And I've admitted all.

Okay.

Um good evening.

This is the Tuesday, October 28th meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

Um, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Just part of doing that.

Okay.

All right.

I think you can keep going, Jennifer.

And I will manage chat.

Yeah.

All right.

Uh first on our agenda is the minutes from our October 21st meeting.

Um are there any minutes?

And my micro.

Something is wrong with your phone.

Okay.

A minute.

Did you fully exit the meeting, Chat?

Okay, yeah.

Because we we were all talking before you got on here, so it's not.

Right, that's odd.

Okay.

Um, uh, while he gets back on, I do uh is are there any questions about our amendments to the meeting, the minutes from our October 21st meeting?

So Jennifer, I was not on, so I have no comments.

Correct.

Yes.

I know you cannot vote on the minutes.

Um, let me see all who is in view.

I'm admitting chat right now.

Okay.

Um Bill and Jeremy are also in the meeting.

Um I see.

But not I don't see them on camera unless I need to scroll over.

Um no, I don't think either of them have their camera on.

Jeremy does.

There's Jeremy Ham.

Yeah, um I see uh no, Bill doesn't have his camera on.

And then there's chat as well.

And it seems like chat where you're good to go on your sound.

Oh good, thank you.

Hooray.

Um we're back.

Okay, I see Jeremy now.

Um so uh chat.

Did you have any questions about our amendments to the minutes?

No.

All right.

Uh I'm gonna need to change my view so that I can see everyone.

Um Bill, are you um on audio?

Oh, I see Bill's on twice.

Um all right.

Well, um we have uh the three of us who can approve the minutes.

Yeah, Jeff, right?

I said I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Okay, motion to approve from Jeremy.

Do I have a second for that motion?

I have a second from chat.

Uh all in favor.

And it passes with the three of us.

Unless Bill, you want to raise virtually raise a hand at least.

It looks like Robbie's video is frozen.

Oh, there he is.

Yeah, it looks like it's slow.

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry about that, Robbie.

All right, and now uh we turn it to you, Ravi.

Our next uh item is um our next two items are subdivisions uh which require reading notices in the record.

Um so the first is subdivision 4057, uh Nancy L.

Chang at 74 Mitchell Street.

Um and I'll let you Robbie read the rest of the description into the records.

This is the legal notice.

Correct.

Board City of Stanford notices hereby given that the Stanford Planning Board has received the following application for subdivision of property into two parcels for review.

And our conference calls at 6 30 p.m.

And this item may be moved to your future meeting time and date of the discretion of the planning board.

This is a subdivision 4057 and CL Chang, 74 Michel Street, two lots.

Applicant is proposing to divide this point 709 acre parcel into two lots, which is commonly known as 74 Mitchell Street.

The property is located on the south side of Mitchell Street at its terminus and is in the single family low density district.

So copies of the above reference application along with the information on how to attend the meeting are available on the planning board website.

The hearing may be continued to such time and place as will be announced by the planning board.

Hearing impaired persons, we shouldn't attend the meeting who require interpreter may make arrangements by contacting the city of Stanford ADA coordinator at 203-977-7993 or email at C Hughes 1 at Stanford CT.gov.

At least two working days prior to the meeting.

This is signed by Jennifer Godzino, the chair of the Stanford Planning Board and dated on the 20th of October 2025.

Okay, thank you, Raddy.

All right.

So if we may have our presenters introduced sure.

Alexandra, you can uh turn your camera on and unmute yourself.

Thank you.

I got some echo there.

I yeah, I also heard the echo.

Um maybe Alexandra, you could I see you're on two devices.

Um maybe one of them, please.

You could turn off the volume.

No, I'm sure I'm gonna ask my computer.

Um evening of technical difficulties.

Yeah, and I don't know anyone else from her team.

I think she's really the she's the main person.

Okay.

Um echoing.

I uh well when I had that press same problem, I just got out of Outlook completely, then went back and the meeting and went back in and everything was good.

I want to watch it, what did I do?

Okay.

All right.

Um she's coming in right again right now, so should be quick.

Let me just make her yes, but still the reverberation.

All right, I think it's now we can't even hear you.

Nice.

No, no, I'm not speaking because I think should I bring Wayne Wayne up and yes, Wayne, yes, try removing the other meeting instance associated with their name.

Yep.

Okay.

That might remove the echo.

Yeah.

Can you try again, Alexandra?

Oh, now she just left.

Oh, okay.

Is it better?

That is better.

Yep.

Oh yeah.

Okay.

I felt like I was in the deep well.

Umne is raising his hand.

Um, he Wayne, you can uh unmute yourself uh if you want.

Um Alexandra is on and um sound is good.

So please feel free to introduce yourself and um present the subdivision.

Can I share my um attachment?

What what is the option to share?

Um for me, at least top right corner to the left of the yellow and event button.

Okay, sure.

Um it's a square with an up arrow.

And then you'll have to select the screen you want to share and click share again, and that would be in the bottom right corner.

I think uh my name is Alexandra Mark, and I'm an environmental consultant.

I'm specializing in Soyola West on Science.

Uh and tonight uh can you see the screen?

And can you hear me?

We can hear you, and we have an aerial view of Stamford Harbor and the site.

Thank you.

Um, so tonight I'm going to be uh presenting uh two lot subdivision, and uh the um site is currently under the address of 74 Mitchell Street.

Um you can see the location, uh just to see the perspective and where it's located, what's the what the neighborhood is.

Uh in the purple, this is the um property, and you can see that it's not that far from uh Stanford Harbor.

Um we have this uh cul de sac here, which is paved, and the distance between the Tila Marsh associated with uh Stamped Harbor, it's uh 45 uh 41 feet away from the uh property boundary.

So the site is located within the flood zone, and I will show uh the boundaries in a minute.

Um, and also uh it is within the coastal area management.

Um I can quickly switch to this.

Um so here's our uh proposed subdivision, and I will make this a little bit smaller so you can see the entire property.

There we go.

Um so this is uh again, this is this was the call de sac, we've seen on area photographs.

This is uh Mitchell um and uh this is our property.

Uh currently it supports a single family uh residence, and the access is uh from here.

There's a short driveway, and um what is being proposed is to uh split this area into two lots.

So here in purple, you have uh proposed second lot.

As you can see, those two are going to be sharing the same driveway, which is actually good because uh we are trying to um limit the area of pavement, and uh since the new addition is going to be a garage, uh the new driveway is going to be extended to the lot number 11, which is the developed lot, and then uh this the same driver is going to take uh uh or access uh lot number 12.

Uh the area of lot number 11 is going to be oh the square footage is being up up here, 11,229 square feet, and uh lot 12 is going to be 17,38 square feet, and also uh we are designating an open space or conservation area, and uh both lots are going to have access to it.

So not only will have the back set aside as a uh for preservation, but also there's a long access which runs all the way to the street.

Uh flood zone, uh the elevation of the flood zone is 13, and you can see the edge of the of the uh so the outside of the proper set is outside of the flood zone, which is here's the counter line 13.

Um, it's actually none of it uh encroaches on the uh current building, and it's also uh missing the proposed residence on the new lot.

So both of those structures are outside of the uh flood zone.

Unfortunately, uh we will have to remove 14 trees, and um I feel it's like almost uh difficult because uh this family has been a very good stewards to the environment.

Um I don't know whether or not you walk the side, but uh it's uh great to see so many beautiful large trees preserved along the coast, and uh you have a large cluster here, a lot of trees along the edges.

No, no, it's not you unmuted it now.

I can talk.

Okay, but you have to interval it has to be there.

So the trees which we are going to be removing are going to be the one are either close to the driveway and they will have to be removed or close to the proposed improvements.

So only the trees which are uh necessary to be removed are going to be removed.

Uh to mitigate for the hard surface, which is going to be increasing.

We're going to have addition, we're going to have uh extended driveway and new driveway here and new residents.

Uh, we are proposing two systems which are going to be uh managing the stonewater at the site.

So lot number 12 is going to have uh several codex um at that corner, and then uh to mitigate for the new addition and the access we are going to have to uh inland infiltration systems uh on lot 11.

Uh we are proposing uh planting plan uh environmental protection boards uh requested that we provide some mitigation uh for the removed trees.

Um it is really difficult uh to add more trees to the site because the areas which are not going to be developed still are going to have many trees and the canopy is very dense, and it's really hard to fit any new trees or even shrubs uh into this area, but we are proposing um uh a landscaping plan, and the plan uh focuses on the open space which is in the back, and uh all the areas which there is some space to uh add any vegetation we are going to be vegetating.

So we have uh shrubs here along the edge of the open space.

This is going to be a good idea because those shrubs will delineate uh the uh edges of the protected areas.

We are adding uh three trees here because there's a little opening here in tree canopy.

Uh, there's going to be one evergreen here, mostly for privacy.

Um, and then uh three shrubs around it.

Um also we're going to have one evergreen here and additional tree over here.

In terms of uh species, all of them are native species.

We're going to have ink berries, winter berry, um, which uh berry uh trees are very popular uh for wildlife.

Uh they like to uh feed on them on the berries, and then we have red maple, white spruce, white oak, and flowering dogwood, which is smaller tree, but very important uh to support pollinators.

So I think I did cover um all the important elements of the proposed subdivision.

I wanted to also uh show you maybe quickly uh photos of the edges, uh, how they how densely uh there are vegetated and the trees which are going to be preserved.

So this is basically the area along the street, uh looking from the house down, uh, and then we have uh more trees growing uh in uh along the site, and then the this is the other property line.

You can see the density is really hard to fit more trees here.

Um, and this is towards the open space.

And currently the the driveway is small and actually almost like a dirt road.

So uh the family was really a conscious uh environmentally conscious and try not to uh uh put a huge uh footprint uh onto the land and preserve as much as possible.

Um so I'm here, and uh Wayne who is the project engineer is also here.

Uh we uh will be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

All right, um, are there any questions from the board?

Um I don't see any hands raised.

Um, and this does seem pretty straightforward.

Um, and appreciate the uh open space set aside um in uh that exceeds the 10% required.

Um do I have uh okay, Nancy?

Uh well Chad also raised his hand.

Um Chad, did you have a question or were you going to make a motion?

No, I I had a question.

Okay.

Uh please feel free to go to go ahead of me.

The um it the access from the street uh that was pointed out to the open space along the tidal marsh, um, which is along the um the right side uh as we look at the plan.

Um is that um um does it can that provide the um public access to the waterfront or literally uh just to the property, the front property owner?

Quick question.

Uh the actually the tidal marsh is not uh adjacent to the property.

The tidal marsh I was showing on the area photographs uh basically starts here across the sack, so there's no uh physical contact between the tidal marsh area and this property.

Okay, but in terms of access again to that open space in the back.

I believe that this is private access.

Um it's now the public access.

Okay, thank you.

It's not private or public, it's not private access either.

It's it's no one access.

Uh and it's just a preservation of the land.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Rami.

Yeah, so Alex Alexandra, do we have a uh view of the new building?

The how the new building is going to look like when it comes up, or it's too early for that.

It's too early for that, uh, but it is going to be one of the half-story uh building.

Um the uh footprint of the um building is going to be 27 um hundred square feet.

It's going to be again two and a half story.

We do not have architectural plans, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh Bill, do you have an additional question?

Um, can you hear me?

Yes.

Um I actually have all kinds of technical problems here.

Um, and I'm I think it's only gonna stay on for another 10 minutes, but I just was trying to figure out if you could hear me.

That was it.

Yes, yep.

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Um the question that I had was um Alexandro, some of the plantings um in the landscape plan, uh, many of them were in the conservation easement area.

Were those reviewed by EPB?

Yes.

Uh the last AP plan was created uh for EPB by by their request.

And um, I did send them the core graph and I explained in detail why we can why we cannot plant more uh plants because there's basically no as long as they're aware of the plantings that are proposed in the conservation easement area.

I know they um thank you so much.

That's it for me, Jennifer.

Thank you.

All right.

Um if there are no further questions, do I have a motion on this item?

All right, Ravi.

Yeah.

Move to approve.

Uh Bill, is that a second from you?

Um actually are you guys all getting a reverberation or am I the only one that can't hear anything because it's just like echoes and reverberations?

Uh I'm not hearing any echo.

Okay.

I think I'm gonna have to drop out.

I just can't um I can't really hear what's going on.

Okay, let me try and just push the other U out.

There's two Bill Levins in this meeting.

Let me try and get this one out and I'll just wait one second.

We'll pause a moment.

All right.

Let's try it now.

Bill, how is that?

Now I'm not hearing, I'm not hearing the reverberation now.

Good.

Okay.

Good.

Great.

I'm gonna lower your hand.

Okay.

Um, we do have a motion on the floor for approval.

Waiting for a second.

Do I have a second for approval?

I'll second.

Oh.

All right, second from Bill.

Thank you.

Um, all in favor, raise your hand or Bill, you can affirm approval.

Okay.

Uh approve.

All right.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

And our second item for subdivision is subdivision number four zero five eight.

Um, Eric Ilario Alchemura.

Um, Ravi, I'll have you read the legal notice into the record.

And I think just uh you can probably skip the um the piece about the accessibility since we've read that into the record once already.

So this is hereby given that the standing Stanford Planning Board has received the following application for subdivision of property into two parcels or reviewers October 28, 2025 meeting conducted by the internet or a conference call at 6:30 p.m.

The meet this item may be moved to a future meeting time and date or the discretion of the planning board.

Subdivision number 4058.

Eric Altamura, 248 Hunting Ridge Road, two lots.

The applicant is proposing to subdivide this 2.1 acre parcel into two lots, which is commonly known as 248 Hunting Ridge Road.

So some number is 000 3241.

The property is located to the southwest of the intersection of Hunting Ridge Road and Ericsson Drive.

And it is in the single family very low density district RA1.

Copies of the Bow Reference Application along with information on how to meet attend the meeting.

We'll be available at the Planning Board's website.

Attested by Jennifer Gonzino Chair, Stanford Planning Board, dated 20th of October 2025.

Thank you, Rowley.

And our presenters go ahead and identify themselves for the record.

I uh I promoted um uh the property owner, but not the engineer.

So let me promote Len.

Hi, Len.

Okay, and I think you have done your job.

Thank you.

Um Leonard D'Andrea, Connecticut Professional Engineer with the Andrea Surveying Engineering PC.

We represent Eric Altamira tonight.

And um he has purchased a piece of property on the corner of Erickson Drive and Hunting Ridge Road, and I will bring up the existing conditions if I'm so capable.

Share this share.

Let's try this again.

Yes, it's lovely.

They have they make you uh press share twice.

So share, select your screen, and then share again.

Yep.

Okay, let's see.

Now let's see.

All right.

You got it?

Okay.

Somehow I'm good.

Uh maximize.

Yep.

Yeah, perfect.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

So this is the existing conditions.

Um, it has topography that slopes from the corner, the northeast corner of the property at the intersection down to the southwest.

There's a modest home on it that fronts or has a driveway accessing down onto High Ridge Road.

Excuse me, Hunting Ridge Road.

And there's also a detached garage uh around where I'm pointing here now.

Let me get rid of some of these other things.

Um shape, almost a square.

And the idea here is we're going to basically split it in two.

So now let's see if I can bring up the subdivision map.

This is the site plan set.

Yep.

This is um, I'll show you the subdivision map in a bit, but this is the conceptual subdivision site plan.

And again, you can see basically we're just let's see if I can make this a little larger too.

All right.

And you can see we're basically very fairly simple, just kind of dividing it in two.

And uh Eric will stay, and this will be his basically a starter home and stay in the house here.

There is an existing septic system that's in good working order.

Uh, the detached garage, a portion of it will be cut out so that it meets the zoning setback for an accessory structure.

And then on the uh new lot, lot 30 to the west.

We've shown conceptually a house, uh, a drainage system, a driveway out to Ericsson Drive, and then a primary uh septic system here and a uh reserved area in this location as well.

So you know, fairly straightforward.

Again, this is conceptual.

Um, and you can see in the RA1 district, there's plenty of room.

There's a good amount of setback.

Uh, the other part of the subdivision application, of course, is to provide an open space.

We recognize the existing farmer's wall that's to the west, and then to the south, and it's nice to protect those and preserve those.

So we form the conservation easement to protect the the existing farmers' wall there, and then another strip coming up on the westerly side, and that makes the 10%.

The other part of this is that um Eric is in a builder's family, and the intent here is to keep it in the family and with the Altamira family, build another home in Stanford.

They tend to build, oh, sometimes maybe three houses a year individually, and and they've done many homes that way.

They're excellent builders.

So this will be basically another single family home added to the tax rules.

And this is not what that site plan will be, but like you've heard before, this is conceptual.

The idea here is to demonstrate feasibility.

When we go forward, um the house plans that they intend to build uh will be shown on this.

The individual lot here will be cut out.

So you we would be presenting one single family lot, and then the house that they intend to build, the driveway, the septic system, and either these locations, and of course, drainage.

So again, fairly straightforward.

Um, this is the subdivision.

Same thing again, and in order for this subdivision to be filed, if approved, this would have to be removed.

So that would be part of the initial work that would be done.

The uh conservation easement will, of course, be monumented and in signage placed, and that will protect us.

And at that point, the map could be filed, and from that point on, we would go back and then uh work with the Altamiras to develop a site plan for a new single-family home.

Um that's pretty much in a nutshell.

I I didn't mention there are no regulated areas on this.

Uh the other part of this is there's an area in here too, not a lot of trees to remove.

So we actually thought about the location of the home when we were subdividing this to minimize tree removal, and it's gonna make I think just two gorgeous um homes for people.

Other than that, uh glad to answer any questions you may have.

Um questions from the board.

Um looks like Robbie has a question.

Oh, okay.

Ravi, yes.

Yeah, I don't I don't have a question, and I'm okay with it.

My only request is this is a good opportunity to increase the vegetation and trees to compensate for all the other trees we're losing illsworth.

So if you could consider the solution and dramatically increase the number of trees and vegetation on this on the new site, that'll be wonderful for the dome.

Yeah, we we we can do that.

Um you notice here I I we've studied sided this house and the driveway, so we weren't going through a cluster of trees in this location, and then we have some vegetation on the slope over here, which we're staying away from.

Where this area is in the backyard, there aren't any trees to be considered.

So if the planting plan you think is necessary, I'm certainly we would certainly agree to that.

But this is one of those cases where we're not taking a lot of trees down and we're trying to keep it curling naturally.

Yeah, I appreciate it.

I don't think the planning board can it that way, but I leave it to your uh your thoughts to do that.

Thank you.

Well, the other thing too, I would say that again, these these are seasoned builders, and um they do do a good job on landscaping uh before they market their product.

Okay.

Um Lindsay, I just uh there was one note here in the um memo that uh around the open space set aside that I think is maybe not actionable, but I wonder if it's worth reading the suggestion into the record.

Yeah.

Um, so and this I think I've I haven't said this about other applications.

I I should have.

Um, so the applicants proposing a 10% open space set aside where 10% is required.

Um, there are no nearby inland water resources or conservation easements that this set aside could cover or connect to, respectively.

Um, this may be a case where a fee and loo payment may be more beneficial to the city and more aligned with the comprehensive plan than setting aside uh a relatively small amount of uh wooded area.

However, a fee has not been instituted and would require several approvals before instituting.

And I would also just add that uh Mr.

D'Andrea's point about the conservation easement helping preserve these um farmers' uh walls that are very characteristic of New England, actually would maybe even negate my Fian Lu comment on this site because it's it's a it's a it's an excellent point.

If we're talking about character of a neighborhood, um some of the aesthetic of New England has those those random old stone walls all over the place.

Um, so yeah.

And I would say if I can add to that too, this the depth of the conservation easement location uh in this location here is about 40 feet.

And so it's a pretty wide swath along the southerly side.

My point was more that like it's you know, if we're talking about increasing the city's open space and making accessible open spaces, um all of our 10% with two lot subdivisions is not the most effective way of of gathering open spaces.

Um perhaps there's a different way we can do it, but we don't have a method for that right now.

Okay.

Um if there are no other questions or comments, do I have a motion on the subdivision?

All right.

Um, Ravi, is that a move for approval?

Yep.

Right.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second from Bill.

Um all in favor, raise your hand or voice vote.

Approve.

All right.

And thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh next on our agenda.

Uh zoning board referrals, uh, series of text changes.

First is ZB application 225-32 from the Stanford Planning Board.

Uh the purpose of the proposed text change is to streamline the current VC district regulations, add illustrative graphics, and add regulations for staff level architectural review.

And I'll hand it to you, Ralph.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

Let me try and share my screen.

Can you see the PowerPoint?

Yeah.

I wonder, should I should we read the the whole series into the record so that we can do a consolidated presentation?

Or Ralph, you want to just kind of go through section by section?

Um, yeah, it's it's really up to you.

I mean, you have to vote on them separately anyway.

So it might not be uh a time saver if we do the uh presentation once we're gonna run out of time then.

Yeah.

Um just enlarge this.

Um so um as you mentioned, uh we have uh four uh zoning board applications uh for you tonight.

And uh the common theme uh really is uh cleanup and consolidation of uh regulations.

Um as you were working on the comprehensive plan, we obviously didn't want to uh uh initiate any zoning regulation changes uh that might conflict uh with the comprehensive plan.

So we took the opportunity to really do um a little bit of housekeeping.

So um the um text amendments that we're proposing uh have to do with uh an amendment to the VC regulations, amendment to the R6 regulations, amendment to the CG regulations, as I mentioned before, uh those will mostly be uh housekeeping items.

Um with regard to district regulations, and then uh the amendment that we're proposing to amend uh to appendix B is really a consolidation of existing regulations that we have.

So um just as a little bit of background.

Um so we're trying to uh give all the district regulations in uh the zoning regulations sort of a unified structure and organization.

Um a lot of the zoning districts they were added over the course of time.

So um they're organized differently at the moment.

Some of them are missing certain elements.

Uh so uh the goal is really to uh go through all of them, evaluate if the districts still make sense.

Uh maybe we can get rid of some districts, uh 48 zoning districts for the city of Stanford might be a little bit much.

Um but um uh also um giving them a common organization um because we believe this will ultimately make them the regulations more user-friendly uh if we do that, and obviously we want to have uh as comprehensive and complete regulations as possible.

So what you see here is sort of the the structure we come up with for the district regulations.

Everything will start with a purpose section.

Um the second one is the designation criteria.

So this really includes uh the reference to the comprehensive plan.

So uh this section will uh include that the zoning district X should be located in a comprehensive plan in a certain comprehensive plan uh category.

Um just uh uh by means of background.

Uh what you see here uh the the designation criteria refer to the master plan categories because they were filed before the comprehensive plan uh was adopted.

So at a later date, we actually filed uh a text change application that will come to you in the near future.

Uh we're going to update all the master plan references to comprehensive plan uh references, and I'm I'm uh looking forward to getting you input uh on those changes.

Then the next section will be about the uses that are permitted in uh that particular um district, and then the next one uh the next section deals with the development standard.

So height, setbacks, uh density, those kinds of things.

Um for design districts, uh there will be site and architectural design standards um as the next section, and then at the end, uh each section will uh have uh some uh references to review procedure.

So uh for example, when do you need a special permit, when do you need site plan approval, and so on and so forth.

So this just really has a background what we trying to do uh with uh those district overhauls.

Um so the first um tax change before you uh concerns VC, uh the VC district, uh you see here an example um on the west side that was recently completed.

And the VC district uh is really a medium density district that allows uh for multifamily housing and local retail.

So this is really conceived as sort of a main street district, down uh uh ground floor commercial with apartments on top.

Um in Glenbrook Springdale, uh we have lower building heights uh than we have in the rest of the city.

Uh so on on Stillwater Avenue on the west side, uh you can go uh up four stories uh and and five stories.

Um this little map here shows you where uh the VC districts are located, currently located um uh within the city of Stamford.

So I already mentioned the Glenbrook uh Springdale uh VC districts, they are around the train station.

That was sort of the genesis of uh the VC district was to create opportunities for transit-oriented development.

Um and uh the other ones are on the west side uh and on the uh and in the south end.

So one of the things that we want to change with the VC district, currently we refer to VC Glenbrook Springdale and VC other areas, we want to rename them and make the Glenbrook Springdale uh VC district VC1 uh and the other areas VC2.

So if we uh expanding the VC uh districts throughout the city, we don't have to come up with convoluted uh um terminology to identify those different um uh VC districts.

So those are um the regulations, so we're not proposing any changes in density, height, or the parking requirements.

So once again, this is really um uh a cleanup version.

Um I already mentioned that we want to establish um a VC one and a VC2 district uh instead of what we're using now.

Uh we would be adding a section for uh designation criteria, as I said before.

Uh this uh in the proposed text change it refers to master plan category six, which is sort of neighborhood retail.

Um obviously, this will be um uh uh adapted uh at a later stage.

Um we maintained uh the design criteria that have really been been pioneered uh in the VC district, but try to uh streamline them a little bit.

So, for example, in the VC district, we refer to a street tree planting requirement.

Um the VC district was the first district that had a street tree planting requirement.

We now have a street tree planting requirement pretty much everywhere, so we don't have to have it in the VC district regulations anymore.

Um what we also uh striving for is a simplification of the review procedures.

So currently everything has to come uh to the zoning board for approval.

Um we had a couple uh of months ago an application where they basically wanted to uh uh change uh the facade of a convenience store of a gas station, uh and it was like a few hundred square feet of of basically facade of a gas station convenience store that had to be reviewed by the zoning board.

So uh that obviously doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So what we're proposing is that um simple staff review, if it's interior modifications, a change of use and exterior modification without an increase to the footprint of a building.

Um if it's on lots less than 20,000 square feet, we propose uh a new architectural review by staff um that currently doesn't exist, and then everything that sits on sites larger than 20,000 square feet, it would follow the current process uh that is uh site plan review with public hearing um by uh the zoning board.

Uh just for reference, in most districts, actually uh zoning board site plan approval uh isn't required uh unless you are on a site that is 30,000 square feet or larger.

So we still have very tight uh um uh design review um criteria for the VC district, and uh sort of as a companion because we we institute that new architectural review, we also have to add the provisions for that uh architectural review um to the regulations, so that would be new section um 2i.

Um we're also going to add uh illustrative um uh graphics to um the uh district regulations.

So currently there aren't any for the VC district.

So this is just to illustrate how the setbacks work um in the VC district.

Uh this actually applies to both the VC1 and the VC uh two district, and here this illustrates the height regulations, and those really uh differ between the VC1 and the VC2.

As I mentioned before, in the VC one, which would be Glenbrook Springdale, the building heights are lower.

Uh it's uh three um uh uh stories, uh and you can go up to four stories if the top floor is set back and doesn't cover more than 50 percent of the footprint of the building, and in all other uh VC districts, uh it's four stories uh with uh a fifth story if if it meets certain uh design uh requirements, and that's it for uh the VC changes that we're proposing.

Uh Rani, I see your hand and then chat.

Yes, uh so Ralph, uh you know, I'm all in favor of uh simplifying and coming, you know, the communication so that layman can understand what each of these zones are.

So that's a good good thing.

So a couple of questions.

One is when you say VC zone, and I'm just asking as a layman, these are some what is a VC we cannot rename it to something that is more uh easily understood, or this is a standard terminology like VC has to be used.

I mean, I if you say VC zone, you have no idea what a VC zone is.

Actually, VC stands for I should have mentioned that my apologies.

It stands for village commercial.

So obviously that that is more descriptive than talking about VC.

Okay, thank you.

So the the VC, yeah, that's that's uh you're absolutely right.

That's that's like uh planner lingo, uh, but it's it's village commercial, which I think I was afraid to ask a question and make myself like looking at the no, no, absolutely.

I mean now on the sections.

I'm also happy that you added architectural and you know those kind of features to be explained as to what will go into zone.

And uh I think that was one of the inputs we got during the uh master plan that we should have distinctive architecture in each of these places.

So I'm glad you have that.

Uh now, in terms of uh two questions.

One is do you think you should have a section on environment in each zone?

Like, you know, we talk in the master plan, we talk a lot about protecting the environment, green space and all, but hardly we ever take action around that from the planning board perspective because whatever proposal comes up, they destroyed so many trees, we have to approve it because they have fit within the rules, right?

But hardly we ever take action around that from the planning board perspective because whatever proposal comes up, they just write so many trees, we have to approve it because they have fit within the rules, right?

So would you consider adding something around that in each zone, saying this is the kind of landscaping, this is the kind of greenery we visualize in this zone, right?

And then that is what one first point.

The second point is are you going to talk about what is not permitted in these in this like there was a lot of uh discussion around are we changing the single family to multi-family?

Are we trying to introduce something through the back door and all that?

So just like you have what is permitted.

Are you going to have a section saying what is not permitted?

Uh so um first with regard to um like environmental considerations and uh so um uh actually one thing and and the the VC, the the village commercial district was also one of the first districts that had that uh where we introduced uh the concept of a lot coverage maximum.

So uh we don't allow you to uh asphalt your whole uh uh property uh anymore.

So the VC district was actually one of the first that had that requirement.

Um the other thing uh that we have with regard to uh the environment is we have the street replanting requirement uh that applies in in most um uh districts of the city.

Um and we also have uh the sustainability scorecard uh that applies to uh larger new developments, more than 10 units, more than uh uh 10,000 square feet of um commercial uh uh floor area.

So those are the So Ralph, where would I find that?

So in let's take this this particular set of regulations, right?

So in the first page you showed us a list of broad sections.

So in which section will I find whatever you mentioned just now?

So um that would be uh in uh the development standards.

So uh there would be uh something that says uh, or there is actually if you if you look at the actual text, there is something in there that says uh street free planting requirement, uh C section 12k.

That's that's the the universal uh street tree planting requirement section.

And um for the sustainability scorecard, um we we're not proposing this for this tax change, so it's not a it it's not you're not required to meet a certain um uh uh grade on the sustainability scorecard yet, but the goal is to add that later on.

Um so um I mean reviewing staff knows uh that uh and and the uh uh scorecard is in section uh 9F of the regulations.

So 9F it says the sustainability scorecard is required for all projects larger than um 10 units and thousand square feet uh in these and these districts, and the VC is uh is part um of that.

So we're trying to reference them in the district regulations, but not repeat it for every district uh what uh um you have to do.

Uh I mean, one example also for the VC district is actually the parking requirement.

So the the VC district um uh uh has special parking requirements that after the parking study uh became the parking requirements for parking category two, which is like around downtown and and uh around the train stations.

So um we we took out the parking requirements here and referred to section 12, which has mobility and parking, uh so that that we make the regulations a little bit um uh less uh cumbersome.

But the the development standard says parking requirements, see section 12.

Um so you you can you can find it easily and and have the reference uh uh in there.

And uh I'm afraid I forgot your second.

So the question was are you going to say what is not allowed in this uh so um yes, uh so uh um in zoning, uh what what we have uh is called permissive zoning.

So only the things that are explicitly listed um are permitted uh in certain zoning districts.

reference uh uh in there and uh i'm afraid i forgot your second so the last the question was are you going to say what is not allowed in this uh so um yes uh so uh um in zoning uh what what we have uh it is called permissive zoning so only the things that are explicitly listed um are permitted uh in certain zoning districts so there is in the zoning regulation a huge table uh that has all kinds of different uses um that that's that's appendix a and uh every district has a column and you can see uh that like uh shoe store uh is permitted in this district uh multifamily housing is allowed in this district so if it's not uh checked in their table it's not allowed uh uh in that in that district that's that's how it's how it works and in the um uh the VC district the idea is really um we want to encourage sort of neighborhood retail like coffee shops uh shoes like small shoe stores like not like a DSW or something like that um uh restaurants uh neighborhood services um so those are allowed what's not allowed are like large scale retail uh functions that that uh really uh belong to like downtown or or um uh other places uh in the city so that's all um uh listed in appendix uh of the zoning regulations and it also says which uses are as of right so you don't need an extra permit or uh which uh uses require a special permit um because they might have significant um uh traffic impacts or something like that but but none of that is proposed to change from from what is currently in uh the district regulations okay thank you you're welcome okay chat okay yes um let me just uh get rid of my hand hand raising um Ralph I have um one question and uh and a comment I guess um on the question side um going back to Ravi's um original question about environmental considerations talking specifically about the VC district um to the extent that the V lots within over presumably over certain size uh in the VC district may have some parking requirements you mentioned um the regulations currently address street tree plantings and you mentioned one other thing but I that I missed yeah lot coverage so you can and uh lot coverage is the building but also all the paved areas and uh so you have to set aside a certain amount of pervious surface and pervious surface basically has to be planted area it cannot be astro turf it cannot be um uh uh gravel right or something like that uh even for uh pervious pavers you would we would you would need uh a sign off from from uh the engineering department um what I forgot to mention is we also have uh parking lot design guidelines uh so parking uh areas they need to be uh set back five feet from property lines and that um uh area needs to be planted and then on larger parking lots um we have regulations that like every tenth parking space you have to have a planting island um and uh for very large parking uh lots with with like multiple rows or aisles of parking every other aisle uh would have to have a planting uh islands uh between uh the the rows of parking um we're actually working at the moment uh on another text change that will be coming uh to you uh which will um actually make some changes to the parking lot design uh guidelines what we've seen is that um i mean obviously they follow the the regulations the developers but they plan sort of more ornamental trees uh so what we want to do is we uh require them to build uh larger trees uh with with a bigger canopy because the point really is to to um uh combat urban heat island effect uh and those kinds of things and obviously ornamental trees are a step in the right direction but not um uh what we really want yeah um uh for that and and and along those lines that actually uh is great segue into the other half of my question and that was um you know where in those parking regulations where it's talking about planted islands um the there's uh of course major difference relative to heat island effect and and other aspects between shrubs and trees um do do the parking standards uh also identify you know when trees are required as opposed to uh a a small shrub yes so uh so the uh in every uh planting island you have to plant uh a tree and they have to meet the same that that's part of the the revisions that we're proposing

Um do the parking standards uh also identify you know when trees are required as opposed to uh a small shrub.

Yes, so uh so the uh in every uh planting island you have to plant uh a tree, and they have to meet the same that that's part of the the revisions that we're proposing.

Uh and the trees have to meet the same uh distance requirements as street trees.

So for street trees, we're we we require and and there's the Stanford Street Tree Manual, which has a list of trees in the appendix that are pre-approved, so uh it's mostly native trees, it's it's trees that uh we know do well uh as street trees, like some street trees, for example, or some trees uh species don't do very well with salt.

So not a good street tree.

Um so um, and in the in the appendix of the street tree manual, uh we differentiate between large trees, medium trees, and small trees.

Uh large trees, the the distance from trunk to trunk uh is 40 feet.

Uh medium trees is I believe 30 feet, and small trees is 20 feet.

So you have to plant more small trees than then obviously large trees.

We also don't want them to crowd each other out.

Sure.

Um and um the the type of the tree, I mean we want to encourage people to plant as big trees as possible.

Um, but sometimes you have overhead wiring and stuff like that.

So um a large tree might not be uh appropriate.

So uh that's that's part of the of the regulations.

Okay.

And then the technical part of my uh the comment.

Um the I think the um the graphics are are have been to the extent that you've in uh introduced some thus far, have been really helpful.

Um and and more graphics will be even more helpful.

Um I just you know, one thing for my own experience.

Um we we spent a lot of time picking um you know the right colors in the graphics before we realize that you know most of the most copies that are going to be issued are black and white.

So um to the extent that you're using uh graphics, um dot patterns, you know, screen patterns that will reproduce much more vividly in in black and white than in color, that may also be helpful.

Yeah, no, I think that's that's a very good that's a very good comment.

I mean, our hope is uh that we have to kill fewer trees to print the regulations and that people rely more on uh the online uh version.

Sure, sure.

Um so uh but uh I every time we we print uh uh a new version, I I take a look and see how how the graphics are uh um how visible and how discernible the different colors uh are uh when they represented in in uh black and white.

And um it's not necessarily great, but it's it's it's okay.

And once again, I hope that uh um more and more we we go to the electronic version where where that is uh no not a problem anymore, but point taking.

Understood.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um any further questions or comments from board memories.

Um I did have one small item.

Um I know that uh so here in the description it says that for many districts, large-scale development reviews required only on lar lots larger than 30,000 square feet, and that uh here the threshold is 20.

And I just wanted to get a little bit of uh explainer on maintaining that uh differential so I think in the long run uh we um uh we want to differentiate between sort of different districts when a more detailed architectural review is required.

So for example, in a manufacturing district where urban design is not unimportant, but not as important as let's say in downtown or a village commercial district, um, I think that uh a larger threshold for for architectural review, um, especially for zoning board approval, uh is probably warranted than uh a district um like the VC where you where you have relatively small properties and and where the urban design quality is is more important.

So it was very important to us to have uh at all sizes an architectural review component.

Um I mean part of it is also uh it it sort of depends on when uh certain zoning districts were um uh uh invented or added to the zoning regulations.

So the the very old zoning regulations, they don't have any uh architectural review at all.

Uh they they are as of right districts.

So you meet the setback requirements and the height requirements and you you're golden.

Um uh and then later on for those districts, the 30,000 square foot limitation was added and and requiring uh um site and architectural plan review.

And then another development was actually uh the the design districts uh that came up um uh which had um required uh site and architectural review on on all levels pretty much.

So it's trying to find sort of the right mix between um uh architectural high quality urban design uh and the level of review, and does everything really have to be uh have to be going to a board versus having uh better design uh guidelines in the regulations themselves that can actually be enforced rather than saying something, oh, we want the buildings to be well designed, what is well designed, we want them to line up with the street, we want to have uh transparency on the ground floor.

Uh we want them to use high quality materials, we want long facades to be broken up into smaller sections.

Uh we want a variety of fenestration so that not everything looks the same.

Uh those are all things that you can write in the regulations and that we are writing in the regulations.

So uh there is less uh ambiguity for for uh people who want to build in Stamford, uh so that they know from the outset what we want to see, and it's not a guessing game until you go to the board uh to find out what what they consider um uh good urban design.

Okay, and that that makes sense that more granularity is uh required in a district like this.

Um all right.

Well, uh do I have a motion on this text change.

Ravi, uh move for approval, second from Jeremy.

All in favor, raise your hand.

Um is Bill still in with us.

No, he's not.

Okay.

He said he had to leave in 10 minutes uh a while ago.

So okay.

Um it passes with uh membership present.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item.

Um CB application 225-3.3 Stanford zoning for text change.

The purpose of this proposed text change is to align the regulations for the R6 district with the general structure of the zoning regulations, add additional development safeguards and special standards for already permitted non-residential uses.

Okay, so uh the theme uh here is basically the same.

Uh so this time we're looking at the R6 uh um districts.

R6 districts are low density single and two-family districts.

So if your lot size is uh um less than 6,000 square feet, uh you can have a single family home if your lot size is 6,000 uh square feet or larger, you can have a two-family home.

Um so um this is where we have um R6 districts uh in Stamford.

So we're not proposing to change the location of any R6 districts or anything like that.

Um so this is really uh uh just looking at the regulations and um what we're proposing is uh no high changes, uh, but we actually uh reducing the density for uh buildings in the R6 district by introducing an FAR that didn't exist before.

So um uh having uh um no FAR basically means you can build a Mac Mansion, a very oversized house on a very small uh property, um, which obviously creates issues for uh for the neighborhood.

So by introducing an FAR, um we uh we can avoid uh that uh problem like in the VC district, we uh will be adding the designation criteria, like which comprehensive or master plan category can this uh district be mapped.

Um I already mentioned the FAR uh limitation.

Um the R6 district did not have a lot coverage restriction, so it had a building coverage maximum, but not a lot coverage maximum.

So we also creating requirements for pervious uh surface in the R6 district where it previously didn't exist.

Uh and then we also added standards for special permit uses um uh in the R6 district that currently uh also don't exist.

So you you uh take the single family regulations and apply them to non-residential uses.

So the number of non-residential uses in uh R6 districts is very limited, it's like houses of worships, uh child daycare centers, those kinds of things.

You so you're not allowed to have uh commercial, we're not proposing to add any uses uh uh that are currently not permitted in the R6 to the R6 district.

Um, but we believe by by having um uh standards for special permit uses, um uh like actually wider sidewalk.

So if they are next to a residence that there is is a larger side yard um make make a whole lot of sense.

Uh and we also actually allow higher um lot coverage uh for those special permit uses because they have to be able to accommodate parking uh for um those uses, and that's sort of in a in a nutshell uh the changes we're proposing for the R6 district.

Um chat, is your hand?

Yeah, um Ralph, so um then it sounds like um FAR is being added to lot coverage and building coverage as two existing um area limitations.

Um will will FAR um does FAR currently exist in any other dis uh districts?

Um we introduced it fairly recently to single family district.

Uh they have been existing in uh the um VC district, so that was one actually of the first districts that had FAR, and it exists in commercial districts.

So most of the uh so in the olden times in Stanford residential density was limited by um uh units per acre.

Uh and uh commercial uh density was restricted by uh FAR.

And even the FAR wasn't introduced until uh like uh maybe in the 80s, 90s.

So until then there was no FAR uh limitation.

Um so but for the R6 uh it did not, it does not exist uh currently.

So what you see in in the first row here, the 0.625, that's basically if you take the building coverage and multiply it with the maximum building height that is allowed in the R6 district, that would be the theoretical FAR uh you would get uh in the R6, but it wasn't specified uh uh anywhere.

So now we're saying the FAR in the R6 district is 0.5.

Okay.

Do you uh long term is it the intent to introduce FAR to all other uh districts or specifically to resident all other residential districts to avoid the McMansion syndrome?

Uh to to all really to all districts because um as I said, the the um what uh the unit per acre doesn't do is uh it doesn't give you a maximum on the number of square feet uh that you can build.

Like we have uh um in in downtown Stanford actually where you also don't have an FAR for residential uses, so you have this weird the other thing is we have a lot of mixed-use districts, and then you have sort of this like weird mixed calculation coming up with a density.

So if if it's a mixed-use building, you calculate residential FAR based on uh units per acre and commercial floor area by FAR, but then you can sort of trade in commercial FAR into residential, so uh figuring out in in the downtown and some other of those mixed use districts, the number of units here is is um alchemy basically.

Yeah, so we just want to have a very clear uh regulation that tells you this is my lot size, this is how many square feet at a maximum you can get on this piece of land without having to go through uh uh a lot of different calculations, and in case of many residential uses, actually not being able to say, okay, this can be uh uh uh 40,000 square foot building or 60,000 square foot building, depending on how large the apartments uh in that building are.

Good.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions, Ravi?

Uh you muted.

You're mute, Ravi.

Sorry, so in these kind of uh changes that we're making some modifications to existing uh regulations.

Do we have a process of getting some feedback from the community or just the planning board up rules and that's it?

I mean, there's a public hearing um at the zoning board level.

So um there will be an opportunity for the public to comment.

Um I mean the uh the regulations uh are online available for review.

And I think also it's it's uh in uh where public uh uh outreach is essential, is where you propose massive changes, substantive changes to uh regulations.

I mean, as I mentioned here, for for all those applications, um we're not changing the height, we're not changing the setbacks, we're not changing the parking requirements.

Uh we're really um uh doing stuff around the edges uh and add more controls, yeah.

Um so um uh this this is not a massive change in in zoning regulations.

I agree that that obviously if if you propose to change a zoning district or um uh uh change the regulations of a zoning district in in significant ways that uh there needs to be um uh uh very intensive outreach to the public.

What's basically now happening with the Cove neighborhood study.

So um uh I mean obviously the study is not completed, but uh if there are any zoning changes in the COVID, um uh it will be discussed during the outreach process for the COVID study uh with with community engagement um before anything will be changed uh there.

And I think that's also very important for for uh a lot of the other concerns that were brought up during the comprehensive plan process.

Um there will be outreach to the community before um large scale zoning changes are proposed.

Thank you.

All right.

Um yeah, that makes sense to me again.

I the high-level summary I'm hearing here is that this is actually like slightly restricting uh the development uh rates in R6, just so that they're more consistent with what tends to exist already in these areas.

All right, uh motion on this text change.

Ravi, motion for approval.

Second from chat, all in favor, raise your hand and it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Oh, I did to uh forget to show you the graphics that we will be adding to um the R6 district as well.

Um so but let's let's move on to the next application.

All right.

Our next item is ZD application 225-38, Stanford zoning board text change.

The purpose of this text change is to establish comprehensive standards for the CG general commercial district, including urban design requirements.

So as I mentioned before, this is sort of continuing the theme of uh doing housekeeping in the zoning regulations.

So the CG district actually doesn't exist in a whole lot of places.

Um it's mostly around downtown.

Uh we have one in the south end, and you might remember that not that long ago.

Um 1600 uh uh summer street was rezoned to CG.

Uh that's that's the one on the map north of North Street.

So, like with the VC, we're proposing not to talk about the CG district north of North Street, but naming that CG1 because it has lower densities and and lower building heights and calling everything else uh CG2.

So if in the future we want to use those districts in other places, we don't have to come up with convoluted names uh for those districts.

So the CG1 is um one of the districts that um we refer to as the orphan districts, so uh they don't have their own section really in the zoning regulations, they have placeholders.

Um, but the the meat of the district is actually in the uh the appendices of the zoning regulations.

So oftentimes we get phone calls from people and they say, hey, I I have a um property in the CN district, where are the regulations for the CN district in the ray uh in the in the book?

And uh in the past we had to tell them, well, we don't have any.

You have to check in the appendix where it has like a table with sort of the bare bones height uh setback and and density requirements.

So uh the idea here is really to give the CG district uh its its own full section uh in uh the zoning regulations.

Um most of it or all of it is really based on existing uh regulations that are in the appendices, and we're adding some stuff that we have been uh adding in uh other uh districts like the um lot coverage uh requirements uh and so on and so forth.

Um we try to stay uh as close to the uses that are currently permitted uh in the CG district per the table in uh uh appendix uh A of the regulations.

We made some very minor changes that are in the application material.

So for example, in the CG district, historic sites required a special permit approval.

Uh you have a historic site or you don't have a historic site, you don't need a special approval, special permit approval for that.

But generally speaking, um we we kept the uses that were there.

Um and um also for the CG1, the one north of North Street, uh, they're actually uh uh like size limitations on certain uses.

Uh we kept those in the regulation.

So the the changes to the uses are very very minimal.

Um we uh have similar densities and height regulations that we currently have in the CG.

Uh this is actually one of the cases that we just talked about where we have um units per acre uh for residential and FAR for commercial uses.

So um we're going uh away from the units per acre for uh residential and introduce FAR for all uses.

So that's that's a bigger change, but we try to stay within the the um densities that that are uh currently um allowed.

Um we are expanding uh on some urban design requirements.

So for example, um if you are on what we call a commercial street, um you have to have uh a non-residential uh use on the first floor.

Uh you have to have uh certain glazing requirements or the facade has to be transparent.

Um side street, you can have um residential on the ground floor.

However, if you have residential on the ground floor, it has to be set back at least five feet from the sidewalk.

There has to be a planted buffer.

And the residential use on the ground floor has to be elevated at least two feet from grade, so that people cannot look directly from the sidewalk into your bedroom.

So it's those types of design requirements that we added to that district.

So we added an uh a requirement for site plan review on sites larger than 20,000 from now 30,000.

And also what we're requiring for the CG district, uh you have to get a B rating on the Stanford sustainability scorecard, um in those two uh in those areas.

And this is really sort of higher density around the downtown uh uh area where um we um obviously we we want efficient buildings and and uh sustainable buildings, but generally um we don't expand where the CG district is currently, it's exactly the same spaces, uh, and we try to stay uh as close as possible um to um uh the current uh uh CG regulation.

Um again uh it's not totally uh uh apples to apples because we're going from units per acre to FAR, but we try to stay uh within that.

Um I mean, if if you want to, we can look at it more detail, but but it's all explained in the uh in the application uh material, how the the proposed um uh uh CG aligns with the current CG regulations.

Um this is just uh illustrating the yard regulations for um the uh the CG district uh works actually very similarly to um what's happening in the VC, except that you can have much taller and denser buildings uh in the CG district than you can have in um the VC.

And that's that.

Chat.

Okay, question.

Uh you muted.

Sorry.

Along the same lines that um um you're trying to develop um uh a consistent cogent uh organization to the zoning regulations.

Um CG, I think you said is commercial general.

Yeah.

Um we have uh R districts that start with the letter R.

We have uh some commercial districts that start with the letter C, but other commercial districts that start with the letter V.

Um, could you have uh hearkening back again to the village commercial, uh done it as C-V, so that um the two uh within the bound or within the zoning regulations themselves, the commercial districts are not in in totally different sections of the of the code.

Uh that's actually I I never thought about it.

The VC is something that I inherited.

Uh-huh.

Uh so uh, but but that's actually uh um uh a good idea to maybe uh look into it that way.

I mean the the confusing thing about the CG is so it's commercial general, um, but it's actually a mixed use district and it has always been a mixed-use district.

So uh it's uh but yeah, I I think that's that's actually uh not a bad idea to to look into sort of the the nomenclature to make sure that it's uh that it's unified.

I mean there is also um uh uh other sort of inconsistencies with um like with the residential districts, um like the R5, it reads like a single family district, but it's actually a multifamily district or can be a multifamily district that's denser than the lowest density multifamily district.

So um I I have not found a solution for that, but that is actually one thing that annoys me that there is no sort of um uh consistency in um uh in in naming those districts.

I mean one one thing is that uh what we did finally uh for the longest time our districts in the zoning regulations, they weren't organized alphabetically.

So uh you had the the VC district uh before the C D district, and uh that that obviously is not a good situation, so we uh we fixed that.

Um we're slowly getting there.

Got it.

And and to the extent uh, for example, you you have a desire to introduce CG one and CG2, uh, and and V C one, V C2.

I um that's to allow for whatever current differences exist between those two.

To the extent that and I'm I'm not sure I could think of a reason uh why this would ever happen, but to the extent that there is a need for um a third uh uh VC or a third CG, I this system also allows you to just go CG3, um, as opposed to having to come up with you know nomenclature again.

Yeah, yeah, I I hope we can avoid that.

Yeah, yeah.

We want to reduce districts, not increasingly, right?

Exactly.

Um, but um, I mean that's that's part of it also um thinking about the zoning map, you can't really put CG north of North Street easily on the zoning map, or or uh so if it's just called CG1, uh and it's actually a relatively small area, you you can put it on the zoning map, and it's clear on the zoning map what regulations you have to look for.

Yeah, to the extent that you know um some larger per just using CG as an example, CG one versus CG2.

Um, to the extent that some of the uh language and sections will include basically the same information.

Um from another organizational perspective, could you have the section actually within the zoning regulation simply read as CG?

And then within that you make it clear that you know here the the special requirements for one versus two.

That's that's how um that's how we've written uh the regulations.

Maybe I can just pull up the um where are we so I guess this is the CG.

Uh can you can you see that the the application?

Not yet.

Maybe it helps if I share.

It might uh can you see it now?

Yes.

Uh so this is the actual text um that that is proposed.

And so what you see here is this this is the CG districts that we have today.

So that those two two lines are the CG district.

Right.

Um so we're adding all this other stuff.

So basically, unless it says specifically CG1 or CG2, uh, it applies to both CGs.

And uh what you can see here is that they are actually very similar.

So the lot size is very similar, uh the densities are different, the building heights are different.

Uh um uh, but with regard to usable open space, the below market rate requirements, the sidewalks, street trees, uh signage, uh they all follow uh the same uh uh regulations, the the architectural design uh requirements that we have here um are uh the same.

So um uh we we try to make it as uh um as uh easy as possible uh to to put the things together that belong together and and have the um uh the uh things that are different in the CG1 and the CG2 um uh highlighted.

uh they all follow uh the same uh uh regulations the the architectural design uh requirements that we have here um are uh the same so um uh we we try to make it as uh um as uh easy as possible uh to to put the things together that belong together and and have the um uh uh the uh things that are different in the cg1 and the cg2 um uh highlighted but so we won't if i'm understanding correctly i i i'm fully on board with what with what you're trying to do there um there won't be two separate chapters one for cg one and one from cg2 it's one chapter that has two parts in it yeah same for the bc yeah yeah yeah good good thank you all right uh Jeremy thanks Ralph uh I just had one question in reviewing the the standards for CG2 um it says um lesser 10 stories or 100 feet and then it says premium height lesser 14 stories or 150 feet i guess can you just clarify constitutes a premium height so the premium height is uh when you provide all required required BMR units on site um so uh then then you get the premium height uh if you do a fee in loop payment uh you don't get the bonus density uh and you don't get the premium height got it thank you you're welcome hi well can you go back to the chat which was showing the current uh regulations and the proposed uh can you see it yes yeah i yeah so uh let me so are we increasing the proposed height and I always wondered how did we come up with this eight stories ten stories I mean is there any urban planning guidelines that we follow I mean we're not 25 stories we're you know at five stories so how did we come up with these uh building heights and here it seems to me at least that we're allowing them to build three more stories than what they can do today and maybe I'm reading this chat wrong that is the first question and yeah question I have is you know we have been in this phase of development for a few years now and the feedback we get from the resilience is that all these buildings look alike they're all rectangles with box you know they're very very standard and that is going to make a very boring town so this is a good opportunity for us to put some thought into architectural guidelines and changing the thinking of of the builders around this.

Yeah and so these two points I'm I'm somewhat unhappy with this changes I mean where are we increasing the height or what or maybe we should increase it even more so I don't know and then how you know we need to nudge the developers to think more creatively and build more beautiful urban buildings not just maximize whatever they can build yeah yeah so um we we try to stay as close as possible to the current regulations so the only change with regard to the building height that we made is actually this one here so in the in the CG um uh one uh currently the building height is uh limited to seven stories or 75 feet um we propose it for the CG1 to be increased to eight stories or 85 feet um the reason for that is that um uh uh stick build buildings which are actually the cheapest way of building housing uh uh multifamily housing at the moment um they uh per building code can go up to a height of eight stories or 85 feet so we wanted to align uh those regulations with what the building code allows um with regard to the the uh and remember that the CG2 is basically the original CG district um the the CG one came later uh for that uh we we left it at the 100 feet building height 10 stories um and uh the 150 we actually added the the the limitation of uh stories in there um but the building height itself we left um at what was in there uh once again the goal here was to to um uh create the district regulations without um uh creating um uh a wholesale change in the in the district regulations and with regard to the to the urban design if we go back um can you see the the the text now yeah i yeah yeah so um uh this here

Uh once again, the goal here was to um uh create the district regulations without um uh creating um uh a wholesale change in the in the district regulations, and with regard to the to the urban design, if we go back um can you see the the text now?

Yeah, I yeah, yeah.

So um uh this here, this section, site and architectural design, um uh all this is new, so that did not exist uh in the current um uh uh CG regulations.

So it has what I mentioned before, um, like uh the that you're not allowed to have uh ground floor residences on commercial streets, that um parking needs to be fully wrapped uh by active uses, uh, that you can't park in front of the building, the parking spaces have to be to the back of the building.

Um sidewalk width, all those kinds of things.

Um uh design requirements for ground floors on commercial streets.

So that has the whole thing about that it has to be glazed, it cannot be uh a blank wall, uh landscaping requirements, exterior lighting requirements, uh fencing, like you can't have um chaining fence, you have to have uh uh nicer fence, it has to be contextual, uh fit with um the neighboring buildings.

Um the buildings should have a clear clearly designed uh base, middle and top um uh the buildings should be designed to reduce the the appearance of height by buildings getting lighter towards the top.

Um the building volume should be broken up so that it doesn't look so massive.

So if you have a very long facade, it should be broken up into different um elements.

Um we require certain material, so you can't have um uh what's called eFIS, uh that's basically this this insulation material that is covered with this like stucco that doesn't age particularly well and and looks bad uh fairly quickly.

Um so uh that is not allowed as well as like vinyl and and um uh aluminum siding, so we want high quality facade materials.

Um so we we put in and and all those things have not been in the CG regulations uh before.

So all those design guidelines have been added um here.

And I mean it's it's not the end of that process.

Um what we've also been uh working on are really um uh urban design guidelines uh for uh specific areas of the city.

Obviously, the downtown needs to look different from the village commercial areas from like single family uh areas.

So the idea is really to come up with uh very specific urban design uh guidelines for all of those different areas.

Um at the same time, I think we want to be careful not to over-regulate, because we also don't want everything to look the same.

So even if you have a well-designed building, if you have it repeated over and over and over, it becomes uh monotonous.

So that's sort of the balance we try to do.

Yeah, so thank you.

I agree, I agree with that.

That's that's very good.

But I'm still not convinced on the height.

I mean, why are we increasing the height from 78?

And then on the other place, I saw 10 stories as well.

So wouldn't we standardize all of this to seven stories?

I mean, the thing is uh we wouldn't be able to uh accommodate the the density, and once again, those are the densities and the heights that currently are allowed.

I mean also um in uh in an area like downtown, uh I uh in in like single family districts or low density multi-family districts, um, building height is is very important in uh uh higher density districts.

I mean, what you as a as a pedestrian really perceive are the ground floor and maybe the second floor.

We usually don't walk around with your uh head uh in the back and and seeing the um uh the the top of the buildings.

We still want them to be well designed because you look out the window and you see another building across the street.

Um but uh the thing is also that in higher density districts, if uh your buildings all have the same height.

What you often run into is that uh you get massive shadows.

So if you have higher buildings and lower buildings, um uh you have more sun and air uh uh coming in, and as the sun wanders from east uh to west uh during the day, um you actually get um uh more uh light uh to the street compared to um uh a continuous building wall of let's say seven feet uh seven stories or or or eighty-five feet.

So um yes, in in absolutely in lower density districts, you want uniformity with regard to building side, and that's also where you see the whole building, like those buildings are set back from the street, they have like front yards and and things like that.

So you you see the whole thing in the downtown context, it's uh it's a little bit different.

And once again, we try to limit the the material changes to the regulations as much as possible.

Uh the goal was not to create like a whole new district.

It was it was really um uh giving the district that we have um uh some meat on the bones that currently it does not have.

I got it.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

All right.

Uh can I have a motion on this text change then?

Ravi, uh motion for approval.

Second from Jeremy on favor.

That's unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay.

And uh next we have ZD application 225-4-0.

Stanford zoning for a text change.

The purpose of this text change is to update appendix B tables uh two and three, including the notes, no substantive changes are proposed.

Uh so um as I mentioned before, um uh for a lot of the districts like the CG, the CL, the CC, um a lot of the stuff uh uh the regulations uh are in um uh the appendices, like the uses are in appendix A, the bulk regulations, the height setbacks, etc.

are in appendix B.

Um, and um the problem that we have is um the tables in appendix B.

We have two tables, one for residential districts, one for commercial districts.

So one goal was to combine the two tables.

Uh and the other thing uh that we have is um uh we don't have all districts that are in the zoning regulations in this table.

So um what we're trying to do uh here is first of all combining the tables and then adding the missing districts, not all of them at once, because that becomes a little bit uh uh cumbersome, but uh adding uh the VC, the CG district, uh uh to the table, uh so that everything is in one place.

Um the other thing is that the table has not been updated with some of the parameters uh that we introduced.

So for example, the lot coverage is not in the table in appendix B.

And we've been trying to add lot coverage in all the districts that we've been looking at, so that we have minimum requirements for pervious surface.

Um and then uh there's a lot of um uh notes um uh for appendix B.

And uh it really hasn't been looked at in a long time.

So there were notes when we when we looked at it referencing to zoning districts that don't exist anymore, uh and those kinds of things.

So we we uh take in the opportunity to clean it up um a little bit, but uh there's no changes to bulk regulations proposed, like no changes in building height, density or anything like that.

It's really just combining the tables, adding some of the missing districts, uh, and adding things like uh FAR for residential districts, um uh lot coverage requirement and those kinds of things uh to the table that are already in the regulations, they're just not in the table and updating the uh the notes to um that table.

That's really it.

All right.

Any questions?

Chat.

Um Ralph, um uh I I had occasion to be in the zoning regulations recently for something and and I uh I I know that um I can't I think it's section three or section four, I'm not sure which again it is deals with definitions.

Um but then I found some things that are referenced in some of the regulations that are not actually defined um included in the definitions.

So my only comment is let's make sure that the definitions you know are are comprehensive.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, we've we've been we've been for uh for a very long time uh updating uh the the definitions and adding a lot of definitions that have been missing.

Um but especially when it comes to uses, we have a lot of uses listed in the table in appendix A that are not defined in section four, which is all the use standards.

So uh this is really sort of slowly adding on and filling the gaps uh that uh that we had there.

So uh we're we're we're not done.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

All right, any further questions.

All right.

Seeing none.

Uh is there a motion on this text change.

Chet move for approval.

I have a second, second for Mavi.

All in favor.

And passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh thank you for your patience.

Yes.

Thanks for waiting all through all of this.

All right.

Uh next we have ZB application 225-34, Lisa Feinberg, Carmichael in Tennessee, LLP representing 1241 East Main Street Associates LLC.

Um text change applicant is requesting a text change to permit portions of a non-conforming building or structure exempt from building height to be converted into floor area.

Excellent.

Uh good evening, everyone.

My name is Lisa Feinberg.

I'm a partner with Carme Torrent Sandak and Hennessy and I offices here in Stanford at 1055 Washington Boulevard.

With me tonight is Celine Pather and uh Lance Parisot from Binefield Architecture, and we are uh all here on behalf of the applicant, 1241 East Main Street Associates LLC, uh represented tonight by Michael Massimino.

Um as you know, we're here on a referral from the zoning board in connection with the text change uh to section 10 C1 of the zoning regulations.

But in order to provide you with just a little bit of context, I'd like to start by briefly explaining the related development proposal at 1241 East Main Street.

So, Madam Chair, may I share my screen?

Uh yes, please go ahead.

So uh the property consists of just uh over an acre, 1.19 acres in the CN zone.

It's here with the star here with the star um CN zone and your uh MU1 mixed use neighborhood center uh uh land use category.

It is generally bordered by East Main Street uh or Route 1 to the north, which is just here, um, home court to the west, Houston Terrace to the east, and the R5 uh district over here uh to the south.

It is also just west of the border with Darien.

Most of you probably uh recognize it as the former headquarters for WWE.

However, WWE uh relocated to 707 Washington Boulevard in 2023, uh leaving this building entirely vacant.

Our client purchased the office building and now plans to repurpose this space as housing.

So the current proposal, which is on the right, this is the existing building on the left, contemplates the conversion of the entire building into 84 one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three bedroom units.

Six of these units would be designated as BMR on site.

It also utilizes some of the existing parking in the lower levels of the garage, as well as the mechanical penthouse for uh housing.

The latter is actually the subject of the proposed text change, which I will discuss in just a minute.

As you can see, there'll be some enhancements to the facade, particularly on these lower levels with the incorporation of recessed windows, limestone, and aluminum siding.

So this is a rendered view from East Main Street.

And then this is one from Houston Terrace.

The project utilizes the existing building footprint, but incorporates landscaping and open space improvements wherever possible.

Brings us to the text.

So the text change relates to modifications of legally nonconforming buildings.

Section 10 of the zoning regulations addresses these sort of legal non-conformities.

The general rule is a legally non-conforming use or structure is permitted to be maintained, but it can't be expanded.

Notwithstanding this general rule, the zoning regulations recognize that certain changes or alterations to a legally nonconforming building may be warranted or even encouraged in certain situations.

So for example, a parking garage like the one in this building, which is incorporated beneath the structure, is not counted as floor area for purposes of calculating your floor area ratio or your FAR.

However, absent a rule, providing otherwise, the conversion of that same square footage into habitable space would actually increase the building's technical FAR.

Because this type of change does not actually increase the size of the physical structure, the zoning regulations uh permit this change to a non-conforming building.

We're actually relying on that existing regulation for the conversion of part of the parking garage to uh residential units.

This text change seeks to apply that same rationale to the top of the building.

At the time this building was constructed, mechanical penthouses were exempt from FAR and building height.

However, once they became habitable space, the space was no longer exempt.

So this is the space that we're talking about.

The text change addresses this inconsistency by permitting the conversion of these types of structures, mechanical penthouses, which exist on the building today, when the actual height of the building does not increase.

So if it is approved, um the penthouse would be converted into two two-bedroom units and a one-bedroom unit.

We think this makes a lot of practical sense and sort of truly leverages the investment in existing asset with existing infrastructure support.

We also think the proposed change furthers several of your strategies and policy objectives from the comprehensive plan.

As Ms.

Cohen noted in her memo, converting an underutilized office building into residential units in a MU1 land use category aligns with the plan's emphasis on using existing infrastructure and promoting walkable mixed-use neighborhoods.

Bringing residents into a formerly office-only building promotes sustainable growth and contributes to complete neighborhoods by increasing your around the clock vitality rather than leaving them dormant outside of you know normal office hours.

Effectively, it means more feet on the street.

Conversions are also recognized as a really great tool for increasing housing supply and improving affordability.

So that's really all I had.

I'm happy to answer any questions you all have.

Any questions?

Ravi.

I leave us what I'm just going to head out on.

We have the structure on the top of the building.

Which was built.

It will conforming, I suppose.

But now it is not conforming for whatever reason, right?

And we want to take the structure and make it into some residential apartments.

Is it what it is?

Essentially, yes.

And we cannot do it with the rules as they stand because there's a distinction in the regulations between habitable and non-habitable space when it comes to measuring building height.

So if it's empty, if it's just housing mechanical equipment, it can be there.

And it doesn't count towards my building height.

Once I put people in it, all of a sudden it starts to count towards my building height.

It's the same thing is true with FAR.

If I have parking, if it's a parking structure beneath my building, it doesn't count towards FAR.

But once I convert it into actual apartments, it counts as my FAR.

The regulations today in section 10 already say I can do that, that I can convert this parking structure into housing, notwithstanding the fact that the building's too big from a you know legal conforming perspective.

So what I'm suggesting is that's a really great rule because it achieves you're actively using space that otherwise wouldn't be used, that's already there, and you're not causing any additional visual impact.

The massing of the building isn't going to change.

So why not apply that same rule to the top of the building?

I'm not changing the look of the building, but I'm providing three additional housing units.

Yeah.

So but we're not talking about parking space.

We're talking about the top of the building now.

Yes.

And I presume these rules regarding building heights were done with some reason.

Um they're non-conforming for a reason today.

And to exacerbate that non-conformance by putting people into that space seems to be a little bit odd.

I mean when other when single property single house normal property owners come for any kind of uh proposal in front of us, we do check whether they are non-conformants and some of them are historically non-conforming, but we make sure they don't add to that or they don't you know uh take advantage of the non-conformance by doing something else on their property.

So in this case, I I don't know how this building height and FARs were set up, but I presume there was some logic in that.

And if this space is all is in non-conformance and we want to make them into apartments, that seems we are taking advantage of the non-conformance or aggravating the non-conformance by putting people in that space, you know.

So I guess what I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cover it.

I would actually say oftentimes when the planning board reviews zoning board of appeals applications, variance applications, existing non-conformances are used as a reason for approving the variance application.

Think of all of the times when a home is um too short of a front yard set back, for example, and they just want to go up a second story and they're meeting the front um lot line.

We say, well, they're just meeting the front of the building, so they're not exacerbating the non-conformance.

Um, they're already in the in the front yard.

Um so oftentimes the planning board does use.

Yeah, we do.

We do look at the holistic nature of the proposal, right?

We don't look at just one factor.

Yeah.

So yeah, so in this case, I this is just my personal view.

I think I'm somewhat reluctant to approve the text change uh and say that any building that has got non-conformant height or non-conformance parking space, can now convert that into residential apartments.

That would be completely contrary to the spirit of what this non-conforming or conforming means in my in my humble view.

So I personally would not support it, but I leave it to the other members of the planning board.

Ravi, can I just clarify one thing and and maybe uh maybe I'm the one that it isn't clear?

I just want to make clear that in the regulations today, there's there's an entire section within section 10 that allows you to do what Lindsay just suggested.

And this is these are recent changes that were adopted.

I don't know if Ralph's still on, but not that long ago, that allow if you have a building that's too close to a setback, you can add another story to that building as long as you don't get any closer.

That exists today.

If you have a building like this that is too big, the FAR is too big, and you have a garage underneath your building that's too big, you can convert that space into habitable space today.

That's an existing regulation.

What I'm suggesting is that we have these.

Yeah, but I so if the rules already permit that, then I'm not sure why we have this approval list in front of us.

I think what you're trying to say is the rules permit in some other situations, but not in this situation, and therefore you want the situation to be covered under the rules, right?

Because that's what we're because I think it was an oversight.

But yeah, but I you know, I just wanted to make sure that you understood that those that those situations all exist and they exist so that you can optimize these assets.

Yeah, yeah.

I understand, but I'm just saying when we get a similar proposal from uh you know any other resident for their house modification, uh we look at many factors, not just whether it's historically non-conforming or not and approve it.

We don't do it that way.

We look at many other factors.

So in this case, uh just the fact it is non-conforming by itself does not allow you, you know, grant you the right to make it apartment.

That's what I was trying to say.

No, if you want to bring a case by case up, and I don't know the difference between a text change and how it applies just for this particular building was this town as a whole.

That's fine.

But I am somewhat reluctant to approve a broad exchange, saying, okay, if it's non-conforming, convert it into an apartment.

Uh listen apartment.

That's not the spirit of what is meant by non-conforming, I think.

Understood.

Thanks.

Uh Chat.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh at least I'm glad you understood, because forgive me, Ravi, I didn't.

Um but uh uh Lisa, um if those are converted to habitable spaces, units, um would they um I think I saw in the plan that they each have some outdoor space?

Yes, here, let me show you again.

So potentially um would there be any restrictions on what they can do with that outdoor space so as not to change the the overall uh um visual height or or mass of the building?

Sure.

I mean, you can't put any you know structure on top of the building that would increase the height.

This roof deck is actually for the the entire building to share, and then these terraces are um for individuals.

Um, but yeah, I mean, we wouldn't be able to put anything up there that made it any taller if that's if that's what the question is.

Well, yeah, does it does that include um landscaping and planters and things of that sort, or is that covered Lindsay?

That's not a structure, right?

So unless it unless it's an actual structure, then it wouldn't be regulated.

So if you put a planter up there, I think that would be okay.

Okay, but uh so with um um a bunch of uh very large planters, we could put some 20-foot, you know, uh 20, 20 foot trees uh up on that the roof of that building.

I'm not sure how how the structural calculation.

I'm not sure how that would be received.

I that's not the intention, but um I'm I don't know, Lindsay.

Do you think that that would be regulated?

A 20 foot tree on the I wouldn't, I I I don't think it's I don't know.

I I don't want to really go down that hypothetical.

I don't think they're gonna put a 20-foot tree on top of a building.

Let's just go.

Let me just well, well, you know, uh, I wonder because this is you know, the the green space is the common roof uh terrace, what are they gonna do on that roof terrace?

Just have tables and chairs and you know and umbrellas.

I mean, what I'll tell you is that that's that's not part of the text change that we could do that without seeking any sort of approval, it's just active use on the roof.

I mean, it'll be regulated by the fire marshal's office, and when you go through the whole process, everybody will look at how you're utilizing the space.

Um but unless it's an actual structure, it would it wouldn't be regulated from a from a building height perspective.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions?

without seeking any sort of approval it's just active use on the roof it i mean it'll be regulated by the fire marshal's office and when you go through the whole process everybody will look at how you're utilizing the space um but unless it's an actual structure it would it wouldn't be regulated from a from a building height perspective okay all right thank you sure any other questions yeah i have one um lisa just to go off your scenario there of of the non-conforming space so i guess if this developer was looking to put a two-story edition on this building that would be permitted by the current um zoning standards no no so i can't i can't make it any taller okay but what i can do is use existing space okay and even the regulation as i've drafted it i can't make it any taller okay i was i was i'm just trying to understand because i unless i misheard was that you're saying that you can go up in height but you can't change the setback you can't go farther out than the existing setback no sorry maybe i was confusing so today in and maybe i could even just bring it up uh there's a lot of words so maybe not but in section 10 today there's a whole section that's dedicated to things that you can change to it with a non-conforming building because like I said typically your starting point is you can't change anything but there's been a recognition that you need to make alterations to these buildings sometimes so how can we allow that without exacerbating the legal nonconformity so some of the things that have been identified are okay if I have a building that's too close to like it doesn't it it you know exceeds the setback requirements already existing which this building does too I can go up in height but I can't move any closer right that's in the regulation today if I have a building like this that's too big but it's already there and I've got a parking garage that I'm not gonna utilize because it was an office structure and now I want it to be a residential structure so I've got too much parking I can convert that space that's already there into housing that's already in the regulation what's not there is if I've got a building that's technically too tall because the mechanical penthouse was considered exempt from height it can't make that habitable space and because it's then it's technically taller even though it hasn't actually gotten any taller does that make sense yeah no that's clear thank you all right any other questions all right um I I mean I'll note I I think I think this text amendment makes a lot of sense I think to continue with the examples of other allowances for nonconformity right if it's you know again that is the example of like you know a couple weeks ago we approved you know uh individual homes right that they're trying to build up to the height that's allowed in the district but they're just requesting the variance because of the setback um you know we're allowing those folks in most circumstances as long as it's in um in harmony with the way that the neighborhood already exists because of predated zoning we're allowing like double the height of their building in this case one we're not actually making anything any taller um but two even if you were concerned about you know oh we're adding a few more residents I mean the proportion of additional residents from allowing this existing height to be converted to residential is is minuscule compared to the rest of the building that already exists so I don't I don't I don't see this as like uh a text change that's going to um result in any even in you know future cases you know having um significant impacts because it is just going to be these things where uh things like mechanicals were exempt from height does that make sense yeah okay um can I ask with then one other related question um as you interpret uh this um um lisa could they you know uh for a structure um that has um a 2000 square foot mechanical penthouse well let's let's just say for sake of discussion in this I'm sorry once again a hypothetical uh situation in in our and let's assume this was passed and this was written into the regulations could a developer tear off the existing mechanical meeting sorry could the developer tear off the existing 2000 square foot mechanical penthouse and build a 5000 square foot mechanical penthouse no you have to utilize what's there you're not building anything so you're you you're utilizing this whatever's up there today okay they don't have to use the whole thing I guess they could tear down part of it but they can't I wasn't talking about making it smaller I was talking about making it bigger

Could the developer tear off the existing 2,000 square foot mechanical penthouse and build a 5,000 square foot mechanical penthouse?

Yeah, you have to utilize what's there.

You're not building anything.

So you're utilizing this whatever's up there today.

Okay.

They don't have to use the whole thing.

I guess they could tear down part of it.

But they can't talk about making it smaller.

I was talking about making it bigger.

Oh, I thought you said 10,000 to 5,000.

No, uh, the other way around.

Let's say it's uh the existing.

No, they could not do that.

They cannot make it bigger.

Okay.

Even though they're not increasing the overall building footprint, uh, the limit of the exterior configuration of the building, nor nor the height, but they will increase volume.

Yeah.

They're changing the existing conditions, so they wouldn't be able to do that.

I see.

Okay.

And lastly, does our process um I'm one of the newest members here on the planning board?

Does it give um the applicant um before they come to us uh or zoning, uh, the opportunity to have the discussions with land use staff?

You know, you were you were spec, and I asked this question because you were speculating as uh I I thought I heard you say you believe this was an oversight when when the regulations were written this way.

Um but we don't but we don't know that for a fact.

Um have you had an opportunity to speak with Ralph?

Of course.

I speak to Ralph regularly, and I spoke to him about the text change before I ever proposed it.

I don't remember if he used the words oversight, but he certainly supported the idea and thought it made sense within that section.

Thank you.

That's what I was curious about.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Sure.

My my sense is that the meaning of oversight is that whenever this got added, when this building was built several decades ago, they probably didn't conceive of it being converted to residential, because when you built it in, I don't know, was it built in the 80s?

I don't know when it was built.

I don't think they conceived of wanting to turn a commercial building into residential.

Why would anyone have done that back then?

But now this is what we're doing.

I think it's even more current than that, uh Jen, that when they wrote the regulations allowing um this kind of a building to be converted to residential, they they thought about um you know uh on grade garages, but not on roof mechanical rooms.

Yes.

Right, yes, yes, exactly.

All right.

Um, so do I have a motion on this item?

Jeremy, motion for approval.

Do I have a second?

Yeah, motion for approval.

Do I have a second for approval?

Yes, yeah.

I I guess since I'm the only one, yes.

All right.

Uh okay.

So second from chat.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes with three.

Uh Ravi, uh all who vote against.

Yes.

Okay, you vote against.

All right.

And there are no abstentions.

Thank you, everybody.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um now to the ZBA referrals.

Uh we have ZBA application uh 024-25.

Um, Jason Klein of Carmody Torrent Sundak and Hennessy LLP representing Christ Sanctified Church of the Haitian Ministry Um Inc.

Uh 127 Myrtle Avenue variants of sections uh 12 D4 and 12B1.

Applicant is requesting the following variances to legally allow for up to 100 worshippers, where currently only 36 can be accommodated.

Applicant is requesting A variance of section 12 T4 to allow for seven fewer parking spaces than the minimum required, and B variance of section 12B1 to allow the use of eight tandem spaces on the property, notwithstanding that the property is in the ML zone.

Um if you could introduce yourself for the record.

Of course, yeah.

Thanks so much, everyone.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Jay Klein.

I'm a partner at Carmody Law.

I'm uh Lisa Feinberg's uh partner.

I'm joining you all down the hall from her.

Uh I'm joined by our associate Madison Smith, who's sitting across the table from me here.

Lindsay, would it be okay to make Madison a part of our little Brady Bunch uh uh panel here?

Yeah, she's just got a quick PowerPoint uh to share that'll help us with uh with our presentation.

Um Madison and I are here on behalf of our client, the applicant Christ Sanctified Church of the Hays and Haitian Ministry.

Uh the congregation was founded by the gentleman who's seated to my left, uh Pastor Franck Lewis.

Uh the pastor, his wife, and his daughter.

It's a it's a it's a it's a faith-based effort, but it's a it's truly uh a labor of uh of the entire Lewis family as well.

His daughter is actively involved in running the ministry, as is uh Mrs.

Lewis, uh uh regularly helping uh uh guide guide the faith there.

Uh we are here on a uh unique variance uh uh request that has a bit of history to it that's relevant to not only just the uh ultimate determination that'll be made by your colleagues on the ZBA, but some information that I think will be helpful to all of you as you determine uh the compliance of this proposal with uh master plan.

And and in our review, we we found that it was in fact in conformance, and we were hopeful that you will you will find the same.

Why don't we go to the next slide, Madison?

Show everyone just a uh overview or orientation of the property uh for those of you who are not familiar with it.

It looks like we're still stuck.

Oh, here we go.

Perfect.

We have a little bit of a uh five-second delay here, which is which is fine.

So you're seeing an aerial of the property as it uh exists if you looked it up on Google Maps or something like that, uh uh in preparation for this hearing.

Madison's outlined it in that uh yellow rectangle that's sort of central or slightly page right to the image there.

Uh it's located on the northwest side of Myrtle Avenue.

It's within the ML zone and surrounded by, you know, uses that you'll find in an ML zone.

You have the Riley uh car dealerships that are to the north of the site.

Uh, you've got the funeral homes that are sort of northeast to the property.

Uh you have the Metro North Garage and staging area behind it, the train tracks behind that, and then of course uh I-95 uh uh as you as you travel further northwest or page page left on the image.

Um let's go to the next image, Madison, on our in our presentation here.

Um I think the next image we have is just a zoning map showing you that's in the ML zone.

It is, of course, now uh in the master plan category, industrial flex.

Um, so that's another part of the story here.

Why don't we go to the next slide, Madison?

I think we have what is it, an image of the property if you were walking down the street earlier today or or perhaps this weekend, how you'd experience uh the building.

Um the building mentioned kind of a unique history to it, which is is sort of why we find ourselves uh uh in the position of seeking variance approval.

This building and this site was developed back in 1974.

So a little over 50 years ago, uh uh uh uh uh is is when this site was first uh uh constructed.

The building that you see there is from 74, the parking area that you see there is from 74, and it's largely remained the same in those uh those several decades.

Back then, the zoning regulations permitted uh what we call tandem parking spaces uh to exist on a property.

And so the myriad of industrial and other types of uses uh uh that have occupied this space have utilized the tandem parking area that's that's been on the site in Madison.

I think the next image was maybe an aerial that kind of shows that a couple of years ago.

Um, you'll see this is an image from 2012.

We're we're showing you this image uh because it shows you uh that there used to be uh the the tandem parking area had uh uh you you'll see, I guess sort of in front of the building, two rows of seven uh uh spaces, and you'll see the last few uh shaded in red closest to the street.

Um those uh spaces that are shaded in red.

If you go to the next slide, uh Madison, were uh uh eliminated, not through any act of a owner of the property, but were eliminated by virtue of the fact that Myrtle Avenue was widened a few years ago, if you remember that that uh effort that was undertaken by the city and and the state.

Uh of course, after the building was constructed, uh the regulations were amended to uh limit the use of tandem parking spaces.

So the parking area that's on the site today is is uh legally grandfathered, so it's allowed to continue.

And uh uh certainly any uh future users of the building can utilize that that parking area.

And that's where Pastor Frank and his his congregation come into play.

Pastor, you purchased the property a couple of years ago, 2019, 2020, roundabout that time.

2018.

Yeah, right, 2018.

And uh in those in in that initial uh purchase, uh Pastor Franck was doing some diligence on the property, had some conversations with the zoning enforcement officer at the time, then the acting zoning enforcement officer, right?

A little bit of transition in the zoning enforcement department.

And uh eventually uh when the zoning enforcement officer signed off on a use permit allowing the church to move in.

And uh eventually uh when the zoning enforcement officer signed off on a use permit allowing the church to move in, he indicated his comfort with uh, you know, the utilization of the uh the church using the grandfathered parking area, but he thought it would be appropriate uh or there was a sense that maybe it'd be good to get the zoning board of appeals to kind of co-sign on the use of those spaces or to bless those spaces.

Uh no, no pun intended there, I swear.

So let's go to the next slide, uh, Madison.

Our variance uh requests, there are two specific requests.

I think the first one's I think they're both straightforward actually.

And the first one is really just to allow us to use the tandem parking spaces that uh that have been utilized on the on the site, you know, for the past 50, 51 years.

Um uh we think it makes sense that the building and the area be used as it has been in all that time.

Um, you know, certainly no issues in terms of uh uh increasing any disturbance on neighboring properties.

I think you know, typically we like it when folks, we kind of the folks who attend these meetings, we like it when people reuse existing resources rather than demolishing new construction building, all that kind of stuff that can uh uh cause a disturbance to a neighborhood, you know, reusing existing uh assets is is certainly a good thing.

And then the second facet of the variance request that we're asking for is to allow the existing parking area to support uh you know the congregation as it looks to uh invest in the building and really create a successful or maintain a successful um you know faith-based community here in Stanford as um uh was read into the record earlier this evening.

The church as part of their effort is investing in the building and will uh uh uh envision a church hall that has a hundred seats within it.

Now, um I can't speak for every you know faith community.

I know when I go to church or folks go to see, you know, everyone kind of does their own their own thing, but it is rare that if there are a hundred seats or 50 seats, however many seats in your in your house of worship, um, it's it's rare that all the seats are taken and are occupied, right?

What's important is that you're able to maintain a welcoming space and an inviting space so that uh everyone knows that there will be a spot for them if uh and there'll be plenty of room for them if they come for uh for Sunday, Sunday services.

Um what's good about this request, or one of the uh I think uh really terrific features and facets that Pastor Frank and his family have put to use here on this site is that they've kind of uh uh deployed, you know, what a what a developer or someone in the who does zoning work for a living would call parking management practices, right?

Uh Pastor Frank has a van that drives up to 15 parishioners to and from the site for services uh that he utilizes.

Uh uh the property, I think.

Do we have an image of the there's the van if uh folks are curious to see it?

Um the site is also pretty well, it's centrally located in terms of its proximity to bus stops in the area.

I think we have Madison put together a map that shows you, excuse me, the Elm Street and Jefferson Street bus stops that are in walking distance to to the church.

Um and the other uh uh uh facet that that uh Pastor Frank uh uses that there are some informal uh arrangements uh with neighbors where you know the great thing about operating a church in a commercial district is that when you have your services on Sunday morning, you're kind of the only one open for business at that time.

So it's not like there's uh uh a lot of traffic up and down Myrtle Avenue and there's plenty of opportunity for uh for parking.

Uh we've observed traffic or I should say, utilization of the parking area uh on a number of occasions, and we've never seen a situation where someone is you know parking illegally on the street or there's not enough parking, you know, for folks who are attending Pastor Frank and his family's uh uh services.

Um, why don't we go to the next slide, Madison?

I think always, you know, at the top of mind for you folks and on this board, uh well when you gather on Tuesday evenings is okay, you know, we get it, we see the hardship utilizing existing grandfathered, uh grandfathered uh features, uh uh, you know, making sure that this community can can be maintained at its current location.

But is this consistent with the comprehensive plan?

Is this consistent with the master plan?

And we took a look, even though this was filed, I think under the 2025 plan, we wanted to look at this new plan because it's at the top of our mind.

And if we go to the next slide, Madison identified, I think some really key areas uh in which uh uh this this conforms.

I mean, the great thing about I think any healthy uh or any uh many faith-based uh communities and congregations, and particularly the community that Pastor Franck and and his family have been building over these past several decades, is that especially in today's world, provides folks with the opportunity to connect, come together, build a sense of community and have provide the ties that bind uh all of us together as neighbors and and and friends and and and uh uh really critical and important when you're talking about building up uh uh a city and and really the foundation of any any successful community.

the community that Pastor Frank and his family have been building over these past several decades is that it especially in today's world provides folks with the opportunity to connect, come together, build a sense of community and have provide the ties that bind uh all of us together as neighbors and and and and friends and and and and uh uh really critical and and and important when you're talking about building up uh uh a city and and really the foundation of any any successful community and I think Pastor Frank's uh uh uh congregation really hits the ball out of the park when you look at that standard uh certainly as uh miss cohen noted in her staff report uh consistent with the goals to adaptively reuse and reinvest in existing uh existing improvements and assets so um we are here happy to answer questions that you folks have we hope that we earned you know your uh uh recommendation of approval this evening and we hope uh that eventually in a couple of weeks or next month we will earn the support of your colleagues on the zoning board of appeals too so thank you very much thank you uh chat yeah thank you um Jason I guess uh it is the fundamental issue here that there's an existing zoning regulation that says um there have to be a certain uh number of parking spaces per seat yes what is what is that current requirement yeah so the current requirement is that there is one parking space for every four seats that you have per that you have available uh uh inside a building in inside a church building I should say um what that doesn't take into account is the sort of proactive you know steps that someone like this uh this chairman will take like I said you know it uh uh the the van itself if you're driving 15 people to and from that that wax is a significant number of parking spaces that that you need for for this type of operation um uh I will say too you know uh because I think that that piece you know the fact that we have that van I think that's an important you know I'm gonna be transparent that that's part of what makes this work right part of what makes this request work.

So what we have told um staff because we in the ZBA you do have to meet with staff before you file your application we've said is hey if this if we do earn the approval of the zoning board of appeals the zoning board of appeals can and or we'd we'd welcome it agreed to a condition of approval that says we'll approve your variance but you the church need to maintain that van utilization of that van so that we know that you are continuing to do what you told us you know you told us it works you need to keep on doing that even after you've had your your hearing and um I will say you know Pastor Frank there are a lot of folks who would say look I've got a grandfathered site I'm not doing a hearing I'm not hiring a lawyer I'm not you know Pastor Frank has said I want to be transparent I want to if if if if folks feel better about going through a process then let's do this right because we we're proud of what we do and and we want to make sure you know this continues to be successful and and an example of doing it the right way.

So okay so uh in those discussions um with staff was there any you know so so that we as a planning board and and the city can avoid spot zoning uh um was was there any discussion with staff about whether it's more appropriate in this particular case to somehow seek a text change to the current zoning regulations to allow for alternative uh types of of um attendance without bringing cars to a site and you know under certain circumstances and and what and what and if there was what was their reaction to that yeah no that's a really good question.

And I will say that in the preliminary stages we were encouraged to seek a variance rather than apply for a text change and here's here's why a variance the the variance tool you know you as a planning board in the city of Stanford and the zoning department in general you've got a couple of tools in your zoning toolbox right and a text change is really good for when you have kind of a general I don't want to say problem but you know there's a situation on a number of properties typically or or you're trying to encourage you know more apartments or more offices or whatever it is across the city and and you want to amend the regulations so that you have that opportunity in a couple of places.

What the what the variance tool is for is for when you have unique situations where you know the balancing of the equities and the plan of cut and the master plan itself say you know what we don't want to amend the zoning regulation so that every you know church or every user can can you know enjoy or have the opportunity to you know comply with some alternative standard this is a specific instance where we have a specific user who you know really has a unique set of circumstances that it's unlikely to be uh mirrored in other instances and that unique situation warrants warrants approval and I think the good thing about a a variance too particularly in this context is that because it is such a case by case basis it is um I don't want to say you're not setting a standard that someone else can just point and say well gee you know you let the the the uh Pastor Frank do this you know it's it's really a case by case basis.

So I think a variance tool that that's what the path that we were encouraged to take.

And and in my estimation, for whatever it's worth, I think that's the more appropriate path because you know, we have uh we have Pastor Frank here who's willing to kind of abide by all these park management techniques.

We don't know, and I'm not saying other folks wouldn't, but we don't we don't have that same guarantee with other users.

So I think it's better to uh uh uh deploy this case by case uh practice and a variance is not, and the Connecticut Supreme Court, other courts have held this a variance is not spot zoning.

It's totally separate, totally separate tool.

So that's that's a really good question.

Thank you for asking it.

Sorry if I took too long to answer.

No, you no, that's perfectly fine.

You know, I I am I don't know what any of my colleagues feel, you know, or or their opinions about this, but um uh uh thank you for the distinction about spot zoning versus uh the you know variance application.

Um we we just listened to uh um uh a request for you know a text change for something that uh you know existed in one building.

There was no demonstration that it applied to a second, third or fourth uh that was in town.

Um so I'm I'm I'm hot off the trail of try trying to apply some level of consistency, you know, in our thinking here.

Um I appreciate you know your your conundrum, you know, from uh it sounds like a variance would be more expeditious.

Well, you know, I oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

No, no, no, go right ahead.

The the other distinction um I'd say between what you just heard from Lisa and the matter that you're hearing from us here today.

I mean, the city, uh whether it's the zoning regulations, the master plan, other tools, the mayor's housing uh uh plan, uh um and others, you know, there that that's sort of a general policy goal and and and kind of a hot topic, like we want to convert unused office space to apartments.

So that's why when you when you kind of see these instances as of the example like the old WWE building, that's why I think the regulation, the text change application comes in, comes into play there.

Because that is like I won't say it's the first goal, I won't speak for Lindsay and and her uh colleagues, but that's like gotta be right in the top five or top ten, I'm not sure.

And I don't know that you know parking management techniques deployed by houses of worship is is quite quite up there yet.

There may come a time.

And you know, what I would say uh is that if there are uh typically when you see the transition from okay, the variance isn't appropriate, you should do the text change, is when you see, you know, if they're like four or five churches or four or five who come forward with the same problem, then you kind of say, okay, we should amend the regulations, kind of like what's happened with the convert.

Okay, there are a lot of office buildings that need to be revitalized.

That's why we need a text change rather than going parents for out.

Just and lastly, and uh, and then I yield um uh you know, the more fundamental issue in both cases is adaptive reuse, which which opens uh the door in my this my particular case relative to this uh your request.

Back in 1974, was this building built for the church or was it built for commercial use?

No, and I'm sorry, I should have clarified that.

So that it would it's been utilized for I would call industrial commercial uses from 1974 up until 2018 when pastor when when it was purchased by the by the church.

So okay.

So, you know, I I would uh argue um that you know uh conversion of um offices to housing, um, well it yes, a totally different building type and you know involving a different number of people and and that situation is a similar type of adaptive reuse as converting an industrial building to a place of worship.

You know, they're they're they're their adaptive reuse in the literal sense of the terms.

Uh and that's what the city is aiming to do.

So we don't have empty buildings laying around.

They just uh there's more demand uh uh right now for offices to housing than there are from industrial buildings to places of worship.

That's why you know it's not it's not a more of a policy issue or or whatever.

Right.

Okay, and I think yep, I think that's the reason why they we were told, you know, let's let's go let's do a variance.

And if it becomes a bigger policy issue, then maybe one day there'll be a you know we'll see what the future holds.

Okay, I yield thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, so uh Jason, just uh clarification.

So 100 worshippers require 25 parking spaces.

And how much do you propose to have, including the eight tandem spaces?

How much how much do you propose to have?

So we will have there are 16 striped parking spaces on the site.

Because we lost two parking spaces uh by virtue of the widening of Myrtle Avenue.

Remember, we showed you those images.

What the zoning uh department is can their consistent policy is if you is if you lose parking spaces through no fault of your own, you can count those towards your parking requirements.

So we have when you when you write down your variance request, that's why we're we're saying we're asking for variance of seven because the requirement is 25, but we have credit for for 18.

So that's that's how the math uh uh where does it say eight tandem spaces?

So where does so I understand the math math, right?

So hundred worshippers require 25 parking spaces.

Yep.

So 16 striped parking spaces plus the additional two, which is 18.

So you need a variance of seven fewer parking spaces.

I I get that, I get that.

Yes, okay.

That one is fine.

Then the second request is asking for eight tandem spaces.

What what does it mean?

Sure.

And Madison's just queuing up another.

Um, I'm pointing because I can see it on our screen here.

Um, the the plot plan to help illustrate this.

Um let's just say I think it's just loading up for folks.

Sorry.

Okay.

Yeah, we see the title block.

Okay.

Sorry, guys.

What we'll do is uh we're pulling up the plot plans, and Madison will just point to the tandem spaces that we have called out.

So uh why don't you the row of six that we have um in front of the building, Madison?

Can you so can you make that bigger by any chance?

Yes, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the tandem spaces, I'm counting as the spaces kind of behind the other spaces.

Uh, so it's the if you can just go through like just cursor through the row of six to the to the left.

Yeah, the that row, those are six tandem spaces, and then you see the group of four vehicles sort of in the right there, those are uh two additional tandem spaces.

So that's how we get to the eight tandem uh parking spaces.

Where does it require an approval?

I'm I'm just I'm just curious.

Wait, this is already existing, right?

What does it need an approval?

Uh well it it again, this was uh this all started in sort of that transition period where we had a zoning enforcement officer, then an acting zoning enforcement officer, and what the acting zoning enforcement officer said is that you know, you you've demonstrated a pretty good case in terms of the grandfathered status of these of these uh parking spaces.

However, I would feel more comfortable if you know the zone.

I would feel more the the acting ZEO feel more comfortable if the zoning board of appeals takes a look at this as well and kind of blesses the the the use of of these spaces.

Um so again, you know, some people I won't say who there's some people say no, you know, I'm not doing that.

I'm just gonna kind of stick to this administrative path.

And but but Pastor Frank said, okay, if that's what makes folks feel comfortable, uh um, I'm happy to file the variance application.

So that's why we've made that part of our part of our request.

I got it.

Yep.

Did that answer your question?

I'm sorry, I I might my sound went out a little bit.

Okay, gotcha.

Any further questions?

Just one.

If I I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Um what's the typical attendance um of the congregation um today?

Oh on top like uh 40 store 50.

Okay, probably right.

Yeah, and that that you know, 40-ish give or take, you know, uh uh 36 to 40-ish type type of range.

Um that's where we're at right now.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So so the um uh the pastor's uh desire to increase the capability up to 100 is just uh for the moment uh future planning, uh future growth planning.

Yeah, and uh for whatever it's worth, you know, what what will happen in other and perhaps you've seen these applications too, you know, but kind of similar to private schools that go to the ZBA where they talk about instead of seats in a worship hall, it's enrollment numbers, the ZBA will put a cap.

Is it you told us it's it's this number?

Give me four six eight so uh so based uh on the uh the uh eight tandem um and and let's assume the presumption is 18 parking spaces um the eight um the are the tandem uh currently at you know not allowed on the on the site is that part of what the issue is or or it is there a another restriction that says no you could you can't do a tandem parking here right so in the 70s when this building was built it was allowed so I think it was in the 80s or 90s that the regs changed with regard to that that specific issue tandem spaces um and again so what what we were told is that you know we we'd prefer that the use of the tandem spaces be blessed by the ZBA rather than just signed off by the by then the acting zoning enforcement officer.

What I'll say too just I should have mentioned this before, but again for whatever it's worth talking about those parking management techniques um if there is like if there's an instance where I I'm I'm sitting in the pew but I've got to go something happened and I got to get out but someone's parked behind me.

You know you can if it's Madison behind me, you know I can there's no issue going up to Madison and show back out the car.

Also this gentleman right here has no problem acting as the you know the valet in those instances but that's that's worked well that's worked very successfully in the past too.

So yeah I'm curious why the um uh when when the city uh took some property to expand the road um why changing the zoning is not a similar condition um at one point you were you know based on you know for uh it based on the 18 overall parking spaces on the site you would have been allowed a c you know to a com the building would have been allowed to accommodate 72 people right yeah um so yeah yeah well and they want we know when they want to widen the road there's only so much that so much that we can do right yeah no of course of course yeah yeah and it does look you know the sidewalk looks good the you know there's a lot of good that comes from that too so I shouldn't sure okay all right any further questions okay um yeah kind of as stated there were um and I think in the staff report there was some suggestions of like some conditions to attach to the recommendation that it's associated with the continuance of this uh the van as a uh parking and demand management strategy um and there was also a note about um that kind of there are some informal overflow um parking arrangements um and to say just encouragement to formalize those informal arrangements yeah uh I mean I can speak to that briefly if you if you'd like uh Miss Godzino um you know uh I'd say you know those parking management uh or the the shared parking arrangements or agreements that are formal and we typically see when we're you know here with someone who's building a couple dozen perhaps maybe a couple hundred apartments right or tens of thousands or hundred thousand square feet of space you know um Pastor Frank is not a developer he's not a builder I would say that he has demonstrated you know uh and not just a willingness but a capability to uh uh deploy parking management techniques that are appropriate for this scale and perhaps you know conditions like I said utilizing uh um uh the van um uh you know making sure that that's always deployed making sure that there's uh frequency in terms of getting folks in and out in a safe fashion and making sure that there's never parking on on the street or anything like that.

Perhaps those are appropriate conditions for this scale.

And if those prove to be ineffective then there may be a need to level up.

My worry is that you know with the parking shared parking agreements um you know creates a bit of an undue burden on a user like this because you know you go to TTP you got to lawyers have to negotiate the documents between property owners then there's I I don't know if it's annual or quarterly or whatever it is but you know the the reporting back to the it's just not something that um you know I I think we've struck the balance for this type of use but um you know obviously we we appreciate your consideration and and all the comments and the review that that Ms.

Comb provided for this project.

Okay.

I do wonder um without going through like kind of the formal process of a shared parking agreement if like kind of more informally if they were just sort of like a letter or two from the adjacent property owners who say you know we've kind of had this arrangement for a while um I I imagine that might be sufficient to satisfy especially I think based on what you've described about the fact that the use of this property is um the peak use is different from the peak usage of the adjacent properties so the likelihood of competition for spaces is pretty much zero.

Yeah we we can work on that as we gear up for um for the ZBA hearing if that's something you guys want to okay we can prepare for that.

Yeah sure and hopefully that's you know pretty low burden to just you know have someone write a note that documents what's already happening.

Understood um so with that um so if the um I think the planning board in our recommendation to ZBA can include the suggest that it be the approval be conditioned upon the continuance of the van.

So with that put out there do I have a motion for approval and if there are any conditions you want to add to that all right Ravi motion for approval with the van condition second by Jeremy all in favor I think I saw all the hands.

All right and it's approved thank you.

Thanks so much everyone have a great evening you too take care of all right um last but not least I think I just said end of end