What the needs are and they want it and need it to work more than anybody.

Um, because if parking is a problem, uh, it's not going to be a desirable destination for families.

Okay.

Okay.

I think Bill wants to say something.

Bill.

Is that hand a comment or a second?

Um Yeah, I was just gonna say I think we should be encouraging this kind of thing as opposed to just converting everything to residential and daycare is something that's badly needed.

And so did he already recommend approval in that case.

Yeah.

Okay.

Second from Bill.

Um all in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and as Ray is uh pulling off, I do just want to note for the board and uh a little bit of the history of of um daycare regulations specifically, actually.

Um so the daycare regulations in Stamford actually used to be much more um uh stringent in that they were every single daycare had to come before the planning board for a special use permit.

Um, and about two a year two years ago, I think at this point, um, there was actually a state level um change that um that disallowed having a special permit solely based on the use of a child daycare because there were many that weren't um approved because there were questions and perceptions around parking and like how that would all work, but that ultimately the approval should be based on technical standards around what sort of parking is required for this sort of facility as well as whether the um operator is meeting the state standards.

Um I can recall some uh hearings where you know we had members who were like asking about the placement of the beds within the uh nap room and again it was so far out of the purview of what the planning board ought to be weighing in on that that ultimately led to um a state level law to make um child care as um an as-of-right use within uh residential and commercial zones, provided it meets uh various technical specifications around you know parking square footage, egress and all of that.

So it removes a lot of um that existed that I would argue was often um meaning but not rooted technical standards uh um of these applicants.

So hopefully that is helpful, and I hope that a number of folks will walk because there will be so many residential conditions that are also coming along, coming online adjacent.

Um we are running quite late this evening.

Um we're now shifting to uh zoning board of appeals referrals.

Uh the first being ZBA application 026-25 M Ren M Rahim, uh 249 Fairfield Avenue variants of Table 2 appendix B.

Uh applicant owns this 4,972 square foot vacant parcel and is proposing to construct a two-family residence with four parking spaces at the rear, an open greenway for the front yard.

Applicant is requesting an allowance for a lot size of 4,972 square feet in lieu of the 6,000 square feet required in the R5 zone multifamily medium density design district.

Um applicant would like to uh come forward and introduce yourself for the record.

If there is an applicant on the line, there may not be for a CBA.

Uh so he actually notified me that he would be here, but I'm not seeing him, and that's not his number phone number that's called in.

So if it's somebody else on the line that's just not using the name associated with the application, feel free to raise your hand.

But I I don't think he's here.

Okay.

Um well, if the applicant is not here, I think Lindsay, if you could just raise a couple of the key points that were in the staff report regarding this application.

Sure.

Um, so the property is in residential two, uh residential neighborhood future land use category provides for a diverse array of housing options options from single family dwellings to duplexes and triplexes.

Um, so on the front, uh, having a uh two-family home on this lot would um by use align with the comprehensive plan.

I did um note a few concerns regarding the size of the lot serving a two-family home when a 5,000 square foot lot uh is what's required to serve a single family home.

Um so even if they wanted to develop as a single family home, they would be undersized.

So I I would just a little concerned with that.

Um and the parking uh parking issue.

Um I've been in conversations with zoning enforcement, and uh apparently I've been directed to not be concerned about the parking issue on the second lot, uh, because that's not the lot for which the variance is being sought.

Uh so the address, the lot which the 4,972 square foot vacant parcel where they're proposing a two-family residence, the four parking spaces meets that uh meets that requirement.

The fact that the property, the applicant's adjacent lot that he also owns is not zoning compliant is not under consideration here.

Okay, thank you.

Um Chet, your hands up.

Oh, I'm no, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh questions or motion from the board.

So let me see.

I think other than the fact it is the lot is undersized for a two family concern you have.

Uh that is my main concern, yep.

And it's a pretty significant difference from the 6,000 required to under 5,000.

And what are the neighboring neighboring lots?

Are they similar sizes?

Are they bigger, smaller?

Do we know?

Um, the one I'd have to look on the land records to double triple check.

Um, but I can do that quickly.

Right.

I mean, I I will say, Ravi, I think often we'll look at the adjacent lots if they're asking for a variance, um, typically more around setbacks uh in neighborhoods that are um that predate zoning um and are thus you know uh not um they tend to be developing in a way that doesn't worsen that nonconformity in this case this is permitting uh new construction on this lot.

I was since the applicant is not not yet.

I was trying to understand what justification or rationale would have to do this, you know.

Um it does look like it's a similar similar size lot as some of the adjoining neighbors.

Um the applicant's intention, uh he described it in the in the application.

He's getting um he's getting blight citations because people are dumping on the vacant property.

Um we advised him that a single-family home is a more likely application to be approved, but they wanted to go with a two-family home.

So that's what they went with.

I understand.

I'm thinking that given that the applicant is not here to defend something that we're kind of uncomfortable with because of the precedent setting that we should not approve this.

Okay, so is that a motion to motion for denial?

Uh motion to deny for those reasons.

Okay.

Uh because the lot is undersized for the requested use.

Um the lot is undersized.

A good explanation of why it's being done has not been given and it would set a precedent to at some point.

Why do we even have these zoning regulations if we're just gonna willy-nilly approve every proposal?

Okay, right.

reasons that's okay uh because the lot is undersized for the requested use the um the lot is under sized a good explanation of why it's being done has not been given and it would set a precedent to you know at some point why do we even have these zoning regulations if we're just gonna willy nilly approve every proposal okay right so the variance is too significant is basically the last point you had and that there's no hardship that's been stated uh for the the variance request um summarizes the second point uh do I have a second on the motion for denial second from Ravi um all in favor of the motion for denial raise your hand and that motion carries unanimously for denial of the application um next we have ZBA application 02027 25 Jonathan Lerner a 46 box foot drive variants of table three appendix B applicant owns a single family dwelling and is proposing to reconstruct the garage access and to redesign the drive access applicant is requesting a a 32 point eight foot uh street line setback and then 40 feet minimum uh allowed B a 59.2 feet street center setback in lieu of the 65 feet minimum allowed and C 24% building coverage in lieu of the 20% maximum allowed uh do we have a presenter on this item no okay um if you want Lindsay to summarize the key points from the staff report sure uh the properties in residential uh res two residential neighborhood future land use category um providing a diverse array of housing options um this property can be used as a single family home with or without the variance uh and that aligns with the future land use category um there are some benefits with reduction in lot coverage um removal of an illegal circular driveway removal of a second curb cut um so the use currently aligns would align in the future with or without the variance um the work they're proposing provides a few additional benefits uh questions or comments from the board uh yeah i i'm looking uh specifically at their explanation for why the variance um is the variance are are the minimum necessary to afford relief um and i'm particularly struck by um the answer here um the proposed building expansion is no closer to the street line and street center than the then the northern portion well um that's not entirely factual their response uh it is i agree it is in fact closer um by virtue of the fact that the road curves um so i you know i i i understand that you know the uh the need in this to kind of uh mold to manipulate the perception but the perception i i would much more prefer a more factual um reason they have a a two-car garage currently um and and this is to build a not a a larger i guess a larger two car garage um and i i don't think that that's justification for um for this request for variance um any other comments so genuine too good mind what was the variance that do the elytic listing can you read it i don't i don't have the document uh yes i will read again um there are three variances requested um one is um 32.8 foot street line setback in lieu of the 40 feet minimum allowed um the second variance is for a 59.2 foot street center uh setback in lieu of the 65 foot minimum allowed and the third is a 24 percent building coverage in lieu of the 20 percent maximum allowed um so my you know i think overall it's like no one of those is egregious um and there is not a there's not really a hardship stated so um there are benefits to the proposal they're putting forward and i guess the question is is are the benefits that they're proposing of the uh drive redesign still feasible without uh variance and my sense is that it would still be feasible to make those changes without the variance is that accurate lindsay I'm trying to think it through and I think yes they could um let me double check this materials but um yeah like removing

Is that accurate, Lindsay?

I'm trying to think it through, and I think yes, they could.

Um let me double check this materials, but um yeah, like removing uh the circular driveway, reducing that curb cut, um removing patio, yeah, that can all be done without a variance.

Um the increase in size for their parking garage is likely is is really the what's behind the driving the variance here.

Um yeah.

Can you tell me a little bit more about um the illegality of the circular driveway just um so there's a few different things.

So um circular driveways are only permitted in certain zoning districts, uh likely due to lot size.

Um and there's a distance separation requirement, I believe, of 75 feet between the two entrances, and they don't they're they're in a zone that doesn't allow circular driveways.

The space between the two curb cuts is not meeting the required distance.

Um and they also have they have uh granite what are those blocks called?

The the the the Belgian blocks Belgium blocks, Belgian blocks, um, which the city requires a waiver uh in case the city damages, we don't want to be liable for replacing that stuff.

Um they don't have a waiver on it.

So um when they came in for an ADU application, we found all of these issues.

Um they've been working with zoning enforcement to resolve any existing nonconformance issues.

Um in, you know, with the final end goal eventually of of having an ADU.

Um so don't know where the garage renovation came into the picture here.

I uh but it seems like that's really that's really what's what they're trying to do is is to accommodate with this variance is just is the garage.

Um so are they are they going to regularize those non-compliances as part of this request, or that is a separate separate case.

Um that was part it it was presented as part of the work that they're doing on the lot, they just it as part of their application, um they presented that all of this work.

Um would they do this otherwise?

I don't know.

Um I think now that I I don't know if they would remove, for example, the existing patio.

Um I pretty positive the zoning enforcement would require them to remove the circular driveway.

Um and if they wanted to keep the granite block, then we would just require a waiver.

So um I think the only thing that we would require them to do if they didn't move forward if if this application got denied, is that zoning enforcement would require them to remove the circular driveway.

And they can uh they can accommodate this uh new configuration um without expanding the garage.

There is room on the on the lot to replicate this exact layout.

Um with without the addition I'm wondering if now that we're talking through it, I'm wondering if part of this application provides them the space they need to meet the parking requirement for an ADU.

But again, that's not that's not really part of this application or or really in consideration.

I'm just trying to think it through.

Right, right.

We don't want to give the applicant an opportunity another opportunity to come and personally present this case next time or something.

Well, it's a referral, so there's that, you know.

I mean, I I would hope that they will come before the ZBA.

But you know for these I I would say that you know if the applicant comes they come if they don't then we adjudicate it based on the information we have before us.

And given that there isn't a detailed description of what is um driving the necessity of the variance like they've sort of explained what they want to do but they haven't explained why the variance is necessary in order for them to do that.

If that's not present then we can uh move forward on that basis.

And again it ultimately goes to ZBA to decide I would say kind of just like historically my experience on the planning board is that um more often than not ZBA applicants don't they don't show up.

Yes ZB applicants do because they're usually much bigger applications.

But ZBA applications often don't show up.

Right.

Yeah most of them by the time they get to this stage have talked through with the land use bureau staff and have amended it in such a way that it should move forward and then sometimes they don't so um I think we're just getting a higher proportion of ones that have perhaps not so if this is 100% the case we've we've been advising like this is not a great application and folks are just applying them anyway and they're getting granted so we're working for staff members so that this DBA has more staff support so they can make some more informed decisions um and we can help with the applicants in their their applications but until we get a new staff member on um we can't yeah I we just we can't say no you can't submit an application we have to accept an application and in this case if you say no the ZBA will have to have a supermajority to approve um I know that's the case for the zoning board I don't know if that's the case or I feel like I've looked that up before let me check the zoning regulations that's where it would say I would hope that's the case or else I'm not sure why they would send them to us on referral.

There's something in the case of recommendation of approval but um uh no okay so the recommendations shall outline all factors considered um and which shall not be binding upon the zoning board of appeals publicly red full report so I don't actually think it does require I don't think it does push a a supermajority okay um it's just for consideration um I will say how it actually ends up working out uh is that the zoning board of appeals often um listens uh they they really do are very concerned with how the planning board um views an application um so they really do uh take the board's um discussion uh seriously sure okay i will note this seems like an area for future um charter explanation because it seems odd to have it on referral but for the referral to not really carry any practical um that's actually just a zoning regulation change so that might just be a zoning text change where we just add um I have an exact and I know exactly where to put it right here if if recommendation for denial um would require a supermajority at the board so I'll I'll bring that up with Ralph.

And I mean I I'll also say like I um as noted during our comprehensive plan conversation on a much higher level like I I would hope we can have some streamlining of how administrative uh review works so that we don't have to see very many of these because it is you know it is odd to adjudicate on things where there's no applicant and you know 85% of the time it's check the box yes this is right and then the rest of them are are kind of questionable so um all right so um we have a motion on this item did we put forward was that a question or a statement uh we have a motion question do we have a motion on the floor yeah i'll i'll move that we reject this um uh or or request or or pass along a negative uh referral okay so move for denial as our referral and the justification being um no in no indication of uh the hardship you know the the the real hardship okay a a real hardship sure okay well so for the planning board though our our responsibility your responsibility is is compreh is um compliance with the comprehensive plan so um hardship is up to the zoning board of appeals so that's something that you find sure yeah um all uh all all all the issues well that's an excellent point i mean you another way to look at this is that you know it it doesn't seem incompliant with the comprehensive plan but if i were on the zoning board i would i would or the zoning board of appeals i would still move to reject it um so it basically exceed yeah we don't i yeah yeah that works um all right i'll i'll withdraw my my motion well no i'm just well i was just saying we don't you don't need to i understand the the zoning referral letter does not have to um just has to state the finding not the um the rationale rationale yeah okay all right if you don't need to state the rationale then then i i'll stick with my my motion motion for denial yes i have a second for the motion for denial second from bravi all in favor of motion for denial please raise your hand uh bill if you want to leanne all right so that uh motion for denial passes unanimously and we are near the end um so last we have uh zba application 029-25 um danielle copic santasiero representing bridget copac 22 hickory way variants of table two appendix b applicant owns a single family dwelling and is proposing to add a second story addition over the existing garage footprint uh applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 33.1 feet in lieu of the 40 required b a front center line setback of 58.1 feet in lieu of the 65 feet required and a side yard setback of 9.7 feet in lieu of the 10 feet required um is there an applicant present on this or lindsay do you want to walk through the um the applicant's representative is here um so danielle if you do want to speak on this application you can unmute yourself and do so um if you don't want to speak on the application i can read what i have written misses you can unmute yourself if you'd like to present um um okay i can't unmute her for for us so um i guess maybe i'll just say a few things and then try and pass it back to her again sure sure okay so the property is in a residential one residential single family future land use category uh again low density residential primarily single family detached homes um the whole the existing home is already legally non-conforming with respect to the front and side yard setbacks and the variances would allow for the addition to be flush with the front of the existing house and side of the existing garage not to exceed encroachments okay danielle are you available speak okay i i don't have anything else to say on the project okay um comments or questions from the board members

Danielle, are you available?

Next speak.

Okay.

I I don't have anything else to say on the project.

Okay.

Um comments or questions from the board members.

I have a question.

Um, inasmuch as the first floor of this is intended for office use, it's actually labeled office on the on the plan.

Um is being provided with an independent access that from the front door, even though there is a connection, you know, through one of the bedrooms into the office space.

Um I'm confused in a single family occupancy.

Um can't is such a it's such a uh is it considered an accessory use or is it considered a commercial?

What is it?

And is it compliant?

Um so you're looking at um sheet A1 uh dash one of the first floor plan.

Um yes.

Um and so and that that's going into the existing garage footprint.

Well, I mean, I I will say, I mean, office, I mean people many people have home offices.

So um I unless the use of that space is a use that is regulated, just the fact that it has an office labeled is doesn't make it in any way non-compliant.

Um except you know, when for you know, my my home office doesn't have an independent access to the exterior.

I think that actually would be of a concern for zoning enforcement.

I've I've been on other projects where um they're requesting a variance and they show an office with exterior access, and that does raise a flag for zoning enforcement.

Okay.

Um that it might increase the traffic based on whatever the use is or yeah, or if it's an accessory use, right?

It looks like here they've got like a little waiting.

Uh it's looks quite formal.

Um that's a good question.

Okay.

Um let me double check the zone this is in, and if it does allow for those types of uses.

Umce this has like this, this went through zoning enforcement, all of these do, so you should assume that they are where, but um, you know, people are people, so R10.

Okay, let me look and see if uh that use is allowed.

Um, but yeah, it is interesting that it's not there's not described in the proposed use.

Well, well, and in point of fact, it talks about you know the purpose is to add, you know, a bedroom.

Right, right.

They are up up, you know, up above them, but not they're not being fully.

Yeah, it's a little, yeah.

Right, they're moving the bedroom to facilitate conversion of the garage into an accessory office.

Yeah, and renovating the rest of the house for a growing family.

That I appreciate.

Well, I mean, and that that also alone is is it's not a hardship per se.

It's just that people want to grow.

So um professional offices, comma, accessory use is permitted in the R10 zoning district in which this property is located.

Okay.

So whether or not this is a print an accessory professional office use, that's a zoning enforcement thing.

This is my best educated yes.

Got it.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, if someone else wants to move to approve it, I I won't stand in the way.

Yeah.

Is it I don't I don't know that it's fair to say that the existence of that accessory use is what's driving the non-conformity, right?

It's just that it's existing non-conforming, and they want to build up over the existing footprint.

So if the use that's within it is allowed in the zone, and you know, these are the plans they have, but they could also scrap that and keep it as a garage or turn it into a bedroom.

Then really we're looking at what is the extent of nonconformity of the building envelope, and is is the degree of non-conformity consistent with the plan category and the adjacent properties.

That makes sense.

Like if they were trying to bump it out a couple more feet in order to accommodate a you know expanded waiting room or something, then that would be a whole other conversation.

But that's actually not what's that's not the application.

Sure, sure.

And and I mean, you're right.

There's nothing in the uh zoning or planning that says, you know, yes, it it's it was built as a garage.

Um they're not they're not expanding the location of the building uh footprint in an in that regard.

Um so they can change how they want to use it.

Um from any of the other members.

Ravi, what's your motion?

Motion double.

Motion to approve.

Um, do I have a second on that motion?

Hey, Bill, you're up in this case.

Yeah.

Oh I'm not sure that I want to approve this because it's sort of seems like they're they're expanding the place so that it can mostly be an office.

I mean, which we're with an exterior entrance.

So I will say procedurally, you can second a motion without agreeing with the motion, because your vote is separate.

Oh well.

I'm just not sure why we're approving this, if it's creating an office with an exterior entrance when you know when they're making more room so that they can have an office on this property.

It's not a the kind of office where you it's just deep within your house.

It's got uh an entrance outside, and it looks like it's gonna be used as a small office building for very small.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, but is this office not dead already?

I mean, did we I think we already have an office, no?

No.

No.

No, it's a garage.

It's a garage.

They want to convert something to an office.

Is that the proposal?

I'm sorry.

No, no, it's 1015.

I'm losing my contemplating.

They're building another uh floor above a one-story garage to accommodate uh two bedrooms, if I'm recalling correctly.

Okay, and in the process, they want to convert uh and they're renovating the rest of the house uh to accommodate a growing family.

Um and in the process, they want to convert the garage, get rid of the garage um use entirely and convert the garage into an office.

Yeah, but our our scope is not to say where their bedroom should be, where their office should be.

Are you allowed to build on the floor within the existing footprint without increasing any variance?

That's a little right.

Right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

So in light of that bill, would you like to support my proposal or not?

I think I'm gonna abstain because I'm not 100% sure what's going on here.

Okay.

Um, I know that it's sort of custom that the chair usually doesn't first or second motions, but I don't think there's a prohibition on it either.

Um, so in order to move move the item forward, I'll second the motion for approval.

Um, so all in favor, please raise your hand if you are in support of approval.

Um so that's three for approval.

And Bill, you had stated you um intend to abstain.

Because of confusion.

Sure.

Okay.

Um so the motion carries uh three for approval and one abstention.

Okay, that is our full docket, and this is the second time we've had a very late meeting.

Um so thank you all for hanging on and your patience.

Um our next regularly scheduled planning board meeting is uh September 2nd, which is capital budget review.

Um I will just reiterate uh something that I'd say what is the date, I think September 2nd.

December 2nd.

December 2nd, okay.

Right.

And I know Ravi, you had noted that you're going to be traveling between you're leaving in a few days and then returning this second.

Yeah.

So you would not be present for that meeting.

We're not able to make it, I think.

Okay.

Um I think previously we had discussed trying to figure out if there was a way for um you to tap into the um capital budget draft review.

Um and I think given that logistical constraint, um, chat.

If you're willing, if we could find some time as a as a subcommittee to just kind of confer um on a draft uh before December 2nd, um that would be great.

And all of the board members are still welcome to uh provide additional comment.

Um Tony should be providing a folder of materials, and so you can drop in comments and questions there as well to be incorporated into the initial draft.

Um again, that'll be our our charge on December 2nd is to propose a good enough draft to post for public hearing in January.

Um, and then after the public hearing, uh we undergo another round of revisions based upon uh public comment and other new information that we've received, typically looking to approve a budget by February to go to the mayor uh for their role in it.

So um just as an aside, um I've already technically developed a draft, which I've distributed to all of you.

So that that would be my starting position.

Yes.

So and I will um that was sent around to the board members.

So one just wanted to make sure that um Lindsay was aware of that and and Tony as well.

Um, you know, I mean the way that we pull it together is really neither here nor there, but um did want to just kind of make clear that um chat had pulled together a first run methodology.

Um I will take and thank you very much for doing that.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I um I think my based on kind of my my quick review of it, um, noting that I've been out of town for the last week.

I have some thoughts on how it might be amended.

So I'll take a crack at that, but I think it would be good, Chad if we could uh schedule a time to just kind of sit down and look at it together after I've had a chance to um suggest some amendments.

Okay, so we'll schedule that um separately.

Um again, uh December 2nd, our next meeting is capital budget review.

Uh December 16th will be a regular meeting uh for items such as those we um reviewed today, and then uh the first meeting of the year will be the public hearing for the capital budget uh on January 13th, as is our schedule custom.

Um and uh with that uh we can go ahead and adjourn our meeting at 10 19.

Thank you.

Okay, good night, everyone.

Yeah.