I have you know we can see Chet, thank you.

Okay, that is so weird.

That is so weird.

So I started the meeting, and then that allowed you to see Chet and Bill, even though Robbie, you're a presenter, and here's Bill is calling me.

Hold on.

Maybe Ravi, I was um in the lobby with everyone else.

Yeah.

Okay.

So Bill is leaving and rejoining.

Um and Jennifer will be joining shortly.

So uh for folks who are on, uh just give us a couple minutes for our chair to to log in.

Okay.

So now we have uh Jennifer has joined.

There it looks like you're getting your video on.

Looks like she may be having some video difficulties.

Hi, can you hear me?

Hi, yes, we can hear you, but it looks like the video is not working.

Uh I can't hear you, but I think it's because I turned off a setting.

All right.

That should work now, I think.

Can you hear me?

Yes, yes, I can.

Okay, cool.

Great.

Um, so we do have a quote for um.

Um Ravi Chet.

Well, now that you're on, Ravi and Chet are on and we have a quorum.

Bill um is having difficulties joining, but he can't unmute himself or get his uh camera on.

So I will work on that in the background if you want to start the meeting.

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

Go ahead and get started.

All right.

Um evening.

This is the November 18th meeting of the Stanford Planning Board, a regular meeting.

Um our first item on the agenda is uh the planning board minutes, uh meeting minutes from November 5th, which was a capital budget uh meeting, a quite long capital budget meeting.

Um are there any um questions or amendments uh from the members about the minutes.

Okay.

Um seeing hearing none.

Uh do I have a motion for the minutes.

Hey, Jen, I cannot cannot vote on this because I left in the middle.

So oh, right.

Uh we might need to table this then because we don't have quorum to vote on the minutes.

Well, I think uh Bill was not on the meeting.

Right.

Well, I think we need Yeah Okay.

Right.

It was only you, Jen and me.

Then I mean Robbie, you were there, but you just left early.

Yeah, right.

Um, I mean, I guess that's a procedural question for Lindsay.

Because I mean, I think I I will say that the um at the point that you had hopped off.

Um, the minutes really just continue to describe the departments that presented.

And other than that, there's really no substantive uh items within the minutes um from the period of 9 30 to 11 um because there's not detail um uh so I I think unless I hear otherwise from Lindsay, I think it should be fine for you to vote on the minutes.

I have no problem with that.

Okay.

All right, that's thank you for having us.

Then I'll move uh approval of the minutes.

I think uh move approval from chat, second from Robbie.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Which then we'll uh we'll confirm that that was appropriately moved.

And if not, then they'll come back at a future meeting.

Um also there was um an updated uh planning board uh 2026 meeting schedule, uh, which with the specific amendment of realigning the April dates so that they didn't um conflict with the Stanford Public Schools spring break.

Um if you've had a chance to further review, are there any other um notable date conflicts that we should be aware of uh on the calendar?

Not that I saw.

Okay.

Um all right, so that is the meeting schedule that will be um published for 2026.

However, you know, I'll I'll as things arise, or if you see new uh conflicts, please do raise them and make sure to include Leslie in that correspondence.

Jen, forgive the interruption just for a minute.

Ravi, yes, um your computer microphone must be right next to the pages that you're flipping.

Absolutely.

Could could you mute yourself when you're not speaking?

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Well, um with that, um, and sorry, Lindsay, I don't know if you heard when we were shuffling back and forth.

So we just voted on the minutes.

Um Robbie did note that he had stepped out at 9:30.

Um, we had like another hour and change, but really all that's in the minutes is just the listing of the departments per the what had already been published.

So um I think that that should be sufficient for quorum, but if uh if the legal department comes back, I'm glad to bring it back on another date.

Um, but we'll be missing Robbie at the next meeting, and then Jeremy should be back.

Okay, anyway.

So just noting that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um next on our agenda is a subdivision.

Um for subdivisions.

Um we do have uh public notice requirements.

Um so Robbie, um, if you have the legal notice, uh, if you could please read that into the record.

Um again for a subdivision 4059 um 188 emory drive.

So Lindsay, I didn't get any legal notice.

Am I supposed to have a legal notice?

Uh it's the legal notice for public hearing.

And since it's a two-lot subdivision, there's no public hearing.

Um you can see the presenters won't let you Len, you can unmute yourself.

Um let me double check public.

Um, should I uh should I read this into the record, Lindsay, since I I have I have the legal notice.

Yeah, it doesn't vote that for subdivision.

Um this is the public hearing.

Good.

Okay.

Yes, please.

All right.

Um can you guys hear me?

Yes, I can hear you, Bill.

We can okay.

I can see a few of you and the other ones are circles.

Okay.

Yeah, that should be that's that's right.

Okay.

Okay.

Great.

Great.

So Bill was able to join at 6 42.

All right.

Okay.

Um, so reading into the record, legal notice, planning board, city of Stamford notices hereby given that the Stanford Planning Board has received the following application for the subdivision of property into two parcels for review at its November 18th, 2025 meeting, conducting via the internet and our conference call at 6:30 p.m.

This item may be moved to future meeting time and date at the discretion of the planning board.

Um subdivision number 4059.

Janice and William Mark Lenin, 188 Emory Drive East, two lots.

Applicant is proposing to subdivide this 1.0098 acre parcel into two lots, which is commonly known as 188 Emory Drive, Assessor Number 001147.

The property is located directly southwest of the intersection of Emory Drive East and No Block Lane with Emory Drive East at the eastern property boundary and no block lane at the northern property boundary.

The property is in the R20 district single family.

And I will skip over the logistical elements on accessing the meeting.

But that this notice was dated by the city of Samford on the 10th of November 2025.

And with that, we'll go ahead and invite our presenter.

Right.

Oh hi, uh Len DeAndrea with D'Andrea Surveying Engineering PC.

We represent the Lenands tonight in this lot split application.

Your summary is correct.

And uh can you see this on your screen at this point?

No, I don't see.

I gotta do another share.

I think you yeah, it's a double, double, it's like multiple clicks.

So share in the box, select the screen, and then share in the bottom right corner.

And then share in the bottom right corner.

I think it's like a round blue button.

Yeah.

Okay, share.

I'll also take a moment to just note as a logistically for everyone that unfortunately Teams has decided to put the share button right next to the end event button and the leave button.

So when you leave, please click the leave button that's all the way on the right, because if you click end event, it actually ends the recording of the hearing, and we all have to leave and come back in.

So applicants, as you're coming forward, please just be really careful about what button you're pushing as you're sharing and or leaking.

I think I have it here.

Here we go.

Okay.

You got it.

All right.

Phew.

Here we have uh existing conditions, Tobo.

That is that is correct.

This is the existing conditions.

And um well, this house is built in um 1956.

It is an oversized lot in the R20 district.

Uh the Linands bought this in March of 2024.

And as they explore their options with the property, we met with them and said it is certainly subdividable based on the zoning regulations.

And they thought that was a pretty good idea.

So we did our topographic survey as we would normally do.

And let's see if I can enlarge a little bit more for you.

And we also had a uh soil scientist go out to the property to um determine if there were any wetland resources, water courses, etc.

They did come up with a small wetland pocket here in the southwest corner, of which was delineated by William Kenny Associates and then mapped by us and extends a little bit more into the two adjoining properties.

So with that, we decided to see how best we could configure the two lots.

And um, we came up with this configuration because the reasons is this is not a builder, they're homeowners, and they like the house they're living in now, so they like to preserve it.

So we created the lot that you see here, which has the circles that fit as required by zoning, and it protects the house with the side setbacks.

Uh, given that they had the wetland resource in the back, and given that it's a subdivision.

We then made sure we uh protected that area with uh open space slash conservation easement of 10%.

Uh if you know the next step that we have to do is decide whether or not it is a developable lot, and this area uh has sewers and water, electric.

So we didn't have to worry about a septic design.

And going back to our conceptual design.

Uh, let's see.

This is what we are uh showing as a feasible um development plan that we have a modest uh single family home, two-car garage, straight out driveway onto Knob Blocked Lane.

There, the site distance is great.

Um, we did some test pits to determine that the soils are adequate so that we could design a system to take care of the uh drainage manual requirements.

Uh this provides a very nice backyard, provides a good amount of separation from the land, the lands themselves, and a good setback distance from the wetlands in the rear.

There's some trees in the back that um with this development plan, we don't see a need to disturb that area.

Um there would be some trees taken down.

The other thing we did as well with our notices, um, the neighbors, one neighbor, well, two neighbors reach out uh to me on on the subdivision to explain it.

One was over in this area here in the corner of West Rock Trail and Knoblock, and the other more recently were the neighbors just to the west.

And we met on site with them, the Lennands and their representative, and they were just concerned about um how can you make our life a little easier uh during construction should you just to um um construct this home or even sell it to a developer at some point in time.

So we've agreed that we would provide some evergreen screening on this common line.

We also agreed that we would shield this area with, say, like a green fencing or something like that, just to give them more privacy because beyond this shed uh next door is a pool.

And the Linans were very agreeable to that.

And so we um we understand through their discussions with our client, they have no objection to the subdivision.

Other than that, um the application went out the referral to the various agencies, some comments here and there, no comments from other agencies.

Engineering had their typical comments basically make sure it's designed to the drainage manual.

We'll look at it again.

Should you come back with the house and EPV as well?

And EPP um in their summary report dated um September 15th, they recommended what I would consider 11 standard comments.

Things we see almost every day in our in our line of work.

And we have no objection to any of them being conditions of the subdivision approval so you decide to approve this application.

I um I don't think I really have anything more to say.

It's pretty straightforward and standard.

Again, no septics, drainage out in the street, uh gas and and water, electric, and it meets all the requirements for a two-lot subdivision.

With that, certainly take any questions.

Um Chuck, question.

Yeah.

Len on here, it looks like the side yard setbone on the western property line.

Um is must be literally right on the corner of the building, is it?

Uh are you talking about the existing house or proposed?

Proposed.

Okay.

So the proposed house would be a minimum of 15 and 20 on the opposite side.

What we're showing here is about 17 or 18 feet, as I recall.

Uh and then we still have move to roof move around here.

You know, the Lenans may be a little selfish in that respect and say, look, I prefer if you keep it to the 15 feet on the other side.

And this actually lines up pretty much with the house on the other property.

So that's and again, this is conceptual.

It can change as someone comes forward to actually submit a house design.

Yeah, yeah.

I I um I asked only because I was a little surprised not to see um uh the the yet setbacks uh of the on the new lot on any of the drawings that defines the developable um area of the lot.

You know, that's a that's a good point.

And um, I will remember that in the future.

Uh, yeah, this would be a standard envelope.

The when you do the side yard, it can be a combination, right?

It can be 17 and a half and 17 and a half on the other side.

The main thing would be the minimum 15.

And I would do that for you in the future.

But this does meet the setback, the road width is 50 feet.

The front setback in this case would be at least 40.

And the rear, as you can see, is not an issue, and that only needs to be 30 feet.

Just out of curiosity, is the diagonal line that is closest to the existing house considered a side or a rear?

Um, so this is both.

They're both a corner lot.

In a corner lot of the residential, you have no rear yard.

So in this case, you have a front setback.

Right.

Yep, a front setback off of knoblock, front off of Emory, and then you have a side and side opposite.

But this is different because this one is not a corner lot.

So you have your front, side side, and then of course we in the back, the rear.

And in this case, the conservation needs is more of a setback than the actual rear property one.

So I uh I was specifically asking about the proposed uh lot line uh for the new uh new lot that's parallel to the existing house.

This year.

Uh yes.

Um, is that considered a uh uh uh uh continuation of the rear or continuation of a side?

This would be the side lot line for both properties.

Okay, gotcha.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

Um and I'll just uh before I get your question, Ravi.

I just want to note procedurally.

So um so the planning board has jurisdiction over subdivisions, and so the question before us uh for this is whether the subdivided lot um conforms to uh the comprehensive plan as well as whether it meets the requirements for a lot within this uh zoning category.

Um and so um as noted, the uh drawing there of a proposed uh home is purely conceptual, and so we're not considering today whether or not we like the siting of this particular conceptual thing or whether or assessing the developable potential of the lot.

It is just whether the two lots um as subdivided conform to the um the comprehensive plan category as well as the zoning category.

And then in further application, should a um new property owner decide that they want to move forward with development, then uh that would occur with the building department and other appropriate agencies.

Uh just for that context.

Um Ravi, I see uh your hand.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, so uh I know you mentioned that uh you got some feedback from the neighbors and I don't know which children's neighbors will we have a letter from one of the neighbors.

Uh his name is um Mr.

Musili, I think.

Uh requesting for some consideration in terms of uh landscape screening, uh not using the uh property for doing construction, etc.

So have you considered that?

Uh yes, I alluded to that a little earlier.

That that is the uh representative of the neighbor to the west, and we met on site and we looked over the site plans.

That is uh the letter you're referring to, I believe, is from Mario Mussilli, and he is a land use attorney, or I shouldn't say it that way.

He is an attorney in Stanford, and he was representing the neighbors to the West.

Okay, let it go.

Thank you.

So they I'm sorry, they didn't they did list out six different items, and those were what I had talked to landscape screening, uh little protection fencing by their in construction and a few other things, no uplighting on trees and things like that.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

Um Bill, I see your hand.

Can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

Oh, okay.

I just had a question, a general question first.

Was there a staff recommendations with this package?

I I don't see any, but we were emailed the memo, but I uh I I don't have a print copy of it in front of me.

Oh, we were emailed.

Okay.

Uh okay, and then my second question is for staff.

Do they feel this uh subdivision meets everything and is a good thing?

I do.

Um this is in the residential one uh single family future land use category, uh low density residential areas dedicated primarily to single family detached homes.

Um that's exactly what they're proposing here.

Okay.

Yeah, zoning compliant lot.

And I one thing I did mention that uh conservation easement area um is perfectly cited with the wetland.

So um that's that's a really great benefit.

All right.

Um well, if there are no further questions, um see if there's a motion on this item and the motion can include reference to the um the conditions that were requested by the um the the neighbors to the west.

Um Bill, is that motion?

That that's a motion to approve.

Okay.

I I do want to ask what can you see me or do you just see the circle face?

I just see a circle face, um, but using the raise hand I'm able to see.

Okay, because it says that the camera is not available for me today for some reason.

Okay.

I had the same issue for most of the last meeting.

So and I have it down.

It won't let me um reappear.

All right.

Well, we hear you, we saw you.

So um, so Bill has put forward the motion for approval.

Um Jennifer, can I just like specify um because you you mentioned the conditions citing um the requested mitigations from the the from the neighbors, um, but Len noted it uh specifically they discussed uh trees and um a green fencing.

I didn't know if the let the letter I think asked for more than that, so perhaps we can just go with what led said they agreed to um that that seems appropriate to me.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, so a first from Bill.

Do I have a second on the motion?

A second from Robbie.

All in favor, raise your physical or digital hand approval.

Okay, I'm raising my figured out the okay, got it.

All right, thank you very much.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh sure I stay organized.

Uh all right.

Next on our item, which I imagine many members of the public are on to listen to uh is uh zoning board referral, uh ZB application 225-36.

Uh John FX Liden Jr.

Esquire representing B properties LLC and GNT of Stamford LLC 27 High Ridge Road zoning map change.

Applicant is proposing a map change to 27 High Ridge Road from the current R20 one family residence zoning district to the CN commercial neighborhood zoning district.

Um, and as our presenter is coming on board, I will just note for the record that we received a very high volume of letters um in opposition to this change uh from neighbors as well as uh some other uh interested parties and uh associations.

Uh John, is there anybody else from your team you'd like me to bring forward?

Uh yes, please.

Ums Cohen.

We have um Matt Pop from Environmental Land Solutions, our landscape architect.

All right, anybody else?

And um from Redness and Mead.

Right.

We have Ray Mazio and David Pintel.

Okay.

Okay.

David is going to be handling the video portion of this.

Oh, you go ahead.

Sorry.

All right.

Um, so as you get that set up, um I do want to note that I one of the major questions that we received in many of the public comments was um an evaluation of the necessity for the lot given the current uh capacity at the property.

Just to so that's noted as you're making your presentation.

Sure.

Um should I proceed?

Please.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the board, Ms.

Cohen.

Um, you've heard who's here.

Um my son James is also here, my technical guide and um Ed Smith of Um, and that's Dave Pinto's just brought up um picture of the area, including our site, uh, which is um the northern northeastern corner.

Um the the more or less square that you see um on the east side of of the site outlined in yellow.

Um I'd also like to introduce Ed Smith, who's a principal of one of the applicants, and um he wanted to say a few words before I then proceeded with the presentation.

Yes, to the members of the planning board, thank you for letting me speak.

My name is Edward Smith.

My family has lived in Stanford since the early 1900s in 1929.

My father started a retail business just in time for the depression.

That business became still made drug stores and served this community for 69 years.

My father and his partner in the drug stores bought the land for the shopping center in the 1950s.

I was born and raised in Stanford and have lived and worked here my whole life.

I love this city and take pride in it and want to see it thrive.

I want to start by saying that I truly understand our neighbors' concerns.

I read every one of the letters that were sent to the by the neighbors to the board.

Your homes are here, your families are here, and the way the land around you is used matters.

And speaking for myself and my partners, we respect that.

This project isn't about more development, it isn't about growing the shopping center.

It isn't about growing the shopping center.

It isn't about constructing another building or adding more traffic.

It's about making more and better and safer parking available for existing tenants and shoppers without harming the neighbors.

We listen and we care about the impact on the community and the neighborhood.

And we're committed to do this responsibly with respect for our neighbors.

Thank you.

Thanks, it so I think that's important here that the Smiths family's been here in Stanford a long time and has been the family behind an institution with uh somate drugstores.

And um a lot of people have left.

Ed hasn't.

And um he intends to stay here for the remainder of his life.

And um he for the last 10 to 15 years has personally managed the shopping center.

So he's a hands-on manager and um intends to continue in that capacity.

Um we were before this board in in June requesting a master plan change, and we're before you tonight requesting your support of a zone change application, and that's it.

Uh we're asking that the current parcel that I identified, it's currently zoned R20, be rezoned to CN.

And I think it's important to note and interesting to note that our application was uh to recategorize the designation to master plan category seven, which was approved.

Um that was under the 2015 plan.

Under the new comprehensive plan, um, we're in the MU3, the mixed use urban.

And um we didn't request that designation, it it was determined that that was what was appropriate, and it appears to me that that's a step up in intensification from the seven.

So that the that category was formerly category nine, and um and I'll read a few words from the master plan shortly, but uh apparently it's it's a little bit more intense than category nine was so we're not here before you with a site plan application, we're here for a zone change application, and I believe that the current zoning is inconsistent with your master plan, and that a CN, although not asking for the full-blown consistency that that the words that describe this category reflect.

Um we believe that the appropriate use of the site is commercial.

Um the uh future land use quick reference and the future land use detail guide on pages 55 and 56 for mixed use uh urban um reference, and I won't won't read the whole thing, but um higher density multifamily housing umong other uses and the description of the category, which is on page 65, again makes that same reference, and in a column on the right that references uses, talks about higher density multifamily housing, e.g., mid-rise apartments, typically four to eight stories in the area north of downtown.

Um then in the second paragraph of the brief description, it says uh this category modestly expands the 2015 Master Plan's urban mixed use designation to enhance the connection and step down between Stanford's core and emerging urban areas such as Bull's Head and Harbor Point, and that's where we are at Bullshead.

So I believe that the city is envisioning growth at Bull's Head, and certainly not envisioning a single family home designation that the Arc 20 is.

Um construct four to eight story apartments, we need a more intense zone.

We're requesting the least intense of the commercial zones.

Um purchased the parcel in question um just before 2000 and approximately 1997.

So they've been stewards of this property since that point in time.

Um it's been taxed, and I don't know when that began, but at least currently is taxed as commercial.

I think that's probably a mistake, but we never quibbled about it.

But it amounts to probably north of 20,000 per year.

Um that we've paid, and hopefully, we'll continue to pay because it's rezoned.

But when you think about that over a number of years, that's somebody's salary.

Those are those are salary and benefits over the course of a few years of a city employee.

And um our development that we've had that's home goods just seems to be a very favorite of shoppers in town, and um we hope that business continues there, but we've got to provide for what the future may bring and what the comprehensive plan envisions.

I made this point prior meeting before this board, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

We appreciate that.

Um, that it if we were to propose a single family home there, I believe people would just scratch their heads.

Um, it's just not appropriate.

I we've read the letters as Mr.

Smith has said, and we understand that there's concern about the trees, but whether this zone change application is approved or denied, that doesn't impact the trees.

The if we were to develop this residentially, there would be a clearing, there'd be a driveway, there'd be a house site, there'd be front yard, a backyard, side yards that would result in a clearing of trees as currently zoned.

Um so what we're asking is that the board make the property consistent with its master plan category um or recommend that the zoning board um approve a zone change that we believe would be consistent with what the comprehensive plan provides and envisions.

Um we have uh Dave, if you can show the the um pictures of the the parking lot, um I'd provided before pictures from about a year ago, and we met with neighbors um in the beginning of October or so.

Um Dave, could you show those pictures, please?

Um of the more recent ones.

Um those are the prior ones, the next set, I believe.

There you go.

And Ed and I met at the site um around midday, we was early afternoon, but I don't want to misdate the time, but to just look at the site before we met with some of the neighbors, and um uh it was only there to meet and and observe specifically where someone's house was as it related to our site, and this is the state of the lot in October.

It's not full, but it's a pretty random day and a pretty random time that there were only maybe six to eight parking spaces available.

Um over the last two days I've been to the site in preparation for this meeting, and the same thing has happened midday, maybe six to eight parking spaces at most available, and cars coming in.

So you have a congestion, you have a clogging of the site, people waiting for each other to come in and out, and um that's not optimal.

And over the next two months, as we get closer to Thanksgiving and as we get closer to Christmas, this is going to intensify.

So, yes, there are regular times where this is not the case, but and there are open spaces, but there are regular times where we're full, and if you're gonna look to the future, um, we need the spaces.

We hope to direct um employees to park in this area that we're proposing, um, if approved, and and and there will be a building permit process.

We've heard concerns expressed about engineering.

Um, if we're approved when we apply for a building permit, we'll need to go through the engineering process.

We'll be vetted by all the boards, and um, we'll need to build a quality structure that that withstands the review that's provided by Stanford.

Um the trees also was a finding on our part.

We we didn't know this going into this application process, but in light of the questions and the concerns, and we recognize them as Mr.

Smith has pointed out.

Um we've inventoried the trees there, and um the approximately, and you have on your chart, hopefully you have that was um submitted today.

Um Matt Pops analysis, and a little over half of the trees that are six inches in diameter or more are invasive.

So, although aesthetically they may have a nice look, and I think a person who's not schooled on this would look at them and say, Oh, that looks nice, we'd like to keep it.

But what's happened is Norway maples, which are an invasive species, have taken root, pardon the pond at the site, and what they do is crowd out the native trees, and Matt can speak to this in better detail in more detail if you'd like, but I'm giving a summary version that I've learned over the last few weeks.

Um and insects and birds and the ecosystem that would normally thrive in a native environment is now in a setting that's not conducive to that, and what happens is that the invasive species prevails.

So, in as much as a little more than half of the larger trees are invasive, Matt's found that almost 100% of what's described as the understory, the smaller new ones coming, are entirely invasive.

So, what happens is when an oak tree dies, and they're beautiful trees, and they have long life.

I don't know if expectancy is the right word, but they live a long time, but they ultimately die.

They are supplanted by an invasive tree, and we had an incident this summer.

Um, and try for me to try to understand it so I can articulate it to this board.

Um, Ed made the point, and it's it's on point that we had a tree called a tree of heaven, and that is an invasive tree on the site.

That was become infested with the land of I'm sure everyone's noticed you read about them at first and never saw one, and then uh over the summer you'd hear people talk about them, you're on your cars.

Well, they made a great home of one of our trees that we had to take down, and that's an example of what can happen that invases species attract other invasive species, and the natural habitat is disturbed to a point that it can cause damage.

So our landscape plan that we propose, and I've done probably at least 50 projects with Matt, and this board and I have seen many landscape plans is very lush.

We met with neighbors and and everything was polite, but they weren't thrilled with our landscape plan.

And we've reached an agreement with none of them, so I don't want to overstate how it's gone.

We still have opposition from the neighbors, but we're trying, and opposition or not, we're trying to be sensitive to their concerns.

So thanks, Dave, for the plan.

So the plan we showed you back in June didn't have all the deciduous trees that we show now.

And both on the eastern and western perimeter, uh and they're listed in the the chart about two-thirds of the way down the page on the right side, and the chart above it on the left, more in the middle of the page, the second quarter of the page moving down, is our tree count that breaks them down by size.

Um, and in response to neighbors' concerns, we added uh many higher ultimately higher growing um species that won't replace the canopy seat you see now, so I won't want to exaggerate it, but will provide a nice canopy in the right hand column provides ultimate mature height, um that will be there for a longer future than those that exist now, and when they reach their end, will be replaced by a similar tree versus what would happen now, and I understand a desire to protect nature, but you're not necessarily protecting it, you could be doing harm by allowing the invasive species to take over.

And I understand a desire to protect nature, but you're not necessarily protecting it, you could be doing harm by allowing the invasive species to take over.

Um again, if we develop this residentially with a single family home, there would be in all likelihood no landscape plan.

So we're offering this, we recognize it can't be conditioned, but the families been here for more than a hundred years, they're not going anywhere.

We'll do what we've been asked to do, or that we've what we've said we will do.

Um and we'll we'll do this plan, which we think is is um a very solid one.

And after tonight, however it goes, we'll continue to to meet with neighbors um to try.

Uh again, I'm not gonna tell the board I expect support at the zoning board level, but but you don't know, you reach out and you try and you react anyway.

So if people have issues with details of this, we reacted before, we squose the the size inward um on the um right side or east side and the south side and the east side of the north side by about five feet, reducing the pavement by about 1700 square feet, and reducing the parking count from 46 to 40, which is depending on which way you do the math, either 13 percent or 15 percent, but so say approximately a 14 percent reduction um in the parking spaces, and that was an issue with a couple of our no votes from this board before.

Do you need all that much?

And we'd prefer if we're gonna develop it this way, we're gonna spend the money to have all the parking we could get, but we heard um and knew we'd be back, and we heard from neighbors.

Um, so we reduced it to that extent with that.

Um, another point I'd like to point out was we were asked if we were open to a connection with the um uh the dig site and the bull's head right.

I'll call the Grumberger site um to our west and um above us to the north, and this board will remember that it approved what we believe is a similar zone uh pasture plan change and the zoning board approved zone change to allow parking up to the north that involved the removal of a home.

Um so again, things don't always flow perfectly with the housing issues that are regularly reported and a hot topic now.

The the decision overall was made to add parking.

Their lots just historically from my perspective as a citizen and a one who likes Liv Sue Bagels, um uh has found that lot to be contested at times.

So I believe that that expansion overall is a good thing.

Um we don't have the frequent overflow that that property did, but the properties can work together.

And um over the last year there was an article about Bullshead, the liquor store to our south.

I don't think it's on the screen, but you're probably familiar, it's right where Bedford Street merges into um high ridge.

Um they have a concern about parking, they have a letter and support they supported the master plan, they support this application because overall people use this site office is regularly you can't get to.

So people regularly park in our property, and we've never towed anyone, um, Christmas or not.

We we recognize that that happens, we live with the community, but to our north, you you need to go all the way out to high ridge and get to the sidewalk to go around to dig and you know, up to variety store or the Chinese restaurant or or Lizo or any of the stores up there, if you're doing it that way instead of getting in your car and getting back in and waiting for the light.

So people do do it, primarily parking on our site, um, but it's not easy to get to.

So last time we were asked um, would we be open to a connection?

And we answered in the affirmative, we would be.

We want to tonight be very clear and emphatic, and Mr.

Smith is instructing me to do this.

We will so not open to it or we'll think about it, but if approved by the zoning board, and if our parking plan passes all the city monster that we're able to develop it in the north west corner, proximity, we're kind of have to figure it out with engineering and with um the Grumberger uh ownership if they agree to it, but they've requested it some connection.

So this is was news to them um uh today when I discussed it um with one of the principals um that in that up upper left corner um the most western portion of the spaces that are there, probably in the northern portion of that, we'd lose another space.

We would agree to a walk-in connection so that you could um get yourself uh whether you're from uh dig or whatever restaurant was there at the time or any of the stores up there or vice versa from our site there that you could walk through now, which doesn't exist without having to go to um high range road to get there.

So um we think that's a plus as far as the operation of all the sites that are here.

Um as I said, we'll we'll continue to work with neighbors.

Um we we beefed up the landscaping plan, we squose it in.

Um whether we make any more progress remains to be seen.

I don't want to promise anything other than we'll try, but the history of this ownership that's been in Stanford for a hundred years, uh again, with the great fortune of opening up a business, probably with all they had at the time, just a Great Depression uh emerged, um, intends to stay here, intends to be here, we'll continue to attempt to work with neighbors, whether they're commercial or residential.

Um we need the parking for uh especially peak times of the year, and to not provide for it, we believe is not responsible.

And um with that I'll close on or for now, I'm sure there'll be questions and um we're hoping that uh we can get a favorable reaction from this board.

Thank you.

Um Lindsay, you wanted to go ahead and chime in on a process point.

Yes, um, I did want to note um for folks that are here um from the public that this is a public meeting.

Um it's a zoning board application, it's here at the planning board on referral.

Um, so it is a public meeting, a public hearing, which does allow for public testimony will be at the zoning board um in a few months.

So um if you do want to provide public testimony uh at a public hearing, that will be at the zoning board um closer towards the end of the year.

Um keep an eye out for the agenda, which is posted on the zoning board's website, and you can also get that sent to you.

Um sign up for agendas by emailing Stamford Land Use at Stanford CT.gov.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Lindsay, for noting that.

So, yes, members of the public, we are not ignoring you, but this is again a public meeting, uh, but not a public hearing this evening.

Um I do want to um before we kind of uh add any additional questions from the board for the applicant, I do want to kind of backtrack to um the uh mentioned uh prior application in June for the master plan category change, which was from uh category two, um which in the 2015 plan was residential low density single family to again master plan category number seven commercial arterial.

Um and I think the the way that we delineated the issue ultimately um was this question of for a lot that has no frontage onto old Stamford Road and instead has its frontage um to high ridge road, um, is uh you know, which category was more appropriate.

And I think given the lack of viability of a single family development, given the lack of frontage, that was uh the reason for the reasoning for the decision in June about the master plan category change.

However, at the time, we did also note that what ultimately happens on this lot, um, whether the parking development, whatever, would be determined uh separately.

Um, and so that's what brings us here.

Um, as noted, uh, the um because of the passage of the 2025 uh comprehensive plan, this is now in um a new category MU3 mixed use urban.

Um that I think that the some of the elements to consider in that, which I think are qualitatively different from uh the way that commercial arterial had been previously described in the 2015 master plan, um, is uh the development of active streetscapes, um, sidewalks, transit access, uh mole blending with nearby residential areas.

Um so I I think it it puts us in um sort of an in-between state where uh we have not yet adjusted the zoning uh categories to um be more in alignment with the comprehensive plan categories.

Um and I would say that arguably neither the residential designation nor the um the commercial arterial as written in the zoning code really um captures the intention of the MU3 Zoe in which is this mixed-use walkable um uh streetscape.

Um I just wanted to put all of that um in context uh for members of the board as well, because I think we've um I can't recall Ravi.

Were you on uh when we okay?

All right.

Um Bill, I see your hand.

Um yes, I just I wanted to remind everyone that when we did look at this a few months ago, it was a split vote three to two.

One of the two who voted against the proposal is no longer on the board.

So I may be the only one who thinks this is just a really bad idea.

I think there's going to be a huge amount of environmental, especially visual.

When you drive up from the south, the first thing you see is this huge grove of trees on this steep slope, and it will basically be destroyed both by the grading, just a tremendous amount of grading that's necessary to remove this steep slope.

That it's hard for me to understand how anybody thinks that that steep slopes appropriate use is commercial.

Um I just wonder if there's not a way if there's if the uh the other thing is since that vote, I've been by that site many times.

Um I've never seen the parking, the the existing parking full.

Now it may be that there's a couple days before Christmas where you know many lots are full that are normally not full.

Um I wonder if there's not a way to more efficiently park the site to get a few more spaces if that's ultimately becomes necessary.

Most of the times when I've been there, it was less, it was between 20 and 50 percent uh full.

And I tried to uh go at different times.

Um I also want to say that a lot of the big trees that you see there are not Norway maples, there's oaks, there's hickories.

Um I'm kind of a tree nut.

I because it's so steep, I couldn't really get up into the site, but uh there may be some Norway maples, especially small ones, if if uh the applicant pointed out that uh the the oaks and the hickories are not uh replenishing because of this we could, I'm sure that uh the neighbors and others could could thin out that area and create an environment that would be uh better for the native trees to but grading the site, destroying all the trees, uh in my opinion is just not the right thing for this particular site because of its its visibility and steepness, etc.

Um so I you know I was not successful in convincing a majority of the board last time of what a that we should do everything we can to I would suggest that this piece of property should be designated um, you know, we have in the in our new comprehensive plan, we talk about uh in I think it's number 11 um talks about increasing uh natural open space and protecting more and adding more.

This seems like a uh it's it's adjacent to commercial, it's adjacent on the other side to residential.

I believe it's appropriate land use designation should be open protected open space uh rather than either of the two, either what it is now or what is being proposed.

So I hope uh probably more effective than last time.

And I obviously are many people in the area who agree with me, but um I think it would be more in keeping with the the goals of that plan of our new 2035 comprehensive plan, as well as uh being uh beneficial to the community to reject this uh zoning proposal.

Um yeah, John, you know, it's a tough decision.

I mean and we should be long-standing dice.

Uh, but I'm in the same camp like Bill.

I I've given that a few times, and you know, uh destroying the uh landscape of the trees for uh parking lot is not in my view the right use of this and what should be the right zoning.

I think that's a separate topic, but the request wasn't it is to change the zoning toll for a parking lot to be created.

I I cannot uh bring myself to agree agree with that because it's gonna be really uh traumatic for the overall landscape and the surroundings there evening uh further comments.

Yeah, um I I suppose more series of questions.

I I'm just intuitively from a practical point of view, I think we all understand that um you know, even as open space, it's it's open space that you'll at best, anyone at best would be able to enjoy visually because they can't access it.

They they they won't be able to, you know, um walk on it and and you know, enjoy nature um in that location.

I my my sense is that nature aside, just for a moment, and I don't mean that literally, um, given the geometry of this site, its location, the topography, um, from a practical standpoint, um there is best and brightest uh or best, I forget what the expression is, um is to use it as um an expansion of uh commercial space, not not for additional buildings, but for um additional parking uh for those surrounding businesses that are accessed there.

Um but I'm I'm very sympathetic to you know the owners' uh concerns, the homeowners' concerns I should have qualified.

Um now, given the change in topography, it is absolutely true that um you know they don't see the trees as well as people driving up high ridge see the trees because of their elevation.

Um but I do know from experience that um certainly out you know what one of the one of the worst kinds of um residential experiences is being on a hillside overlooking industrial and commercial um uh buildings.

Um you're seeing your the the noise of of the streets and and businesses carries, you know, the the uh large areas of flat and or black uh roofs uh you know is quite visible.

Um mechanical equipment, you know, you're seeing these large, you know, air handlers uh uh typically on on the roofs of these buildings.

So I'm just wondering from a different perspective.

Um is there not the um the homeowners, I it sounds like to me from a lot of their letters, um aside from issues of sustainability and the like, and and um uh honestly none of us are going to um uh feel the difference in carbon carbon dioxide by having these trees gone or not gone.

Um I'm just wondering if there's not some um modification that could be made to the landscaping plan that addresses the neighbors' concerns about visual privacy.

Um you know, from from certainly in the winter time when when all the leaves are are down there you know, there's a a clear shot, both from the ground up to those probably um to those houses, depending upon where you're standing, of course, uh, and certainly from those uh residential properties down to the roofs of those buildings.

So I'm wondering, you know, could um the the east buffer of landscaping um instead of being deciduous if it couldn't be replaced uh by evergreen uh trees that will ultimately grow as large if not if not larger, which will provide a little bit more visual privacy um year round, um and certainly would help in the winter time.

Um and then similarly um you know being a being a property owner and and uh here in Stanford myself, uh I I know I I would have a very hard time um kind of accepting you know uh a very mature you know 12 or 18 inch tree being released replaced by a two and a half inch, three inch diameter or caliper tree um that'll take another 40 years um long beyond my life expectancy before it provides the same kind of uh visual shield uh in both directions.

So I'm wondering if um both the types of the trees along the West property as well as their initial planted size, you know, could they be modified to provide a little bit more instead of the two two and a half to three inch count um diameters that are currently specified for some of those trees, you know, perhaps they can be um uh a little a little bit more mature, maybe a six inch diameter uh uh trees um and uh and of a different uh different variety that provides uh more privacy um uh in the winter time as well by using evergreens.

So um yeah, John, I'd welcome any input.

I'm not a landscape uh architect.

Okay, Madam Chair, may I um sure you can go ahead and address the questions.

Thanks.

Um so we'd be happy to try.

Um I I'd be curious as to the chair's thoughts on the application, but um if there's a definitive vote tonight, we won't be back to your board to give you the answer.

So if there's an opportunity for us to come back, we're happy to try and ask and give you report.

All right.

Um I'm I'm glad to say a bit more about where I am on this currently.

Um as I kind of started to set the stage.

Um this is this application is challenging because really neither of the existing zoning categories um that this could fall in, the current one or the one that's been requested, really is in harmony with the mixed-use urban uh comprehensive plan category that it has now been assigned to.

Um so my inclination um is uh is not in support of the application because the expansion of parking for which I think we've heard fairly conflicting accounts about the necessity for it, uh runs counter to some of the key goals um for uh active streets um and the kind of scale and walkability that's desired for uh parcels within the MU3 zone.

That said, um I think you know, I I was the one who had asked about um in the June application about possibilities for connectivity, um partially because we knew that um even with the existing conditions, there's a lot of shuffling between the three parcels that are all right there, and sometimes people walk across, but sometimes people drive, and that's the driving is silly.

about um in the June application about possibilities for connectivity um partially because we knew that um even with the existing conditions there's a lot of shuffling between the three parcels that are all right there and sometimes people walk across but sometimes people drive and that's the driving is silly and um I wonder if um even with the current um R20 uh zoning if the if adding some sort of um access way between the um this property and the adjacent um properties would be something that could occur um within the minimum coverage or within the coverage um requirements that apply to the R2 zone um because and I will note in the comprehensive plan there is also a general promotion of more shared use parking agreements um my sense is that the the conundrum of how to improve circulation and rebalance parking is likely better solved by a shared use parking agreement and some sort of passageway in between um rather than an expansion of this lot um and that um I don't think that necessarily precludes any development here in the future but I think it gives us the opportunity to have a to have a zoning category that actually better matches the intentions of of this um comprehensive plan category that has been introduced so go ahead go ahead okay it's more a question of just looking for clarity as to what you're suggesting um well I am I'm suggesting that um the change in zone uh to um uh to the to this zoning category um seems incompatible with the um the comprehensive plan category and I know that we have these conflicts all across right now because of of the the shift um in the comprehensive plan um and uh I am inquiring as to whether it is possible uh again while still meeting um the R20 coverage uh limitations and requirements to actually create some sort of um improved circulation um on the edge of this lot in order to connect with the um adjacent parcels um obviously that would require that you would work that you work out a shared use parking agreement um but I know that you know the dig lot is is almost never full um the front the frontage at Bullshead um has been highly congested and that was the reason why um uh the approval for the um lot expansion uh to the north um of a bull's head was approved and I think with those coming online it actually creates us there is a um there's a circulation pattern that goes behind bull's head um and that that that I suspect is sufficient to alleviate a lot of the um the parking um tightness that occurs uh again I think we can um I think we can differ in opinion on sort of like how tight is too tight in terms of the parking supply like is it really a problem that there are six or seven only six or seven spaces available um at peak times I think you know if you ask different traffic engineers they'll give you different answers on that um but I I think that it is possible to still um advance some of the uh shared parking opportunities without running a foul of the current R20 designation so under that scenario we would develop a parking lot on this property without changing the zone if if that were something that the land use regulations supported is that um well okay so I my I think that the what would be um permitted would be basically creating a right of way from the current uh lot for home goods over to uh the adjacent uh parcel so I wouldn't envision an expansion um in the number of spaces that um would occur in the in this parcel I mean maybe one or two um depending on what the design in uh is but um I think given the um again given sort of the um the sort of lack of clarity I would say about both the need for the parking expansion as well as um it

So I wouldn't envision an expansion um in the number of spaces that um would occur in the in this parcel, I mean maybe one or two, um depending on what the design and uh is but um and I think given the um again given sort of the um the sort of lack of clarity I would say about both the need for the parking expansion as well as um it not really being the the sort of um development that is more compatible with the MU3 zone.

That's my uh kind my reasoning and current leaning right now.

So that's a new application from that perspective?

That would be it, it would be a different application.

Okay, we'll we'll we'll have to discuss it more.

Um I'm curious the thoughts of the other uh board members.

Well Jen, while I understand what you're trying to accomplish, um you know, shared use agreements are often uh more successful when the entities that are being shared, you know, have have different hours of demand, but that won't be the case here.

Well, I think um I think shared use agreements can be of different um natures.

Um I know that some of the ones that we've heard um most recently, like the one for the church, uh, were predicated upon having different types of users there at different times.

But another um but consolidating um adjacent lots is also uh a um a strategy that even if it's not increasing the supply in any one given lot um can be beneficial uh for both supply and circulation.

Um and I imagine that that's a strategy that will make a lot of sense both in the MU1 and the MU3 um as we are um looking to um I guess de uh de incentivize driving and encourage uh more walkability uh within these streetscapes.

Um understand, but but in in the in the near term, you know, mix the mixed-use urban even in the bull's head area is not something that we'll realize, you know, for decades, I suspect, um, given the proximity between the commercial low the low-rise commercial establishments that currently exist there and and the residential that are very close behind uh literally and and figuratively all around Bullsey.

Um the mixed use, you know, uh um urban designation is intended ultimately at uh for much more dense buildings um that will obliterate the site in the same manner as there is concern for today.

Um so I you know I I don't see how that's um what even if that is the right designation and honestly um planning neither planning nor zoning has had the opportunity to kind of look at uh those kinds of um change of use categories uh or or intentions uh since we've developed the uh and the new master plan was approved, you know, just a month ago or however long ago that was.

So um I I don't know that that um will further either records uh other than stalling the inevitable, if what you're saying is true, then it's stalling the inevitable, um which will you know be equally disastrous uh in the eyes of the adjacent residential homeowners and you know potentially um you know difficult from a commercial um business enterprise perspective.

Um what you're saying about uh you know the shared parking use can work if if in effect all of those um uh commercial property owners um for this property for the adjacent things for the adjacent uh uh high ridge uh commercial for the one um uh closer down, you know, where the post office is and the big the liquor store.

Um if beyond an agreement to share their lots, um they make believe that property lines don't exist and they totally re uh relay out the parking uh and driveways to make all of those sites work more efficiently.

Um but get that goes beyond a shared use agreement.

Um to be technical, yes, the shared use agreement is one element of the recon the physical reconfiguration.

Um I don't know that I would agree that it's um delaying the inevitable.

I think that you know, whatever the future holds for these parcels, I think there are ways in which future changes could be um compatible with the MU3 designation and actually not increase the coverage on um on the lot.

I you know, obviously this is very theoretical and you know, whole nother conversation uh about um what sort of specifically what sort of development or change uh would be um uh in harmony with the neighbors because I I do I am sympathetic to the um the note about you know no matter what happens on this parcel, there are some development rights on it, and no matter what, there are going to be some trees that are cleared.

So I don't know that it's a viable position to just assume that it should stay exactly the way it is.

Um but I do think that there are um possibilities that um do not act exacerbate the um the the coverage but still move this area toward um this more kind of walkable um aesthetic that is desired in this transition out of downtown.

Um I will say though, um I think for what Bill had suggested about um conservation, I believe that would technically be a taking um from uh from uh planning parlance.

So that is not an action that that I would recommend.

Um so Bill, I see your hand up and then we can go back to the applicant.

Oh, did you have a question or a comment?

Um hold on.

Okay, um I think we're kind of talking about two different things here.

One is this application, and the other is what the best long-term long-range plan for this area would be.

But we have an application before us today, which I believe is should not be approved because A, it hasn't really been demonstrated that there's an immediate need to add this parking, and B to add this parking would require deforestation land uh grading on a very large scale for the number of actual spaces you would get.

And so for that reason, I would like to make a motion that we not approve this rezoning.

Um again, I agree with the chair that that the zone that's proposed is not really suitable for this site, and also that this the residential zone is not really suitable for this site.

Um so I think we need some more time to figure out what could happen.

And at this time, I would recommend um uh I make a motion for uh not approving this rezoning at this time.

Um though there is some motion on the floor, I would like to give the applicant an opportunity to respond before we proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I I just want to make sure the board understands that that no recommendation in effect and an ultimate denial by the zoning board of this application doesn't serve to protect a single tree.

I mean, there it's a zone change, it's not a site plan application, it's a zone change application.

And we're not in a regulated area.

So if the issue is the trees, we've done our best to provide a landscaping plan that we believe is appropriate.

Um the questions asked of us, we'd be happy to revisit um the plan with neighbors, but it and I recognize this board doesn't approve or deny, but if you're voting no, you're communicating the zoning board.

We hope in effect you vote no.

That does not protect the site.

I want to make sure that that's unless I'm wrong, but I'd happy to hear the response that is in that I can understand that's inconsistent with that, but I believe that's a proper statement.

Um so I I think it is both true that no matter which zone it's in, that the trees are not totally protected.

That is, you know, whether it's in the R20 or in uh with this commercial designation.

Um I think the the way that I'm considering this is the given that the zone change facilitates the significant addition of more surface parking, which seems not in harmony with the plan or the plan category that it's in.

It's really more sort of what it enables.

And I don't know that should we like should this zone change go through.

I don't know that there is any um sort of site uh plan or remedy to curtail um the extent to which this parcel is turned into um you know more suburban parking lot sprawl.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Ravi.

Oh, you're on mute, Ravi.

Oh sorry, well, that's I am supporting uh Bill's motion on this uh the proposal before us is what it is that could be alternating so that would be uh solutions, but that's not what we are being asked to vote.

I think uh we should take the proposal that is here right now and make a revision based on that.

So for all the factors that uh be mentioned, I would be supporting that motion to say no to this proposal.

Um Lindsay, I have a procedural question.

Um so as I understand it, we have a couple of options here.

One is to weigh in on the proposal before us, and then that triggers again.

Should zoning follow suit, there's a clock that starts on sort of um the period between which um an application can't come before us again.

Um and so my understanding is the other option here um could be to table it if the applicant is inclined to uh revise their application.

I don't know if they are um because I I will say that I think the um the distance between uh the intended um use and I think uh it I don't know um I don't want to assume, but um so I'll I'll just say I would be open to tabling this um rather than denial so that we're not um having to see such a long distance between uh this application and some future modification uh so you're asking what the timeline is for the zoning board, what the timeline is that they're required to act on an application.

Um I just have to look that up in the in Muni code.

I don't have it right off the top of my um head, but if Ralph Ralph is on the line, if if Ralph, you know that off the top of your head, um the timeline with which the zoning board has to act on an application.

Um if you could let us know, that would be super and I can work on looking it up right now.

I mean, there is no I mean the the referral period is 35 days from uh receipt of the application.

Um but um the um zoning board could uh decide to wait.

Um feedback from the planning board on the application.

Uh I mean on a like very practical matter, um the uh zoning board uh ledger is pretty full at the moment.

So I'm not quite sure uh how soon the board would actually get to this application.

Um so that's also a consideration.

Okay.

So um to my understanding is that within 35 days of filing the application, the hour board is required to act on um a referral, but that then after that the zoning board can take however long uh they would like to take until it actually comes before them on the docket.

Yes.

Okay.

I guess my other question was whether zone changes are to I are subject to some sort of um like waiting period between applications to if if this if the way this played out was that uh the planning board recommends denial and the zoning board um were to deny it.

Um is there some sort of period that the applicant has to wait before they can propose something else?

Because my understanding is that for certain types of development proposals, there is a waiting period.

I don't know that a zone change um is subject to that.

I think it's for uh I I would have to double check, but I believe it's a year.

It's yes, it's 12 months.

Okay.

12 months.

Right.

So that's that's my concern with denial that um I think there are some possibilities for modification here that meet the objectives of the property owner, and that would be um significantly different in scale and uh likely amenable amenable to the neighbors.

Um and so I'm I'm a bit reluctant to set in motion having to wait an entire year for whatever that different solution might be.

Can I uh can I ask one question?

Um are you Jen thinking of tabling it just uh there could be uh uh the idea uh the issue of tabling it for two possible reasons?

One is to um have the current applicant um totally revise their plan, um, you know, which would potentially take a year to to go through that effort again.

Um the other is to table it for a matter of um you know a week or two to give the the applicant an opportunity to uh to weigh in on your suggestion, and that is um basically um with yeah withdrawing the application for now or or make a making a modification that may be you know a little bit more menable.

Which one are you are you suggesting it for?

Are you are you talking about potentially about tabling it um for a matter of uh you know a week or two to give them an opportunity to even discuss any of our discussion amongst themselves or what um I think the tabling um can serve the the short-term purpose of giving the applicant an opportunity to consider um whether and how to move forward with the zone change application?

Um I know that the um that the uh significant reconfiguration would certainly take much longer, and I think then it would be the prerogative of the applicant to determine whether to try to reconfigure that quickly or to withdraw and come back at another time, um, which would you know again wouldn't then make them subject to that that year waiting period.

Okay.

So it and I'll just so I'll note procedurally that if we were to um move to table uh the item, uh we would need to um uh deal with the motion that is currently on the floor, which is the moment motion uh for denial.

Um so um Bill, I'm wondering um is um is the uh tabling this compatible with um kind of where you are at right now.

Um and if so, um you can withdraw the motion, or if you know you are also welcome to keep the motion on the floor, but uh um I I'm a little confused.

Are you saying let's say that this motion, which has now been seconded, is let's say the uh that it we end up with a two-two vote.

What is the there's a year delay before they could come back with something different?

I um I didn't notice.

No, the so if we were to um if we were to either have a uh vote, a recommendation denial or a split vote um and it went to the zoning board and they ultimately rejected the application, that's what would trigger the year waiting period.

So it's not our action directly.

Um, but it's the way that our action influences the zoning board's action.

Uh whereas if we were to table it, um again, the the applicant can do with that what they will in terms of a timeline for um you know revision or other actions that make sense.

I guess what I'm it seems to me that we're making this more complicated than it really is.

There's a proposal to massive grading and tree removal, eliminate this whole ridge and replace it with a parking lot.

And whether or not the the new saplings that are put in on the side are evergreen or deciduous or exactly how many there are.

It's uh they're two different uh things.

I I would prefer to go ahead with this and maybe even present to the if let's say it's a split vote two to two or whatever the vote is that uh we pass that on to the uh zoning board and let them uh consider that.

I think that would be my preference.

So I guess I'd like to go ahead with the motion.

Because I don't think that this is gonna significant either the zoning board will disagree and say go ahead with this proposal, in which case it moves forward, or they will turn it down and the the applicant is gonna need to go come back with something else anyway.

So I I don't know that that the tabling for two weeks is gonna really accomplish much.

So you know, my um I'd like to clarify the motion a little slightly if I can.

Sure.

Is that um so the reason for recommending uh not approving this uh rezoning is that the result of the reason of the rezoning would be um major tree removal and landform alteration, grading, et cetera, and that we haven't received information that that in the immediate future there's a strong need for the additional parking at this time.

So that that would be the reasons.

I guess I'd like to ask the seconder uh if he agrees with those clarifications.

Yeah, I uh I second and agree.

And uh, you know, I mean also sensitive to the anonymous amount of feedback we received from the debut against this proposal, and of course everybody has got a view, but I think that neighborhood viewpoint is going to be considered as well when we do rezoning.

So I am but Bill in saying no to the proposal.

Okay, I'd like to add his point about the uh opposition from the neighbors as a third research.

Um so a motion is called.

Um I I will I'll just as a comment, I will say that I think that of the three reasons that you've cited, the one that's I think most aligned with the way that the comprehensive plan of how it's written is the one about the the parking demand.

I think the other two are a little bit more the I mean though the I mean trees are important and the sentiment of the neighbors are important and I don't know that either one of those in isolation or together is sufficient to justify a decision.

So I just wanted to note that's an opinion.

There is language in that new 2035 comprehensive plan in several places talking about the importance of natural vegetation that doesn't really say whether it's currently a park or currently a designated open space.

So I think there are a lot of different things you can take out of the plan and different people have different interpretations.

But anyway, I'll leave the that's that's the uh the uh motion.

Okay.

So that is the motion on the floor.

Um motion uh so if you are in support of the motion for denial, um please uh raise your hand, either in person or virtually if you're not on the screen.

Um so that is three in support of denial.

Um uh votes in um votes to um in opposition to the motion um to uh for denial.

Okay, so that is chat.

Um and we have no abstentions.

All right, so that is uh so the motion to deny carries, um, and this will go to zoning next.

Thank you.

Jennifer, what was your what was your vote?

I I didn't see it.

I just want to um if mine was a vote for denial.

Uh I can always say unanimously uh well, so it no, it's three degree to one.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Um with again the rationale.

Can I make this one further suggestion in the description of this?

We could also include that Jennifer had some different thoughts on reasoning and and re I'm not sure exactly how to state it, but you talked more about it at the beginning.

So I think in our to make it as useful as possible for the zoning board, we should try to explain you know, put a sentence or two in to try to explain, and maybe Jennifer, you you should write it up because I think I know the part of Jennifer's statement that you were speaking to um where she talks about the the comprehensive plans focus on mobility options and improving streetscape and safety.

Um so I can look back if that's the section that you are referring to, I can look back and write something up for review.

Um yeah, that I'd say that that summarizes uh the rationale that I'm coming from.

Um I'll also note, I mean, I it is not that I think that you know, I mean, we're not able to prevent anything from happening on this site, right?

I think the question is what does the zone change enable and does that is that more incompatible than the current category?

And so that's really again my rationale that it is in conflict with the um uh the the streetscape and and and transportation accessibility.

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

Does does streetscape even begin to uh be a factor uh on um a section that's uh 200 feet from the street?

I mean, does that is that even even a you know a consideration?

I thought streetscape in effect is talking about the the buffer between building frontage and curbs in effect.

Um well I would say that streetscape is more expansive than that, and it refers to the way in which the um the built environment um is encouraging or discouraging certain types of mobility options, and so uh the expansion of parking um uh which encourages more car usage is um in conflict with and contrary to a more uh uh moving in a direction of a more pedestrian uh friendly environment in this zone.

So not necessarily streetscape as I might be thinking about it.

Okay.

Sure, yes.

Yes.

Or okay.

I know that was a very long discussion.

I again I I think given the in-betweenness we are in right now of uh uh the zoning code still needing um to conform uh more to these um to the comp plan changes and mix of uses.

I think uh we'll have opportunity in the future to to better define um criteria that make sense here and are still um uh that acknowledge the reality of what's on the sites um in this area and also kind of work toward a transition that makes sense.

All right.

Well, um thank you very much.

Uh our next item uh still on the zoning board referrals is CD application 225-39.

Uh Peter uh Sekora representing uh Rama Tool Alamine Mosque Incorporated, 80 Lockwood Avenue special permit.

Applicant is requesting a special permit to allow for a house of worship in the R5 zone, um which is multiple family medium density design district.

Um so the applicant would like to um introduce themselves in the record.

Peter, you are able to unmute yourself and uh you should be able to turn on your video if you so choose.

Uh if you want to make a few statements on this.

Okay.

There we go.

There we go.

Hi.

Hi.

Go ahead.

I want to share my screen first of all.

Sorry, let's see if I can do that.

This is the building.

Yeah, we see the picture.

Yep.

Okay.

Um if you can see that this is a former self for the record, and then um you can uh talk about your project.

My name is Peter Sakora.

I'm the architect of record for this project.

Um we are converting a firehouse into a mosque is the intention.

What do you guys see right now?

Uh we see a picture of the firehouse, the existing building.

Okay.

Sorry, I'm having a little bit of trouble with the interface.

Just a little um uh while we're waiting for you, Peter, to do that to occupy some minds.

Um I could not get down to this site to draw actually drive by it.

So I decided to look it up on uh Google Maps.

And um Google, this is the first time this has ever happened to me with um with Google Maps.

Um basically it must have been uh 80 Lockwood Avenue and it it said it very clearly that it it was showing me 80 Lockwood Avenue.

Um, but it didn't show this building, it showed you know a house on the building, and and it showed how you know it didn't show the street next to it, it showed another house, you know, surrounded by residential things.

Bizarre, totally bizarre.

Yeah, yeah, I've had that happen too.

It's weird.

I don't know what the deal is.

Um rather than sort of stumbling around on this.

I'm just gonna use this picture to explain the what we are doing, if that's okay with everybody.

There are plans that have been submitted, and if I could bring them up, I would go over it.

The gist of it is this is a firehouse.

So you can see that there are bricked over windows.

We're going to be opening up some of the windows, trying to basically leaving the building the way it is, although these large fire doors are going to be converted into a more receptive looking type door with um and this is going to become a kind of a plaza in front with some steps coming up and then entry into the mosque through some nice doors through here.

It's about 100% paved.

So we're going to be removing some of that in the course of doing that.

There currently are parking spaces that are in required setbacks.

So we're giving those back in order to make some lawn and some separation for the community instead of a cyclone fence.

There will be a nice wrought iron fence, other types of improvements.

There'll be some trees.

The intention is to put some trees uh in the sidewalk along this side.

These types of improvements while not substantially altering the build the building itself.

Um and there's some stuff going on inside that I don't believe the planning board super concerned with.

That's the that's the application, and and it was as you can see, uh community center.

So we'd like to convert it into a house of worship, and that's the proposal.

All right.

Thank you.

Um I will just pull from the um staff memo just to note again what is before us is this special permit, um, and that houses of worship are um with special permit and allowed uh neighborhood serving use um within residential zones.

Um there is current there is a special permit for a different use that's associated with the prior owner.

And so uh and the a new uh special permit for a house of worship would supersede uh the prior uh permits which would no longer exist uh for uh previously it was uh set up as a club.

Um are there any uh questions or comments from Ravi?

Hey Peter, yeah, I want uh two questions.

One is uh what is the number of uh worshippers uh you expect to come here during peak periods?

The plans um there's space for 104 worshippers.

104 worshipers.

And how many parking spaces do we have?

26.

Okay.

So my concern was, and I'll have a second question.

My concern is that street, that neighborhood is uh very short of parking.

I mean, if you drive through that road, you'll find cars parked on both sides of the roads.

And I'm somewhat concerned bringing uh a lot of additional traffic into that area uh without any provision for parking is going to really uh that whole whole area.

So that is my first concern.

Second question I had was what is the and it's it's not just not on this proposal.

I always had a problem with uh houses of worship in residential areas because uh during peak times and certain festival occasions, uh those areas can get very noisy because people are worshipping and playing and all that.

So, what is the expected level of uh noise pollution in from this facility and how will it impact the neighbors?

I mean, it's primarily a residential area now.

So these are the two concerns I have, and maybe you can address them.

Sure.

Um so the the facility was designed knowing that we had 26 parking spaces, so I designed it for 104 capacity, which is sufficient for the for the use.

So like it's designed for the parking that is there.

Um not sure what else we can do other than make the size of the facility conform to the size of the parking, which is what we've done.

Um in terms of noise, what was there previously?

Was basically it appears to have been the the use before ours as a community center, was really um for parties.

Um there is you can see that it's a mason-heavy masonry building with quite thick brick walls that were blocked over.

Um we're certainly not gonna be more noisy than that.

Uh there will be no alcohol on the premises, there's no parties.

I don't know what the use was like for the experience of the neighbors there.

Um when that was in use, but I think there's gonna be no significant impact in terms of noise compared to uh weddings and such things as what were going on there previously.

So we were just one follow-up question.

So when you said you designed the building for based on the parking spaces, was there some you know logic or some algorithm?

I mean, if you have hundred plus worship wheels coming in during a key festival event and they have only 20 parking spaces, how does it look?

The zoning requires parking, a parking ratio for every different type of use.

Okay.

Um so that's in the zoning regulations, and this application meets the required parking.

So for place of worship, they have one is to four kind of parking regulations.

Is it what it is?

That's basically for houses of worship.

Uh it depends on the parking category that they're in.

Um but that looks like what's required here.

I'll double check on the plans for the specifics.

Yeah, I was trying to read myself about that, and I don't think houses of worship was specifically mentioned as regarding oneness to four.

I think the social and civic center, that's a different thing, but I would appreciate a clarification if in a lot of current regulations we have that oneness to full of houses of worship specifically.

I I believe that's correct that that it's what it's wonderful.

And I think the belief is that that families arrive to worship together.

Peter, uh in that on that same subject, I'm just curious.

Um, I think I read something in in the application that um this is where uh does this um is there a mosque serving this community that currently exists elsewhere in Stanford?

Um or is this a brand new facility for this uh community?

It is there's not a mosque in Stanford for this that is they're currently outside of Stanford while the but the majority of their people are in Stanford.

Okay.

And on that on that subject, um do you have do you have any knowledge to speak to how many uh you know what proportion of the 104 might be within walking distance to the site?

I do not.

Okay, thank you.

It's a good question.

Uh I I really know very little about the actual members of the Mosali.

Okay.

Okay.

Lindsay, were you able to confirm just for a moment what uh Peter's conclusion was that for houses of worship specifically, it's it's uh one-to-four.

I'm still working on it.

Okay, okay.

Um maybe if I can take another stab at getting the plans up.

Uh they do I do have the plan showing where um that's not what I meant to do.

Religious institutions.

Yes, uh religious institution, club, recreational building or ice skating rink, one parking space for each four seats shall be provided for religious institution.

Thank you.

Okay.

Though though uh Peter, that uh that page may actually provide you access to a PDF if if not what you you know uh of of a floor plan or something, if that's what brings you closer to what you were trying to do.

Yeah, I've got what I so boy.

There it is.

Okay.

This is ridiculous.

This floor plan.

If you can see these dashed lines, these are worship areas.

So in other words, the the way worshiping is done is by kneeling.

And so I have I designed the area that is in the worship to hold 104 people.

Um it's not it's not kind of controversial.

The main the main thing that we were doing inside is actually moving the restrooms to the west end of the building.

They're currently at the east end of the building, but that afforded an opportunity to take the sort of main area and sculpt it to hold exactly the capacity that the that the grounds can tolerate.

You know, I'm curious.

Uh uh obviously um in this kind of intended uh place of assembly, there are no aisles um to allow you to get to um you know, and any of these particular positions um as everyone comes in from the front door, for example.

Just from a practical point of view, how does that occur?

So the the actual square footage that people take when they are on their in their worshiping position is considerably more than they take when they're standing.

So right, you've got a lot of space to move around, and then as people start sitting, right?

Then or or kneeling to worship, um, they start taking more space.

But that actual point, uh my they all worship together, right?

So it's kind of you all take a seat and then you do your worship, is my understanding.

So anyone who comes in late is obviously in trouble, right?

If they're the if they're already uh uh you know on the floor um kneeling.

This is a um I would think that they would they you would fill them up from the front to the to the doors, right?

So the door, the front door is actually at the back of the worship space, and the person leaving the worship is up here at the front.

So I would think that you wouldn't fill in from the back towards the front if you did.

There also is an entrance over on the side.

Um and of course these these lines are the emergency escape route.

So there's plenty of there's plenty of access depending on how you filled it up.

Yeah.

It's an interesting question.

Of note, where the the question in consideration here is is whether the use as a religious institution is aligned with the residential to uh neighborhood category.

So I bring that plan up, not for discussion of the plan, but because there's a question of how would you decide how many people it's the facility is designed for, and that's it.

So I made you can see there's there's no wasted space, there's no extra space.

It was made for 104 people.

Um and that includes, by the way, giving back a number of parking spaces that are currently on the oops.

I'm apparently muted.

You can hear me?

I can hear it.

Okay, we can set I've got a message that says my mic's been disabled.

Sorry.

So that we gave back.

So there are currently 33 parking spaces in the in the site.

Um, but I wanted to take parking spaces away from sort of being on the sidewalk and being in what are currently prescribed zones, uh the setbacks, right?

So I wanted to give back the setbacks to the community.

Lindsay, uh to your point, um the does the is the master plan um or no, actually it would be a zoning uh issue.

Zoning allows um by virtue of special permit, uh houses of worship in any single family residential zone, correct?

I have to I have to double check, but that sounds right.

Because we have them all over the city, so yeah, yeah.

So I guess we can't distinguish between um uh the zoning doesn't distinguish between an R2 zone or an R1 zone or an R7 zone or or whatever it is.

No, not with respect to that to houses of worship.

Those are right so not with respect to the use, but certainly the intensity of the use can vary by zone in terms of compatibility, but purely whether or not um a house of worship is allowed um is uh um is what the special permit is for.

Usually special permit uses, sorry, um if I may, um so houses of worship, special permit uses in all districts, they either follow um the bulk regulations like the height setback density um of um the the underlying zoning district, or they have their special uh standards that are written in the zoning regulations for the district.

So uh actually in single family residential districts where this is not um special permit uses generally have a lower density than uh the residential uses on like a per square footage basis.

Um the idea being that if you have a single family house on a large lot, uh that doesn't create a whole lot of traffic, but if you have a house of worship, you will have people coming there for services uh and so on.

So um we we usually give them less floor area than you would be allowed if you uh uh develop it residentially.

So I guess it it takes the point in this particular case, uh Ralph and Lindsay.

Um this is an R5.

Um what dense you know, is is the proposed density for this use um permitted or not?

There's no change in density.

There's no there's no change.

Uh the the building is staying the same.

The parking is compliant with the zoning regulations, the use is what they're requesting the special permit for.

Um there is in the sorry, in the in the R5 district, um there's actually no FAR limitation.

Um it's only done uh by uh basically taking the building coverage that is allowed as a percentage of the lot times the building height, uh and that gives the your development rights uh for non-residential uh buildings for residential buildings.

What you also have to do is uh the number of units is determined by taking the lot area and dividing it by a number that is set in the zoning regulations.

Um but for uh special permit use, it's really just building footprint times permitted building height is uh the allowable floor area or the allowable development rights, and as Lindsay said, this building is grandfathered in.

So whatever the um dimensional requirements, and I think in the R5 you can have at least three stories.

Um, and uh you have a relatively high lot coverage, so uh it is uh a conforming building from from uh from a density perspective, I would think.

Can I ask can I ask one question, Jennifer?

Sure.

Yeah, so I understand maybe I don't know uh when you use the word density, uh don't you think that is a different between uh you know you know the same building that uses right?

We'll have different density levels in terms of the number of people going in and out of the building, the people in etc.

etc.

So the logic that nothing is being changed in terms of the building structure or the parking space, and therefore there is no change to density.

Doesn't strike right to me because the host of worship is going to be more actively densely densely used than some other use, you know.

So I mean that's that's reflected that's reflected in the parking requirement.

So uh obviously, I mean if you were to develop this lot residentially, uh I haven't done the zoning calculations, but let's say um you you would be able to build like five units uh of housing on that lot.

Uh you would need um probably uh depending on the unit size, so that varies, so you would probably need six or seven parking spaces.

So obviously uh a house of worship is more intense, so therefore uh the parking requirement is 26 uh in this case, uh rather than uh six or seven spaces that you would have for residential.

So that type of intensity is is regulated through the the parking.

I mean, land use or zoning really looks at uh uh at um floor or units per acre.

Those are sort of the the two measurements of density, and then the parking requirement uh aligns with the use.

Um so uh in that case, as I said, if you were to develop the site residentially, it would be a much lower parking requirement, taking that into account.

I I'm a little confused by the it's built for 104 people.

Is there a regulation that the membership is limited to that number?

Or is that just what if people say, oh, finally there's a mosque in Stamford and 400 people show up and cram into that space?

What is there to regulate that it's really only gonna be 27 parking spaces used and approximately 100 people coming?

account i i'm a little confused by the it's built for 104 people is there a regulation that the membership is limited to that number or is that just what if people say oh finally there's a mosque in stamford and 400 people show up and cram into that space what is there to regulate that it's only going to be 27 parking spaces used and approximately 100 people coming yeah the state fire fire marshal yeah and and zoning enforcement as well so no more than 104 would be permitted in at any given time i mean uh i i don't know peter if you have already been to the fire marshal and they have taken a look uh from well they're let me let me let me speak to that because the the requirement for the fire marshal is uh seven feet right the the occupancy for a building of this type is one person requires seven square feet which is uh higher density than what I have programmed for the worship so there's not I I don't know what the legal basis would be for declaring the building occupancy to be lower based on how many worshippers we have designed it for like this is a little bit like I I designed the facility to work for the parking if I I don't know that there's a way to keep it's sort of like the mall right I mean how many people are going to use the home goods parking lot on Christmas well it's hard to it's hard to design to prevent high high you know I'm not sure exactly how you would do that in any circumstance whether it's in an apartment building or a mall or a house of worship there are going to be high peak times that I don't think there's any way to prevent from happening or would you really want to something that happens only once a year.

You wouldn't want to stop Christmas from happening.

How long has this building been sitting um empty oh uh Lindsay I I don't I'm not sure I don't know you don't happen to know Peter do you I mean because immediately before we're not talking about converting its use from a fire department into a a house of worship.

A club yeah a club yeah yeah yeah and of note a fire department is also a special permit use so anything that's not residential would be a special permit use understand but I um likening it more to the club which is likely to have had to accommodate the same if not more people uh in theory uh per its use yeah but I would sorry Jennifer can I go ahead so I think in a place of worship it's going to be hard and I share the same concern Bill as God saying during a religious holiday or some special occasion we have 200 people coming coming to the and certainly you know people will do that and uh that's going to be a problem in terms of the uh lack of parking and other other requirements that are unlike a club where you could turn them away at the door and say go home I mean how are you want to do that in a church at a mosque or some place of worship.

Well I understand how Peter designed it but I think reality would be much different than what was been initialized and especially that particular road if you you know it's very densely there's cars on there's no place to park the cars.

I mean on the on the roof I mean there's a the cars on both sides and I small have a concern in such a dense place to put the place of worship seems not very uh productive to me.

I I'll just note so again in terms of the purview that we have here the question before it is whether this use of a house of worship is compatible with um this with the R5 residential zone and that kind of opining on what could happen um is not really um our place um the question of the parking ratio to the um to the um designed use is pertinent and the applicant has demonstrated that they've met the requirement so you know I mean I to refer back to the other kind of house of worship that came before us right there um I mean they came up with solutions to manage uh parking demand and you know in some theoretical circumstance where the size of the congregation exceeds uh or you know uh uh the the community exceeds the design capacity then you know there are lots of different avenues that the uh that they could go in order to mitigate that but I don't know that that has a hypothetical is sufficient to um to uh to be a factor in this uh in the application before us but Jennifer I don't vote in the other case we conditioned our approval right because they were below the requirement so they were they were formalizing uh a variance to be able to provide less parking than what is required by regulation conditioned upon having an alternative track uh transportation management plan which was this van this applicant is not asking for a variance uh they're not going to be asking for variance on the parking they

But Jennifer, I don't know, in the other case, we conditioned our approval.

Right, because they were below the requirement.

So they were they were formalizing uh a variance to be able to provide less parking than what is required by regulation, conditioned upon having an alternative track uh transportation management plan, which was this van.

This applicant is not asking for a variance.

Uh they're not going to be asking for variance on the parking.

They meet the existing parking requirement for houses of worship.

Yeah.

So we have yeah, I understand.

So I'm not debating.

I'm just you're just trying to figure out whether that assumptions that have been made uh valid, you know, that under what assumptions went into that is it valid or that is only asking that question.

I mean, that's a reasonable question, but it's something that has to be evaluated objectively and made an amendment to the zoning code.

So we're not able to kind of determine an alternate standard that that makes intuitive sense.

Yeah.

Uh Bill.

Um I'd like to recommend uh approval of the project given all the discussion.

I'm not sure there's much more we can talk about.

Uh do I have a second for the motion for approval?

A second from chat.

Um all in favor, please raise your hand.

Um those against uh I'm abstaining.

You're gonna abstain, Ravi.

Okay.

So three in favor and one abstention for the special permit for the use.

Thank you.

Um I'm sorry, my screen glitched.

What was the result?

Uh the result was three um for approval and one abstention.

So the motion passes.

So you'll get a recommendation letter um noting the uh recommendation for approval.

And then your next step is the zoning board, which uh Courtney and Benita will be in touch with you about.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um next on our agenda, still zoning board referrals.

Uh ZB application 25-4-1 in the Stanford zoning board.

Um, the purpose of this text change is to make corrections and streamline the zoning regulations.

Um if you'd like to go ahead and I have 1150.

Oh, wait.

Nope, that comes after.

All right, sorry.

Okay.

Uh for the record.

Sorry.

Should I should I introduce the other referral also?

Were you planning to present on them together or separately?

We can we can do it separately.

You have to vote separately.

So that's the same.

Let's do it.

Um so good evening.

Uh for the record Ralph Blessing, land use burrito for the city of Stanford.

I'm going to share my screen uh with you.

Okay.

Can you see the presentation?

Yes.

Yes.

Excellent.

So I'm here uh tonight with um two text change applications.

Uh 2 to 4-41 uh is a cleanup and 2 to 5 uh dash 42 is actually an update to uh reflect the new terminology in uh the comprehensive plan, uh because obviously in many places the the um zoning regulations refer to the master plan, so that needs to be updated.

But we start with uh the cleanup 225-41.

Um so uh this is sort of uh uh mixed bag of uh different uh cleanups um that we sort of put together.

Um aspect is we're deleting duplicative language in sections one and two regarding uh ZBA and variances.

So uh as part of the reorganization, uh we accidentally left some uh language in there that is repeated in two different sections.

So this is really um just um the cleanup.

Uh one thing uh we also proposing is to update the notice requirements for certain uh zoning board uh applications.

So um the the requirements don't change, they're actually uh defined by um the charter and by state statute.

Um what we are uh doing uh is I think we organize it uh clearer than it is now.

Um and uh we are actually also updating some of the um uh uh language that is required.

So for example, uh it occurred to us that the signs you have to post for a zoning board application, uh they still refer to um in-person meetings.

Uh there's no mention that most of the meetings are happening uh online, so it's it's updating uh the requirements uh so that it becomes actually more user-friendly.

Uh another update we're proposing is we we introduced a couple of years uh light and air requirements.

So in front of every window, you have to have a certain distance uh without um any obstructions.

Um what has occurred to us is that uh with the conversion of office buildings, which generally don't have operable windows, so windows you can open.

Um many of the people who are converting those office buildings actually don't put windows in uh that can be opened because there's not really a requirement or an enforceable requirement.

So we're adding the little word operable to the light and air requirements.

Um we make some clarifications to the street definition.

The purpose is that um as you know, we require street trees uh pretty much everywhere along streets.

This clarification of the street uh uh definition is intended that you also have to uh provide street trees on private streets and roads.

So the intent obviously is to increase uh street trees and entry planting in general.

Um we uh also want to clarify the ADA requirements for deed restricted senior housing.

So a couple uh of years ago or maybe last year, uh, we we did uh we created zoning regulations for uh senior housing.

Um and one of the requirements for the senior housing is that they have to be ADA accessible.

However, there are um sort of different dis uh levels of ADA accessibility.

Um so we wanted to be uh very clear which level of ADA uh compliance is required.

Um we're adding zoning requirements for uh shared parking facilities, how they have to be designed, uh sort of the legal requirements that like how long do agreements have to be at least for facilities to share parking uh so that it can count for zoning purposes.

Uh and then um we um are uh updating uh some of the notes in appendix A.

There's some um uh as we reorganize the zoning regulations, we didn't update all the the uh section numbers in there, uh, and we are also deleting the requirement for small retail spaces in uh uh industrial districts.

So you don't need to get a um uh special permit for Bodega in an industrial district um uh as it is and it is now uh just to make it easier for those users uh to go in there, and that's pretty much it for the cleanup.

Um first I see chat's hand.

You're on mute.

Sorry about that.

Um Ralph, I I I um I don't know if it's specific to single family versus the whole class, but the um regarding the um operable window thing, um the the uh fire code um in certain residential occupancies does require operable windows for egress purposes from bedrooms.

So just uh again, yeah, I don't know if it's uh the the um so it is um uh what it so the light and air requirements actually don't uh apply to single family homes.

I mean, what someone is doing in their single family home, we we don't care.

Right.

Uh what is really important to us is that uh in apartment buildings that occupants have uh a minimum uh clear distance uh in front of their window.

So that's really where uh the light and air uh requirements come in.

Uh and the thing is also obviously um, I mean, zoning uh is pretty much quality of life uh issues, while um obviously the the fire code uh life and safety regulations uh they supersede zoning.

So whenever uh there is a conflict between uh zoning and the fire code, then there's no question that the fire code takes precedence um over um uh the zoning regulations, but we had cases that's actually why we started putting in the light and air requirements where we had a situation uh they built a building um and the the fire code distance requirement was five feet, and that was the distance between the window and the wall.

And we decided that that is not sufficient and shouldn't be the view you have from your window is is basically uh uh having a wall five feet from your window.

So we added uh that uh requirement um uh the the light and air requirement in the zoning regulations.

No, I I understand.

Uh I I mentioned it only um if you haven't already, it may it may be appropriate to just uh communicate with the fire marshal and just to make sure that what what we're including in terms of operable windows there is not in somehow in conflict.

That's all.

Yeah, there is actually I I believe in the section, there is actually a note in there that basically says in case of a conflict between this regulation and uh the fire code or other public uh health and safety codes, those other codes um uh take precedence.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Any other questions from board members um all right?

Well, seeing none.

Uh do I have a motion on this?

I know.

Motion Well, Rush and I have a second second from chat.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

I'm assuming Bill, that is your hand raised for approval.

Um and so it passes unanimously with all four.

Thank you.

Uh the next application.

Um another from the uh city of Stanford, application 225-4-2.

Um the purpose of this amendment of the Stanford zoning regulations is to update this references to the city's revised comprehensive plan, formerly the master plan in the zoning regulations, given that land use categories were changed as part of the plan update, these categories will be updated as well.

Okay, so uh this is also pretty straightforward.

Um it's uh really uh basically wherever the uh the zoning regulations now say master plan, it will refer to comprehensive plan.

Um it gets a little bit more involved, um uh where it it refers to specific uh master plan or comprehensive categories.

Um so uh what we have for every zoning district is basically uh designation criteria.

So uh for example, for uh a manufacturing district, uh you uh obviously cannot rezone a residential area to a manufacturing area if it's not in the right master plan category.

So uh usually what what the designation criteria for each zoning district say, in order to map this zoning district, you have to be in master plan, comprehensive plan category X, and you have to have a minimum uh land area of so and so many square feet or acres.

Uh so uh this is also something um we are updating, and um what this table shows you is sort of the the rough uh equivalency between the old master plan categories and the new comprehensive uh plan categories.

Um what I want to note is that um and I think when when you were talking before about um the uh uh the application for the rezoning of the parking lot to uh to commercial, um what I want to note is that um neither the the master plan categories uh uh allow for room for interpretation.

So uh even though um like the the site we were talking about is in the mixed-use urban master plan category, I would argue that this location, which is relatively far away from downtown and uh not as close to the train station, uh will have um a different zoning uh uh that is uh the at a lower density than something that is closer to downtown in the same master plan category.

So there's a little bit of overlap between the different uh master plan categories here, and I think it's it's the task really of the planning board and uh the zoning board uh to find the right zoning districts um uh uh within those master plan categories that that make sense for the specific location uh uh they are in.

But generally speaking, um those are sort of the the equivalencies um uh between the old 2015 master plan categories and the new 2035 uh comprehensive plan categories, and we changed some, we added some new ones, uh we um combine some uh uh master plan categories, and of course you're all familiar because it's your plan, but this is basically um uh uh the first step of implementing uh the new comprehensive plan on a zoning level, and of course there will be a lot more work uh to do uh and as um uh the chair said um like how do we change the zoning in the area for bull's head, keeping in mind that we want to have more um pedestrian-friendly uh environment uh and so on and so forth.

So that will obviously be part of a discussion that will go on for the next couple of years uh to figure that one out.

This is really the first step, and this is really just updating sort of the the terminology and the zoning regulations.

Um questions, Ravi?

Did we not discuss having a historical district somewhere during the comprehensive plan, or is it somewhere in this new plan categories or it's not?

Yeah.

Uh I mean those are the officially adopted uh uh comprehensive plan categories.

We do have uh historic districts in the city.

Uh they are designated uh through the National Register of Historic Places.

Uh so that's that's basically uh I mean the national register designation doesn't mean uh a whole lot uh with regard to protecting historic structures.

Um what we do have, what has teeth is the cultural resources inventory that we um established uh a couple of years ago.

Um so the if you are if a building is on the cultural resources inventory, then there's a facade easement that protects the facade.

Uh um, then you have to come back uh for historical site plan approval if you want to make any changes to the building.

Um so that's in the cultural resources inventory.

That's not in any cultural resources inventory is part of the zoning regulations.

That's actually uh section eight of the zoning regulations.

Um and uh one of the things that uh I think we need to do with uh the new comprehensive plan with implementing the new comprehensive plan is working with HPAC and and uh community-based preservation organizations to uh um adopt and implement uh all the historic preservation recommendations that the comprehensive plan uh uh makes.

So that will be a discussion uh that's also going to happen.

And one of the things uh we're planning to do is um uh we are going to hire a new planner and uh the planner will actually be staffing uh HPAC, the historic preservation advisory commission.

So uh that they have more uh resources uh to um um uh work on historic preservation uh initiative.

Okay, so it's not this plan categories.

It is a difference like the initiatives flow back.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um any other questions.

Um can I have a motion on this item?

Ravi, uh move for approval.

Um, do I have a second?

Second from Bill.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on through.

Uh our last item on the zone zoning board referrals is ZB application 225-43.

Um summer EPLLC um 115 Summer Street map change.

Applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the current C1 intermediate commercial zoning district to the CG general commercial zoning district.

Um and I'll just note uh for the board in terms of our purview before the presentation begins, is that um the we're gonna get a presentation about a use change and that the zone change is requested to allow uh for that use to um be included.

Um but we're not directly weighing in on the proposal for the facility, if that makes sense.

Um all right, so um if the applicant uh would like to um introduce uh Myself for the record um and proceed.

Oh, you are on mute.

I cannot hear you.

All right, I had to switch my microphone source.

Is that better?

Yes.

There we go.

Uh Ray Mazio of Redness and Mead on behalf of the applicant.

Uh Dave Pinto uh from my office is with us.

Uh and Israel Schwartz is here on behalf of ownership.

Um and given the time, I will jump right into it and try to share my screen here.

There we go.

Um see the cursor.

Yes.

Oh, yes.

Okay, great.

Um, so this is the property outlined in yellow.

Um, it's at the northwest corner of Hoyt Street and Summer Street.

And I'm given both the old and new master plan categories, uh, so it was previously in category nine and within this corridor uh of Summer Street that has a a mix of master plan categories that have been um simplified in the new comprehensive plan um and put the entire corridor uh in the mixed-use urban category, which helps solve uh a lot of issues for a lot of these properties, many of which are split-zoned and split master plan category.

So this um really helps set the course and understanding uh what the plan is for the future of some of these properties.

Um this one is not split zone, but it does have some unique uh features.

Uh it's entirely within the CI.

Um, and you can see uh while the master plan has been cleaned up, the corridor uh is still a mishmash of different zones, uh, including the CI, CL, the RH residential, RMF residential, and the and the MXD uh and the CG which exists uh as far north as uh 4th Street up here.

Um and you may recall when this was for the Beninson building uh on the corner of 2nd Street uh and Summer Street.

Um and with that zone change, we also created basically a a new zone.

Um it was a a pared down version of the CG.

So it had uh less intensity than the CG when landed uh north or south of North Street.

So there's a uh a newish zone uh of CG north of North Street.

uh and summer street um and with that zone change we also created basically a a new zone um it was a a pared down version of the cg so it had uh less intensity than the cg when landed uh uh north or south of north street so there's a uh a newish zone uh of CG north of North Street you know we called it basically C D CG light uh and that's the zone change that is being proposed uh on this application uh so it would be landing this the CG similar to what we did for Beninson uh on on this site here this is the building it's a fairly typical you know summer street corridor you know uh 1970s 80s office building um a lot of them are stilted with a small core that comes to the ground they're mostly class B and C office buildings um drive underneath park in the back type of thing many of them uh go all the way through to Franklin Street with surface parking uh this one does not uh it's got you can see you can drive under the building and there's a garage that you enter through here and then the surface parking starts to ramp up as you go towards the rear of the property and then there's a parking deck above uh the garage level and we can the next images will kind of show you how that integrates to the rest of the building um it was not always a corner lot uh Hoyt Street did not always go through um in the in the 90s this Hoyt Street extension was created um to connect summer street to Washington Boulevard and it created this zero setback condition uh for the property along the Hoyt Street corridor so that's one of the um legal nonconformities uh of the of the property this is an aerial view from that kind of southeast corner so summer street here hoyt Street here and you can kind of start to see um how the the upper stories of the building are are larger floor plates that overhang uh some of the parking uh this is a view uh more from the the west of the property and then this is the view from the summer street entrance which is the only uh vehicular entrance to the property so you kind of get a better sense of uh how the inner workings of the the outside of the building this is a view from as you just enter into the parking garage and you can see it it ramps down the parking deck sits on top of it and that last wall is left open I I assume for ventilation purposes now this is on top of the parking deck so now you can see that there's the core of the building that runs through and this area underneath the building is part of what the uh applicant is looking to infill um and then this is a view from inside the main lobby so similar to the outside um there's a lot of vacant space that continues up uh through the upper floors uh of the building some of that would be uh proposed to be filled in on the upper level and what is being proposed and this kind of shows it in plan view so you have the the larger floor plates uh on the top two levels this is the area underneath uh at the parking deck that they'd be looking to fill in so pretty much all of the infill is within the envelope of the building the only things that are outside uh this the what I'll call the superstructure of the building are some new stair towers that are being proposed um to satisfy the building code requirements for the use so because it is a daycare use that's being proposed on the lower levels um they need a separate fire egress from the office use that is going to remain uh on the top floor so what's what's being shown here is a a stair tower that serves the daycare uses on the lower floors and then this egress stair would go straight to the top level to serve the the the office floor uh and they would egress out to Hoyt Street here the other areas would egress out um to an exterior ramp down to summer street uh the other change is just an extension of that upper parking deck to create the required area of refuge uh for fire egress so those are the changes to the building and all of this is to facilitate uh a new child daycare use um the proposal is for uh up to 222 um child daycare slots um with i believe uh around 35 staff members serving the children um and i think this board is pretty well aware that's uh a need of our community at large in Stanford uh uh acutely uh short on child daycare spaces um so this would be i I think a really good spot for it there's not a lot downtown um I think most of the the child care uh serving places are in suburban Stanford so this would serve uh a real need of the downtown and to facilitate that is the

Um and I think this board is pretty well aware that's uh a need of our community at large in Stanford uh uh acutely uh short on child daycare spaces.

Um so this would be I think a really good spot for it.

There's not a lot downtown.

Um I think most of the the child care uh serving places are in suburban Stanford.

So this would serve uh a real need of the downtown.

And to facilitate that is the zone change to the CG.

Um the infill creates about 5,000 square feet of additional uh floor area.

The the property as it sits in the CI is right at the cusp of what the CI allows already.

So pretty much any addition would would create a non-conformity with regard to floor area.

So the moving it to the CG uh would solve that, and I think further the goals of the mixed-use master plan category, and I think what we're seeing in terms of the the trends and trying to revitalize uh this corridor of Summer Street.

So with that, I'll I'll end my initial presentation and happy to answer any questions of the board.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Um I'll just note a couple of things kind of more for the record.

So my office is actually in this building on the second floor.

Very familiar with the site.

Um, and it's the parking's almost never full right now.

Um also part of my job is advocating for more child care in the city.

So um with that said, uh chat, uh, you have a question?

And you're on mute.

There we go.

And get rid of this guy.

Um Ray, while I'm I'm I'm absolutely in favor of this kind of urban um uh use and and particularly daycare.

Um you know we do know that uh, you know, uh daycare facilities um uh prompt a somewhat unique um pedestrian vehicular arrangement uh on drop-off and pickups.

Um whether people are within walking distance or not doesn't really matter on in Clement days.

Um so I'm just curious.

Um they're gonna be let's just assume at a minimum, you know, you're probably talking about 150 vehicles.

Um you know, there could be some, you know, siblings that are are in one car.

Absolutely.

But you know, most of the kids are are probably going to be, you know, um uh the only child for representing that household.

Um how will that work?

How is that proposed to work in with in this kind of um a facility?

Sure.

Um so this particular uh daycare um has a very staggered drop-off and pickup period.

So for instance, in the mornings, it's really anywhere from 6 a.m.

to 10 a.m.

Um, depending on the needs of the family.

Um so it's not as concentrated as you might think.

Um the other thing that we're doing with this is um both out of necessity based on the requirements and for the the uh programmatic needs, uh there will be off-site parking that's going to be sought.

Um the idea is that the roughly 20 to 25 spaces, depending on uh how the final parking counts shake out with the construction.

Um roughly 20 to 25 spaces will will need to be off-site.

And the idea is that that would be for staff parking.

And we've had some preliminary discussions with um in particular 30 Oak Street, which I think was before you recently for another GDP to convert that office building to residential.

Um, so they currently and when it when it gets converted to residential, we'll have dozens of spaces available in their garage that can serve the the staff use for this.

Um, and there would still be another 50 plus spaces most likely on site uh to serve the office, and it's relatively easy uh to separate between the garage spaces and the deck spaces so that the office can continue to operate as it does today.

Um, in terms of child drop-off, it's not like a school drop-off where there's a line and a staff person outside and you're letting the kid out of the car, and you need that kind of queuing loop for child daycare.

the the staff use for this um and there would still be another 50 plus spaces most likely on site uh to serve the office and it's relatively easy uh to separate between the garage spaces and and the deck spaces um so that the office can continue to operate as it does today um in terms of child drop off it's not like a school drop off where there's a line and a staff person outside and you're letting the kid out of the car and you need that kind of queuing loop um for for child daycare everybody needs to walk the kid in so parents will be parking uh in a more traditional sense and walking the child into the building um but but where will they be parking they will be parking you know in the on-site spaces that are going to remain not not all the parking's being removed just a few spaces underneath the building um i understand that um you know we're we're giving up some existing spaces by the new uh infill correct um but there's still office occupancy on the top floor um and and uh how many parking spaces would that uh that uh occupancy require here let me uh I have a parking truck let me just bring that up for a moment I think I read some place that the um the floor area for that top floor is 130000 four some place in the teens so here uh if we focus on the proposed column here it would leave about 12 and 12 just over 12,000 square feet for the office which would require 37.3 spaces correct and then we would be how many would it remain um roughly 15 assuming that all the offices is occupied um you know it would be a a shared use of spaces um for the for the for the on-site and we'd have roughly 24 off site for the uh daycare staff yeah so the day let's not worry about the daycare staff for a moment um you know you could have you you're gonna have uh a hundred and fifty cars staggered across a four hour period uh I accept that um that are gonna be uh looking for spaces that are largely filled by the occupants of the office level yeah uh well the these are the requirements of the zoning the plan meets them um and in terms of practicality you know those few spaces will serve uh a number of parents it's a really high turnover for drop off and pickup you know it's uh about a a minute you know from parking walking the kid to the door back in the car and you're out of there you know I do it daily now at Our Lady of Grace preschool um in the kind of Springdale almost dairy and section of town and they operate with just a few spaces.

Yeah.

Um but of course in this arrangement what's exact what will exacerbate the problem is that the the parking driveways are dead ended of course so um unless unless they're planning on on producing some turnaround space you know at that end to allow cars that got all the way to the end and didn't find a space um you know to to uh turn around and and proceed back in the in the other direction okay um that would be something uh I'd I'd recommend that somebody give us some consideration to otherwise it's going to be um quite congested here uh at certain times uh obviously not not constantly through that 6 a.m to 10 a.m window but certainly between um you know seven and and nine uh that's gonna be the peak you know the peak demand time so yeah and I think hopefully you know the the early demand will will occur before the the office you know fills up if you think about the timing of it and people you know typically dropping off before they go to work you know there'll be a little bit of an an offset to help that um but but to your point um what's before the zoning board now is the zone change and a general development plan approval uh if that proceeds we will have to come back to them with a final site plan application where all those details would be worked out and I imagine uh the traffic and and uh the TTP department will be uh taking a harder look at at the specifics of it yeah and and to be specific the GDP application is not in front of the planning board right now the only application in front of the planning board is a zoning map change and no I understand that I was uh commenting it from the same perspective as as the somewhat lengthy conversation we had relative to the a previous you know uh referral here uh in in which it was the compatibility of what will you know potentially become off-street parking uh in that in that neighborhood and off street by virtue of the fact that the ones well so just to to conclude in the same way that we concluded the last conversation is that both of the projects meet the required parking which is a zoning regulation not under

And no, I understand that I was uh commenting it from the same perspective as the somewhat lengthy conversation we had relative to the previous you know uh referral here, uh in which it was the compatibility of what will you know potentially become off-street parking uh in that in that neighborhood off-street by virtue of the fact that the well, so just to to conclude in the same way that we concluded the last conversation is that both of the projects meet the required parking, which is a zoning regulation, not under the purview of the planning board, and um we're you guys are predicting a future scenario that may or may not happen.

Um it's not really something to base a uh a judgment on.

Again, the question here is does the CD district align with the future land use category?

Um not does the parking uh is the parking sufficient.

Um so that's a great conversation that you guys can have.

But the question at is is does the zoning map align with the future land use category.

Thanks, Lindsay, for that uh redirection there.

Um and I guess so.

Um the text amendment conversation, right?

Um this I think the question is whether this zone change is in alignment with the the comprehensive plan category that it's in right now.

And I think given how the um how things have been shaping up uh with a lot of uh conversions, um, that this shift in the zoning category seems compatible with the underlying um comprehensive plan category.

And then the details of the parking will get worked out in the future.

Uh are there further questions or comments from the board?

Uh seeing none, uh I have a motion on the zone change.

Are there um are there further questions of clarification on the impact of the zone change that board members are holding?

Oh Ravi, you're muted if you're trying to speak.

Yeah, I don't think it's me.

You know, any issue.

I'm just struggling with the logic that you know, don't look at anything that relates to traffic or condition and just approve this most of the.

I mean, I'm in this particular case, I I don't have that much of a reservation, but it seems somewhat strange to me.

And that is why I'm not proposing proposing the solution approval.

Somebody else proposes that'll be glad to support.

Okay.

Um I hear what you're saying, and I I think again, it's thinking about like what are what does the zone change potentially enable?

And is that compatible with um the underlying comprehensive plan category?

Um holding that and knowing that whatever use change occurs here is going to have to conform to the regulations for that um for that zone is what you're holding.

I would also note that the zoning change doesn't affect the parking um here.

So uh you don't require more parking based on a different zoning category, it's it's use and parking category based.

Um the fact we're going to change it from intermediate commercial to gentle commercial allows more occupancy and more space to be built up, right?

That's what I thought was being said.

So then that happens and you don't create parking and you don't do anything else, and we are told, hey, you should ignore all that and just approve this in a very theoretical way, it's somewhat hard for me to get my head around it.

Either to be holistically or we don't look at it, I mean it's very high.

So the just means ratios for again for the as Lindley was saying, so for office use, no matter what zone you're in, you have to have three spaces per thousand square feet.

Um and for daycare, you need 1.25 per employee.

And that scales up and down depending on the size of the building.

So this zone change allows for the building to be um to be larger than it currently is, but it also requires the parking to scale up with that increase in square footage.

Right.

Which can be provided on site or through some sort of agreement as the applicant is seeking.

But again, that's not that's not what's before us right now, like approving a parking plan or approving a site plan.

It is the zone change.

And just if I can add to that, um the the reason the site plan is not technically before you is because it's in it's an as of right permitted use that's being proposed.

If it were a special permit, uh both would be before you.

So while you know, technically we could come with just the map change and say, hey, we want to change it from CI to CG, the master plan supports that and leave it at that.

Um we could do that.

Uh it would be, I think, a harder decision for the board without any context.

So we do like to provide, you know, at least a demonstration of what could be uh proposed uh with the zone change.

Um so that's what we always try to do at a minimum.

Um in this case, you know, it's a GDP, so all the details haven't been worked out because it it's a it's really a first step to say, is this a good idea?

Do we want to see office buildings in this corridor that are failing get redeveloped or you know, adaptively reused as the case may be.

Um and typically um we haven't seen a lot of different types of uses for those other than multifamily residential.

Um so this one really serves a need of Stanford in general and the urban community specifically, because this use does not really exist uh in and around the downtown.

So we think that certainly outweighs um any um apprehension you may have for for not having all the details buttoned up uh in front of you today.

Yes, well Jen, I would I mean I will you know initiate the proposal to approve, but please consider what Jake was articulating as his concerns very seriously when you develop the detailed plan.

And the reason I say that is in all of our public interactions, this question of traffic and all that comes up.

And it's very hard for me to detach one from the other, like when we approve any application, we have to consider it holistically, not nods and bits and pieces.

So I think but having a child care uh daycare in in the city is I think really well objective.

So I have no issue with that, but please consider when you come back with the full details, what shape was talking about and right to address his concerns as well.

Okay.

Absolutely.

All those things are are and will be considered both by the applicant and by the reviewing boards and the departments of the city.

Um, but in this case, the if it helps you put your mind at ease at all, the applicant um is well versed in this.

They've done daycares uh all over the region and have a handle on.