that the planning board is very clear and organized in the in the revisions that you guys want made to the plan.

So if there is like approved with the condition that X, Y, and Z are addressed that it's very clear what X, Y, and Z are happy to work on that with you guys.

It's it's hard without getting another meeting between now and September 30th.

Right.

Happy to try and schedule one as you guys can see it's very difficult.

It's it's it's difficult.

But continue to call each other and um you can have caucuses amongst your own uh parties but the party situation on the board doesn't make that very simple.

Right so uh a lot of people would be talking to themselves.

Sure.

Yep.

So I I think coming up with the table is uh would be very useful and I think that um that's something that um since we have access to the um the folder materials around the comprehensive plan um that's something that we can kind of take a look at as it um shifts there.

Um and actually I just to be clear I was actually um I was referring to the letter that we received recently from Carl Weinberg that I do recall one of the items that um seemed to raise some concern was around streamlining uh procedures um and so that you know I I've um I think overall the the list of um uh suggestions and the points of clarification made a lot of sense but that that was one in particular that stood out where I think um again it could be helpful to just have a handful of examples of the kinds of of um items that could benefit from um administrative streamlining not that we're not that we're right now committing to those being the particular items but just to to give a flavor of what we mean.

Okay.

And and I have one other item um that I remember marking up on my first reading of the comprehensive plan but I've never addressed it.

And that is um and I can't tell you which action items are the they are but toward the end of all the action items I remember there were a bunch of things that placed uh assign the responsibility for the study or for XY or Z to the planning board and I I also remember that my reaction was we're a volunteer group you don't have the resources to do this kind of thing.

So is it is it really um you know planning staff or land use staff you know with you know as opposed to the planning board.

Right yeah I mean it's it's uh it falls on us to authorize uh prioritization of certain actions and to the extent that any of those studies might be something that would be funded out of the comprehensive plan or out of the capital budget um to make note of that for prioritization.

Um yeah, there I don't think anyone's expecting us to go out and do traffic studies or whatever on our own.

Um so um, but uh appreciate the the the nod at clarification there.

Um and I I think referring to the action that we took earlier about receiving the um the report and update on West Hill High School.

Um, you know, any time uh the planning board is uh basically kind of commissioning a study of a certain um type, then you know eventually that report comes back to us for approval.

Um and so we would want to make sure that any prioritized action um obviously we'd have to complete the study, right?

But but that we're prepared to um affirm uh the results of the study once it's completed as well.

Um yes.

Oh uh by the way, the the items I I just found uh for example, there are a bunch of those things in strategy 26, um, where it it uh it it first lists you know execution responsibility is planning board as opposed to potentially planning staff or something like that.

Um I'm glad to open that up right now and take a minute I know we're about at time, but um okay, pull this to the right screen.

Okay, and you said it was on which page.

Uh it's actually page 152.

152.

Okay.

Um and while I scroll to that, um Lindsay, I did want to note, I think it would be very helpful if um the appendices could be um uh uh if there could be like a little um index of the appendices.

I know that a lot of the pages that got added recently were just the update to the housing plan um and the in the backing data.

Um so it is not that the plan itself has gotten that much longer, it's just that a lot of the appendices that we're expecting have now been added.

Uh uh and one other one other thought occurred to me just now.

I'm sorry for the interruption.

Oh no um there have been there's been a lot of discussion of the comprehensive plan.

The only the the uh the only version that technically we have received, I think unless um a new one was distributed while I was away, was the original.

Um was distributed while you were away.

Uh then I need can it's also on the website.

It is, yeah, it is a draft that's on the the city's website, so that's what I'm pulling up right now, actually.

So you're picking up the case.

And are the changes highlighted, Lindsay?

Uh yes, there is a summary of the revisions.

Um if you go while you were away, um I think I have that summary to uh a folder where I've put the revised plan, the old plan, a list of all of the the revisions that were made.

So you should have a folder with with everything in there, public comments.

Okay, but uh you've met you've made still other ones since then, I think.

Um yes, and that I think I need to update the folder, um, but with what Eliza presented on the 16th.

Um can you tell me where that folder is by any chance?

Okay, the web address or something.

It's a SharePoint folder, so I can send it to you again.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Um so now noting that the page numbering might be a little bit different.

Um, so chat, which was what was the action that you were referring to?

Yeah, so let me uh reopen up the page.

Um so it was um which strategy strategy 26.

Strategy 26 under Prosperous City.

Um uh yes, and and and the activate and adapt vacant properties.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, uh virtually every item, uh every action item as I as the original was reported.

I don't know if any changes were made under execution responsibility, lists the planning board, zoning board, land use board.

And I was just suggesting making it planning staff or something.

So LUB that is um is the abbreviation for the land use bureau.

So that is the staff.

Yep.

So happy to explain the the planning board's presence here.

Um it it really speaks to exactly what Jennifer was saying with the capital budget.

Um so for ST26.1, the second sentence of that strategy is prioritize public realm and infrastructure projects in the identified locations to catalyze new market demand.

Um 26.2 um allow additional uses and incentivize high quality public realm experience.

So the planning board can do these things through uh capital projects, approving capital projects, approving capital funding, and uh recommending approval of certain zoning text changes, for example, for the additional uses.

So if you guys see um say sidewalk uh side funding for sidewalks, um I would be I would want to know where those sidewalks are, or are they in the neighborhood centers that are identified in the plan?

If so, great fund those prior, and if you fund those, that's how the planning board can prioritize them.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, but before we can fund them, um the the operating departments have to turn them into projects.

Yes, so that's what our pre-planning meetings are for.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So in the pre-planning meetings, we'll be taking the opportunity to introduce the departments to the Stanford 2035 plan.

Um many of them are aware obviously of the 2015 plan.

Now with the revision, we'll introduce them to the 2035 plan and the tenants of it.

Um and during their capital presentations, we'll they'll be um required to explain how their projects contribute to the implementation of the comprehensive plan.

Okay.

And um, I think this year, because we're the comp plan review is so is butting right up against the start of capital review, we're we're doing that kind of more um in the process of these pre-planning meetings, but I would like to for the next capital budget cycle actually um codify some shifts in the um the forms uh where the various departments are submitting their requests so that um there are fields for them to specify, you know, if it aligns with a particular um strategy or supporting action within the comp plan and also to you know that to that point about locations, um the if if it's a project that that is location specific to be able to have some indication of of where it falls within our different uh plan categories, uh again as an indication of of where it might fall in terms of priority and plan implementation.

Um we we haven't done that quite so specifically in the past.

It's been a little bit more um uh I think informal is too weak, but I mean, you know, I think we we always have an eye out for for um capital projects that are going to um align with the city's priorities, but um, this next step would just kind of formalize that each um uh department and agency would need to to do that analysis a little bit more formally in their submissions.

Um but yeah, to um there are other strategies and actions in the plan that focus on um implementation of these these recommendations, like you were saying.

So, like how do we get the engineering department or TTP to do those uh investments in neighborhood centers that the planning board would would uh prioritize in our capital budget.

And if you go to the mobility section, you see there's a number of different um uh recommendations that talk about you know sidewalk assessments and expanding complete um safe sidewalks uh throughout the city.

Um so we've got a multi-pronged approach here.

there's a number of different um uh uh recommendations that talk about you know sidewalk assessments and expanding complete um safe sidewalks uh throughout the city um so we've got a multi-pronged approach here um and i'll you know i'll say that i mean i think with transportation engineering as an example i i think they they do do a good job of proactively um seeking out funding and aligning uh those opportunities to um projects that have been identified um not only in the prior comprehensive plan but also in supplementary studies um that have occurred the vision zero plan different neighborhood studies and such but um i think the more that we can uh formalize that alignment the better um i will that also though reminds me and i i will i'll submit this um in writing as well i noted that um the um so you know obviously the comprehensive plan isn't going to reiterate every single strategy that's in all those other kind of subsidiary reports um but I did unless I missed it I didn't see an item um that is listed in the uh citywide parking study around evaluating um the residential uh parking permit and other residential um parking strategies um it is listed in there and the reason I bring it up is because a big thing that has come up time and again when um residents have been uh talking about um their sense of whether or not their community can um accommodate additional residents and additional density it often comes down to the parking um and uh I know that we have a number of parking management strategies that are um applied um a bit you know they're they're applied um in some parts of the city and not others because it depends on you know for residential parking permits for example uh a resident has to initiate it they have to get like what 60% of their block uh to approve it um but I think just um I'll figure out what language makes sense but I think just a nod to acknowledging that and kind of pointing back to some of the strategies that are already in that report I think can be helpful just to acknowledge that um concern and and how that um is tied in with uh planning for uh growth responsibly uh sure sure I uh would love to talk to Luke a little bit more about um where the city landed on the residential parking permits because I know it's been discussed a number of times sure um so I don't know if there was a reason for that or not um so happy to to have that discussion in in one of my uh recent emails uh I think Lindsay I think it would may have been the one to you and and Eliza but I can't be sure um I was asking about um you know what's contributing to the to the general public's lack of trust in the city's infrastructure assessments you know and are there are there action items in the in the comprehensive plan now that are aimed at um somehow changing the process to the point where it can rebuild the trust the public confidence you know what I'm saying I have thoughts but Lindsay wanna go ahead and I do know what you're saying but um there are a few things in the comprehensive plan that talk about our infrastructure um we do you know we did reach out to all of the private infrastructure providers to ensure that we have the infrastructure that the infrastructure that we have in place meets the need.

I don't I I think there's some politics at play here as well um there's a few action items that talk about infrastructure assessment tools um so I don't know what the land use document can do to fix trust in government um but I know that we are trying to uh do so by showing that we have had these discussions we do know the quality of our infrastructure and that we're also trying to plan for the future it in this in that context um do you know when when a developer puts forward uh a um an idea a proposal for some kind of massive development project um and and and I'll let's just say it's going to impact um it's I'm gonna exaggerate to make the point you know 800 units of of new housing and the obvious question is do we have sanitary sewer capacity downstream of that do we require the developers to actually do some kind of comprehensive study of that downstream flow uh we there are certain certain things the city does require but not to the extent that New York state does um I know New York state requires environmental impact assessments for new developments that meet past certain certain thresholds

Do we require the developers to actually do some kind of comprehensive study of that downstream flow?

Uh we there are certain certain things the city does require, but not to the extent that New York state does.

I know New York State requires environmental impact assessments for new developments that meet past certain certain thresholds.

And the reason why I bring that up is because it's extremely aligned with what you're talking about.

It takes a project and says what's the potential, you know, worst case scenario impact on sewers, schools, uh businesses, um traffic, uh all sorts of things.

Um so to that, it does not happen to that extent here in Connecticut.

Um we do require some traffic reports based on um the size of projects.

Uh we require um like drainage assessments.

So but for certain certain aspects, yes.

But others, no.

So for example, schools, we don't require like a projection of the number of students that would be added as a result of a project.

We the city and the state, the state doesn't also does not require it.

So okay.

So I mean if Stanford said um we'd like to start asking for some of these things, like New York currently asks for.

Do we need to wait for the state first?

Or can the city of Stanford um, you know, to take some immediate action for on its own behalf.

I don't think you necessarily have to wait for the state, but you'd have to consider it's not just about making a decision to require an assessment of all of these impacts.

I think it's has to be a holistic policy decision because it will impact uh real estate and economic development of the city as a whole, um, a large part of what the land use bureau does when we um create new regulations and loosen up other regulations is trying to figure out what's the perfect balance that still allows for development and to meet the needs of the existing population while also uh maintaining quality of life.

So if Stanford was the only city in Connecticut that required such an assessment, I think developers would go running and we would not have any more housing development, um, because that would be a huge financial impact um uh and and change that wouldn't be required anywhere else.

So uh why not take their project elsewhere?

Um so it would be something that would have to be studied, the implications of such a such a mandate.

Um and the also the other thing that we need to kind of um I think um change our thinking on is um perhaps uh the all or nothing, you know, mantra.

Um you know, because we we have nothing now, or uh I'm I'm just using that word loosely just to make the point.

Um and and so to the extent we want to introduce you know, something uh it they would perceive it as an uh uh an everything and they would take their development to someplace else.

Um I don't personally buy into that strategy because um even in something uh something like this, you know, if there are five things that the state of New York, just as an example is doing that the state of Connecticut is not doing now, um, and Stanford wouldn't want to implement all five of them.

Um in the next 10 years, perhaps we can implement one of those, and it doesn't begin to, you know, the developers get used to it and it doesn't push all the development, you know, from Stanford to Norwalk as an example.

Um so I'd I'd like to have us start start um by not thinking about you know that the only option in town is the all or nothing strategy.

Sure.

Uh I I think that that makes sense.

Um Chat.

And uh I also um I mean I do think it is worthwhile though to I mean certainly anything we knew we do would need to be consistent with the state zoning enabling act.

Um and so um there are certain uh so one any any shift would have to be um compared against that I think it's also important to um when uh putting in place um a system of um additional impact assessment to be considering you know which are the systems which most require that uh sort of analysis and what sort.

Um I will just note um again on page 29 on the comprehensive plan it goes through our different infrastructure systems and for wastewater in particular it's noting that you know currently the plant process is between 15 and 16 million gallons, which is well below its 24 million gallon capacity.

Um so I think that's one example where you know it it doesn't strike me as worthwhile to require every single project of of even a large size to do that detailed analysis because we know we have so much sewer capacity left that um you know it it just it doesn't make a lot of sense to require that I think similarly for schools um we we know that the the projection for population change with the current um uh level of growth that we are projecting um that those that those two things are compatible.

Um we know that a lot of these units that are going in newly tend to be smaller units and that there's plenty of data to back up that those units really don't add uh to uh the school system uh demand um so you know I I would want to be very selective about what sort of analysis is necessary.

I do think that um back to the question the fundamental question around trust that you've noted um I mean it it's I I do think that a lot of um a lot of what we've been hearing uh recently has you know has some roots in some um kind of political agitation and concern like it's not that the city of Stanford in the last five years has suddenly you know stopped monitoring its wastewater capacity um but it's just that we um we have uh more residents who are um interested in in knowing the answers to these questions and I think that you know right now there are um some resources on the city's website that do attempt to answer a lot of these common questions around you know the impact on the tax base of development the impact on these different types of infrastructure um and I think that for the vast majority of people once they receive that information um you know it helps to settle them and there are some people who even when we put that out are are still going to question it.

And so uh I I think there are some broader questions around how um not only the land use bureau but how the the city as a whole um is is structured and how it conducts outreach and how it does communication um that are really fundamental to addressing that um that more underlying uh bit about trust um Jeremy yeah I do have one statement um regarding that um I understand that that you know there's information on the treatment plant right in the capacity that that can withstand I I guess my concern and and I don't know if this is where Chet was going with it is um you know ensuring that the infrastructure to the waste treatment plant is the proper size you know the pipe the piping pipe you know or if that's a condition that needs to be reviewed that you know and I know I think um you know one example I could use is the St.

John's Towers when they came before us, you know, that they provided a um impact report on the usage for the sewer system which which included the sizes of the the you know sewer right you know piping that would be going to that treatment plan.

And I think that's the piece that maybe we need to look at for you know having the developers possibly you know review and and you know not have that burden be on the city uh you know cost wise and possibly pushing some of that cost to the developer.

Right, right.

And and it's you know it's not indefinitely um using St.

John's and uh it you know if that's four miles from this the processing plan where you know maybe it's within the first thousand feet you know setweight site and the processing plant or something um where it shifts some of that responsibility um uh back to the developer.

Sure.

uh it you know if that's four miles from this the processing plan where you know maybe it's within the first thousand feet you know set between the project site and the processing plant or something um where it shifts some of that responsibility uh uh back to the developer sure um i mean i my sense is that it may be worthwhile um in the near future to maybe actually have a a deeper dive on this with the wpca um and i will note that um because the wpcA does their own bonding um through the um usage fees that they receive that a lot of times they just kind of breeze through when they come to um capital budget you know we basically leave it as the responsibility of WPCA to be continually assessing um you know the their infrastructure and what um what investment is needed to be able to keep up um with uh the growth of the city um but it sounds like there may be an interest in getting a better sense of this nexus between um the overall infrastructure and the impact of of any one uh development of a particular size and whether that's already part of their capital planning or the the WPCA's own um capital uh cycle um or if there are um some uh opportunities to um to make that nexus clearer I will say though there is there are some restrictions in Connecticut on um impact fees uh and so that is also something that we would have to um hold in consideration and by um uh because there are um instances in other geographies where um I think the the well-meaning impulse of doing impact assessment and having impact fees has actually been um uh abused a bit to basically restrict development I know that that's not what we're trying to do here but I my understanding is that that's the reason why there are some state level restrictions on impact fees um and so again we would need to assess um the compatibility of of um any change with that and and and just furthering that thought and I appreciate that information is not something I was otherwise aware of um does Stanford maintain um some kind of an infrastructure improvement fund that contractors can you know uh pay into like a more general fund or yeah yeah I mean if we talk about um you know we're we're doing uh let's just say for sake of discussion that in in between 2020 and 2025 we did you know um um a million and and a half square feet of new development and I I'm just picking a number to make a point um and and when you go project by project no one project you know contributes to that you know to to a tipping point but we know that by 2030 or 2035 um system X is going to need some improvements um you know uh it is the city obviously is will be responsible for that um uh and and presumably that would be one of the capital budget things that would be you know uh bonded um but um but I'm wondering if if we know that 12 developments have gone in in that five years um that there's not some mechanism by which we can um require developers to kind of pay something into that future improvement fund.

That's all um yeah so I mean I think that the the fundamental question is whether the impact of the development is disproportionate to the addition uh to the tax base that will occur by the addition of those uh units and um that in general right if we are if new development is going into places that we know has existing infrastructure is near transit is near where you know based on you know information from WPCA we know that there is adequate um supporting capacity then um by and large you're gonna get a net benefit um on the tax base uh versus and so you know I mean that that's the primary mechanism by which the city is taking in um funding and you know we'll receive that as soon as the units come online right um so uh I mean I know that there is a there's a bit of a narrative that renters don't pay taxes we know that they pay taxes through paying their rent which goes to the building owner which then comes to the city right um and so um I that's actually I my understanding is one of the key rationales for um for limiting impact fees because um the the idea that new development taxes infrastructure more than existing uh residents is a little is um the nexus there is a little bit fuzzy um right um so uh I do just want to make uh note of that um there are some other um without getting into the details of it um there are some other mechanisms uh such as a land value tax

Um and so um I that's actually I my understanding is one of the key rationales for um for limiting impact fees because um the idea that new development taxes infrastructure more than existing uh residents is a little is um the nexus there is a little bit fuzzy.

Um right.

Um so uh I do just want to make uh note of that.

Um there are some other um without getting into the details of it, um there are some other mechanisms uh such as a land value tax, which I was just learning about recently, that are different ways to um to assess the value of um of a particular um parcel and to allow then um proactive investments in infrastructure um that are less that that are more tied to the value of the land rather than trying to like count the heads and you know what exactly the sewer flow is going to be.

It's more of a it's more of a tool around capturing economic potential um that I that is probably a better alignment than this impact fee route, which again, as I said, also um is gonna run headlong into the zoning enabling act.

Um so um okay.

The thing that, you know, um uh I guess having my spent my entire career in in buildings and and facilities.

Um I know it's it's it's very common in the corporate sector, and uh and I think to some degree it's probably pretty common in um in the public sector as well.

Let's use our new high school just for a moment.

Um we're making this investment.

Um and you know, for the first 15 years, um, we won't need to spend a nickel on any kind of improvements to that new high school.

Um but coming coming the 15th year, um it will now require uh a lot of maintenance from year to year, and the funds and the funds won't be sitting in some account there waiting for it, and it will be a deterrent.

Yes.

Um so it's it's this notion about actually creating this rainy day fund, I guess, for when the money is sitting there and you can't use it for something else.

Yeah, you know, in the first 15 years, you can't divert it to um other operating needs.

Sure.

Yeah, I mean that I think that makes that makes a lot of sense conceptually, and you know, what you're citing is exactly the reason why our uh school facilities kind of reached a point of crisis in the last couple of years and why we're now in this big um building program, and we know there was a lot of mitigation that have to happen a few years ago around mold.

Um the uh I think that's another one of those things that starts to run into um uh the the city's ability to kind of hold certain funds in certain ways for um specific purposes.

Um, just as we've run into the state level issue around the fiscal guardrails and you know, like how much surplus can you hold and how much you know what can you put where um I so I think that um again, I think conceptually what you're describing makes a ton of sense.

And I think that figuring out how to implement that in municipal finance is a is a challenge.

That's not just here in Stamford, but you know, a challenge that every municipality uh runs into the stop gap that we have here in Connecticut is you know, a lot of the state aid that we uh received when we get to the point of making capital improvements and we were able to be successful at changing the formula um for reimbursement from the state recently, which has been a boon uh for sure.

Um, but you know, I I would agree that it's um it is problematic to have to rely on the kindness of the state in order for us to be able to maintain our infrastructure.

Right.

Okay, thank you.

Sure, sure.

Yeah, no, and I I do appreciate your you know your thoughtfulness about about all of this.

Um I think the last uh before we close is a um so we are about to enter into the capital budget uh season.

Um as the way that that's been approached for the last um the whole time that I've been on on the board has been really looking at it on a year-to-year basis.

There are projections out a few years that we ask um each department to make around whether a particular item will require um, you know, future um future maintenance, future upgrades, if there's another phase of the project.

So they do make a projection out a few years, not 15 years out, but um, and right now those aren't really particularly binding and they're very fuzzy estimates.

Um they're just placeholders.

Um so uh we you know, and I think a lot of what we're looking at in the capital budget process is um, you know, is it gonna break right now?

And if by fixing it now, do we save ourselves money um in the future?

Um and it doesn't really address this broader question that you're raising around what does it look like for the city to be able to um have a longer view um around um capital investment and maintenance.

And I think that different uh mayoral administrations and and school board administrators do a better job than others of having their eye on that uh that further out ball.

Um so uh I think that's also uh sort of a it starts to fall a little bit outside of our purview, but I do think it um I think we can play a role as the planning board and um uh you know suggesting um certain types of like operating expenses, for example, that uh mitigate the need for future for for near-term uh capital.

We don't have jurisdiction over the operating budget, but we are often asking and considering, we're often asking the agencies, you know, if you know this energy efficiency improvement goes in or whatever, what's going to be the impact on operating?

Um right.

So I think those are the mechanisms by which we're able to um ensure that our infrastructure doesn't uh deteriorate faster than it should, um, or that we're not prepared to maintain it in the long term.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Um well, I look forward to talking, discussing with the rest of you soon, um, again, more on the comprehensive plan as well as the capital budget.

Um go ahead and close our special meeting uh uh for uh the 22nd motion from Jeremy to close.

Just uh one just before we do, Lindsay, you said you you um I think you expressed willingness to put together a matrix of uh subsequent revisions to the comprehensive plan.

Um is that something that um can be dis uh along the lines of Weinberg's uh or or Wine, whatever I'm sorry, whatever his name is, you know, kind of matrix, um, use that word.

Is that something that can be distributed to us uh before the 30th?

So we're not seeing it for the first time on the 30th.

Yeah, so I can um I would have to take a look back at the comment thread, email thread that's going on, uh, because I would I I wouldn't know what to put in there um until you all direct me on what to put in there.

Um I can make a a table of the planning board's comments, if that's what you like the planning board's final revisions, is that what you're talking about, chat?

Yes, I think so.

Yeah, yeah.

And and and I'm okay with, you know, just uh I I I know you and I talked about um we can't uh count Weinberg's comments more heavily than anyone else's comments.

I I appreciate that.

But the clarity of his format uh was helpful.

And rather than start with a blank piece of paper, I was just going to suggest let's start with his list, and then and and the planning board can even go, you know item by item and say, you know, do we agree on this or not?

And and if we do, okay, let's incorporate it.

If we don't, onto the next, you know.

And it doesn't have to be, you know, uh uh continuously referred to as his comments.

They could just be able to do that.

Yeah, because then I'm like, okay, well, we're doing that with every single public comment, like that's not a good thing.

Yeah, right, exactly.

So I don't think I feel like we could say, does the planning board agree with this comment?

This comment.

Yeah, yeah.

Right.

I don't want to, I don't want to um uh attribute comments to people, um, because then you know what about my comments, you know, what about his you know, that kind of thing.

But we we do um Weinberg has excuse me, what's his last name?

Weinberg, Karl Weinberg, and Weinberg.

Okay, thank you.

Um he's he's done us a favor by actually putting it into a matrix that's easy enough to follow.

And you know, I if we have other things to add to that, fine.

Um, but maybe for the 30th, our format uh ought to be, you know, here 10 suggestions that you know land use has you know um that have come to our attention, planning board, what what's your reaction to them?

And we can take action item uh on them item by item, you know, type thing.

Yeah, I I think that the idea of of um using a similar matrix format makes a lot of sense.

Um holding uh and and that I think that we can uh even if we are not um attempting to reply to every single public comment that we've received.

There's certainly themes that have come up, and so I think we can also add that matrix um some of the themes of public comment.

Um I think that's kind of getting a little different than what Chet is saying, which is like a list of the revisions that the planning board is requiring be made to the plan in order for it to be approved, like a list of conditions of approval, we approve it on based on XYZ changes.

Chet, is that what you were talking about?

Well, you know, I I frankly I hadn't thought so far ahead as to uh cite something as a condition for approval, but but um you know if we've if if something has you know through our through our public meetings, um through through uh letters to us through Weinberg's thing to us, um we I think we have um kind of crystallize them down into certain kind of uh broader topics, you know.

So uh Lindsay just using as an example, you and I had a recent conversation about ADUs, uh about ACUs, uh and and things of that sort.

Um if if we can if we can start have our 30th meeting with um you know a matrix of those topics, and here's what the comprehensive plan says now.

It's been suggested, you know, or or or the consensus of input has been to change this word to this word.

Planning board, do you agree?

That kind of thing.

I don't know if if I've answered your question.

I just I I want the 30th to be productive.

It's gonna be a public meeting.

I want people to be able to hear our rationale to to you know, um uh acknowledge that that um we've given consideration to you know input and and we as a planning board have taken action.

We we've recommended that this be changed or this stay exactly the way it is, you know, that's all right.

Yeah, I I think that I think that makes a lot of sense in terms of the actual products.

I imagine uh one uh the which I kind of I think uh had started to suggest in in some of our uh prior threads is the is you know being able to highlight key themes from the public input and to and as you said to be able to note either changes that have been made or at least building knowledge um that you know a certain comment um or certain theme came up and to point to how it perhaps already is addressed in the comprehensive plan or how it's addressed in some other um city processes as a uh and that might be kind of more of a memo um just to be able to um for the for the purpose of um as you said really just acknowledging the feedback that has come in um and being able to um point folks appropriately and then I think separately there would be a list of um as Lindsay was saying, kind of more of a list of conditions of approval um that would be particular to to edits to the plan.

And I I know that um this is a lot, and so Lindsay, I'm glad to figure out with you, like kind of uh how to go about uh starting to compile some of that.

I know some of it is within the purview of the sorry.

It is I'm uh I don't uh what I guess I'm curious what the difference between the revision overview.

We have a whole document yes that summarizes the comments to each and every single section.

Yes, and the revisions made to each and every single section.

So I don't understand how we could be more clear how we're I agree with you that that's that that's very I think that that's the one that's that piece is clear.

I guess it just has to be um further added to it because based on things that have come in since I guess you know it it was a summary of the revisions as of a certain date, but but we've now had you know getting given more consideration.

But but we've now had, you know, getting given more consideration.

So do we need to add more to that list?

Yeah.

Um, sorry, you're on mute.

Yes, it will be updated.

Okay, okay, okay.

Yeah.

So I I do think that will address a lot of it.

Um, I I would say most of it.

And then again, I think that I definitely sense that on the 16th, that um at least some number of the comments were reacting to a prior draft.

Um, and so I think just acknowledging that and being able to point to the revision um is helpful.

Um, and then I think, you know, some, you know, even this conversation that we were just having about um, you know, infrastructure and um, you know, the the impact of development, I think that's the kind of thing where, you know, just a brief note that you know, we've received comments about this and this is addressed, you know, in this spot in the plan and also um, you know, in this chunk of the um development FAQ that's on the city's uh uh website.

So I, you know, I do agree, Lindsay, that I I think that the um the record of the revisions that have been made and how they're um responding to particular public feedback has been um very detailed, and I think that can form the basis of um of of most of this um uh I guess explainer or memo to to be able to to summarize.

Um I think right now it kind of lives in a few different um documents.

I guess is is the only thing.

So some of some of it might be just consolidating it so that it's kind of all in one place.

Um even if it's not creating much in the way of new content.

Does that make sense?

I understand what you're saying, yeah.

And and and Lindsay, for example, you mentioned that yeah, it's all resident in the SharePoint file.

Um but I don't know how to get access to that SharePoint file as an example.

So I don't know if I'm alone.

Perhaps I am um I mean I I think yeah, I've been able to access it, but um it's it's certainly easier if you do it on a uh like a desktop and you have to get like a code to verify your identity and all of that.

Um and then once that happened, that's pretty straightforward.

Um, but just maybe one more um just example of something I think would be pretty brief is um uh we were talking about parking earlier, right?

Um we we received a lot of comments from residents in Cove um wondering, you know, what are we gonna do about like and I I think just having a note that's sort of in there that you know there is an ongoing east side cove uh neighborhood study that is meant to address a lot of these concerns that have come up that will be you know implemented in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

Um because you know, there apparently are a lot of residents who don't know that that's ongoing.

Um so I know that I know that it's impossible for us to point to every resident to every single thing everywhere, but to the extent that um we've heard some themes and we can easily kind of point uh people in one direction or another.

I think um that will uh help to just acknowledge um what we're hearing and uh kind of what's already in process to address it.

Does that make sense?

Sure.

I think that would help on the 30th, yeah.

Okay.

Um and yeah, I don't uh think none of this is to to minimize, you know, obviously all the work that um you and the consultant team have been doing to um to keep up with a lot in this process.

I said I, you know, I do feel like you've you've I think that the overall approach that um has been taken, not not only in this public comment period, but throughout the revision process that's gone on over many months to say, you know, we heard this and this is what we changed.

Like, you know, that that's laid out very clearly, for example, in the quarterly reports um that the consultants had put out after different public meetings and such.

Um even just kind of pulling you know, links to a couple of those could be helpful.

It seemed like there were a lot of comments that um were along the lines of, you know, what did you do with my input?

And I I think it's very clearly documented what they did with the input, right?

Um, but I think just acknowledging that that was something we heard, being able to refer again to those quarterly reports that summarize very nicely, you know, this is the feedback that we received on, for example, the vision statement, and then um, you know, this is how it shifted.

I I think um just being able to have that in one reference point, um, I think helps to uh um just note that we're we're we're listening.

Um and again I know that again I will acknowledge that so much of what's going on is is caught up in um the political environment, um not only in Stanford, but just you know there's a lot of political agitation everywhere, right?

Um so um I know we can't um we can't solve the fact that we're in a challenging climate, but I think to the extent that we can just um be able to show the ongoing good work that's been happening um and make it easier for people to find it, you know, I I think that's that's the overall intention here.

So okay.

Okay.

All right.

Um are there uh you know we've run over the um intended time for the special meeting.

Are there any other um questions, thoughts?

No.

All right.

Um so um we can go ahead then and adjourn our meeting.

Um and uh we'll see you on the 30th.

Okay, so long everybody.

Right.

Thank you.