Good evening.

Welcome to the Tuesday, February 10th meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

And first on our agenda this evening is the planning board minutes from February 3rd.

Do you members of the board have any questions within at the minutes?

Okay, I think I confused uh Lisney because I didn't see this capital budget being limited, but now I see in this lesson that uh the 29.9 million is mini-based, and we'll get it done.

Um other questions or clarifications.

Uh seeing none, um do we have a motion on the minutes?

All right, moved by Robbie, second from Jeremy, all in favor to raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh Lindsay, actually, while we're on the topic of the capital budget, kind of briefly.

Um, when is the uh transmit a letter to the mayor due?

Good question.

Um I can do some uh digging.

I don't know the date off the top of my head, but I can dig around and let you know.

Okay, thank you.

I my vague recollection is it's sometime in February.

But um and uh for the members of the board, this does not alter the motion from last week, but I did want to note that um I had some discussions with chat and we found some items where um it could make sense to uh bump the tier of the project up one or down one.

Uh but it doesn't change the over it doesn't change any of the amount or um uh or the yeah, the overall amount that we are submitting.

Um so again, we'll send that around uh uh when we have the draft transmit a letter, um, as well as um point out any tier tweaks.

Uh next on our agenda, we have uh request for authorization, proposed lease agreement between the city of Stanford and tenants of the Lathan Wider Community Center.

Uh this proposed form lease is to be used with the city's tenants at the Lathan Wider Community Center.

The city plans to lease space in the Lathen Wider Community Center at 34 Woodland Avenue in Stanford to multiple tenants.

Uh section 9-7 C2 of the city's code of ordinances allows the use of a form lease for each tenant if such form lease is pre-approved by the city's planning board, board of finance, and board of representatives.

Should those boards approve this form lease, any lease subsequently executed will not require further board approvals, but a copy must be forwarded to the Board of Finance for its information within 30 days of execution.

Um this Lindsay, how much of this should be made into the record.

I think you're um you can stop there.

It's been noticed in the agenda, um, all of those details.

And yeah.

Um and I I do want to note for the record, I don't think this is a conflict because we are looking at the form, not any specific lease, but uh the organization that I am employed by may be one of the organizations that has one of those nonprofit leases with the city.

Um again, we're not reviewing a lease with any given organization.

We're viewing the terms of the form that will be used.

All right.

Uh so our presenter on this items uh good evening, everyone.

It's Bridget Fox from the mayor's office.

I'm joined by Chris Delasalva from our legal department, and I'm here to just share an overview quickly and then I'll turn it over to Chris for any questions and explanation.

The lathe wider community center had to close in January of 2025 due to a water main break.

And the building was closed for many months as the city facilities department remediated the issues and took look took the time to actually make some real um cosmetic improvements in the building.

And so we are now reopening the building with the tenants that you um have listed joining as sub-tenants in the building, and it will be nonprofit organizations representing um really a lot of youth serving organizations from across the city.

But with that, I'll turn it over to Chris and I'm here to answer any questions.

Good evening, everyone.

This is Christella Selva.

I'm assistant court counsel for the city.

Those are the you know the legal terms, so to speak, and uh and I don't think I can add anything more uh than that, but you know, certainly I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

I suspect there may be some.

Yeah, so how many um how many um sorry can I go ahead?

Can I go ahead, Jennifer?

Yes, please.

So how many tenants would be there at any point in time?

Yeah, that'll be okay.

Um I can take that one.

I think we're close to eight.

I mean, some have yet to be determined, but that's the number we're at at the moment for who we're in conversations with and previously before this water main break.

How many tenants were there in the building?

This will be more tenants than had been previously in the building, and it has something to do with um we've had some movement of some organizations that had taken a lot more space than they are departing.

So one example is Pacific House, it's the um homeless services agency, and they will be relocating to a different location with their administrative offices.

So previously they did have a good amount of square footage in the building, and they will no longer have that amount of square footage.

Okay.

No, I I mean the what I'm just uh wondering the is there any liability because we don't know who the tenants are and who the future tenants will be, and we're you know, we're approving this so-called form lease.

Uh so what is the risk of any kind of any uh the city might face let's say I'm just making it up.

Let's say there's a power uh power breakdown or something like that, and something happens to the assets of the organization.

And so do we have some kind of uh uh clause in the contract which indicates look the city is doing this you know in the best interest of the town, but we cannot be held liable for any damages the tenants might encounter in the in the premises or the use of the premises.

Do we have any uh contractual protection against those kind of risks?

I'm gonna like it.

Sounds like a Chris question, doesn't it?

Yes.

Okay.

So look, there's always risk uh um uh of some uh some exposure to liability when you uh invite or have another party uh and on city property.

So so we do some things to mitigate that uh the best we can.

First and foremost, we have a clause in our lease that uh whereby each tenant will hold harmless and indemnify the city for any of their careless acts or emissions, and we back that up by requiring each tenant to carry insurance.

One of the things that'll be specific to each of these leases is the the city's insurance requirements.

We didn't want to uh attach a blanket form set of insurance requirements.

The requirements will be tenant specific, depending on what their use of the of the space is.

So that once we know what that is, that'll be forwarded to the city's risk manager and the risk manager will give us a specific set of insurance requirements that the tenant will have to meet and give us an insurance certificate.

And if they don't, they uh they don't get to occupy the space.

And further, and I'm looking for it now, there is a clause in the lease that says that the tenant will take the space as is.

The city isn't making any uh warranty as to the space being suitable for their intended purposes.

And and further, that they the city will not be responsible to any damage to their personal property that may happen.

Uh in that section 28.

I see it now in the form lease.

Uh so if there's, you know, like you, I think you use an example of a water leak or something.

If their property is damaged, that's on them.

You know, it's on it's their responsibility to ensure their own property.

And uh it looks like it's clause 22 on page seven about the condition of the premises upon lease.

Oh, where they take it as is.

That's correct.

Yeah.

And are they allowed to make any modifications to the space they take?

Or they have to use the space.

They as it is.

They are not.

Well, that is subject to the approval of the city's director of operations, but the default is no.

Nothing nothing, you know, structural, that's for sure.

They're not allowed to make any type of capital improvement to the building.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Questions about the um the lease agreement form.

All right.

Um, hearing none, uh, can I have a motion on this item?

Uh Ravi move approval of the lease agreement.

Um second.

Second from Jeremy.

All in favor, take your hand.

And passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, next on our agenda under subdivisions, uh subdivision number 4058 248 Hunting Ridge Road.

Request for a 90-day extension of time to file the final map with a new expiration date of May 12th, 2026.

Uh I I notified the applicant that they did not have to attend because this these requests have been coming in pretty frequently, and um it's been pretty reasonable to accommodate, especially in the winter with the conservation easement signage.

So okay.

Any questions from the board?

Um seeing none for the motion on the request for extension.

Jeremy, move approval uh to the second, second from Ravi, all in favor.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next, under zoning board referrals, uh CB application 226 uh-01, 35 terrace LLC at 35 Terrace Avenue special permit.

Applicant is proposing to consolidate and redevelop the properties into a small senior living community with a total of six units, including accessibility, landscaping, and drainage system.

And uh the applicant's representative Lenny Brahman is joining right now.

Lenny, if you have anybody else you'd like me to pull forward, please uh let me know.

And you're on mute.

Thank you, Lindsay.

Uh thank you, Miss Cohen.

And thank you, uh, members of the planning board and uh Madam Chair.

Um I think for now it'll just be me, but uh we I do have some members of my team on, and for the record, my name is Leonard Brayman.

I'm with the law firm of Waffle Rosen.

Um, and I represent 35 Terrace LLC, the applicant and the owner of the property at 35 Terrace Avenue.

Uh on with me, uh, but not the panelists yet, are Luigi Altamura, the owner.

Oh, wait, hold on.

Did you fully read in the um agenda item, uh Jennifer?

ZB22601, 35 terrace.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

That is my understanding.

I didn't, I know there was some additional information in the staff memo, but I did read in the whole of the lines.

Thank you.

Sorry, Lynn.

Go ahead.

Oh, no problem.

I was in the process of being promoted to panelists, so I didn't hear a couple things, but I'm sure it was in order.

Um Luigi Altamura is on with us, as well as uh Adam Sereni, uh one of the engineers, Matt Pop, our landscape architect, Gia, who uh the architect, and my colleague Julie Ludwig.

And we're pretty pleased to present to you this application for a special permit for an independent living facility cluster home development at 35 Terrace Avenue under the senior living text change in section four of the rates.

The applicant wants to develop redevelop this property into a small community for seniors and people with disabilities with a total of six units uh versus four as of right.

Um landscaping and a state of the art drainage system.

We're seeking a special permit from the zoning board to do so.

Um, and the property would permanently uh be deed restricted as an independent living facility to be inhabited full-time by individuals and according to the regulations, where in each home one individual qualifies as a senior or has a proven disability.

There would be no short-term rentals or ADUs per the regulation, and one floor of each unit uh by law must be accessible as required by the regs um and have a kitchen, one bedroom, and a full bathroom on that level.

Um, may I share my screen?

Yes.

Yeah, and you can you have the uh ability.

Hi, Chet.

There we go.

Thank you.

Uh Chet joined at 650.

Okay, I'm sharing.

Let me know when you can see my screen, please.

There you go.

Looking at the yep, Stanford 2035.

Thank you.

So the project site is located in the uh rich way bullshead area, just between uh Long Ridge and High Ridge Roads.

Um, and it's about uh one acre, 1.02 acres in the R10 zone.

Uh previously contained a 1960s single family uh ranch cape, and it's now um again.

So uh you the property also uh, although it's in the R10 zone abuts the higher density R7 and a half district, it's also nearby to several.

It's nearby to several um institutional or commercial uses, um, Yale New Haven, uh, the Goddess School and so forth.

But it is a residential neighborhood, and we intend to respect and uh be complimentary with that residential neighborhood.

Uh there's this is a photo, the streetscape.

So currently, uh let me just move on to the next slide.

There's two different home types proposed.

The type A has a one-car garage and is about 2130 uh 2130 square feet.

The type B has a two-car garage and is 2,378 square feet.

Um so here you can see the uh most recent landscaping plan uh by Matt Pop.

Um hard copies of which were uh delivered uh today.

Um so you have three proposed uh units of senior and disabled housing that had the one car garage.

That's the type A units, and then you have another three units that had the two-car garage.

And uh I wanted to thank Ms.

Conn for the uh uh thoughtful and comprehensive as always staff memo.

Um you do note in the memo that we have uh under the regulations, technically a total of 12 parking spaces.

One of the um of three of the the parking spaces that make up those 12 are by virtue of the fact that under the regulations, space in the space in front of the um two-car garages counts as a tandem space.

So it's really that we have you know one space for each of the one car garage units, two spaces for the two-car garage units, and then there's what counts as an extra space in front of the driveway that could be used for guest parking.

But um the idea behind having driveways that are long enough that the space in front of the garage counts as a tandem space is to permit um access and also maneuverability for cars in front of the uh two car garages, as well as adequate fire and emergency access uh to satisfy the fire marshal.

Um so we are uh proposing a small cluster, single family homes.

Expect no negative impact on traffic, parking, or other aspects of the area.

Um fire has approved the plan.

We got feedback from engineering, and there's nothing in their comments that can't be addressed by uh additional details in the plans, which we will provide.

Uh EPB also provided feedback.

And in fact, uh it was EPB's feedback about the request uh for additional trees that was the genesis of the new landscaping plan, which adds the six additional trees that were specifically requested by EPB.

Uh so we wanted to address that promptly.

Um there's also a comprehensive new draining system drainage system, as I mentioned.

Um we do have a uh a lot of green uh and I think we try to provide as much green as possible.

There um uh there were uh I think uh 48 existing trees of uh you know uh uh existing conditions, and then we are proposing 62 in the current plan.

So that's a net gain of additional trees.

Um there was uh cutting of trees that went on in connection with the demolition that was stake.

And so we're trying to rectify that.

Um wanted to uh address that up front.

Um EPB recommended that the remedy for uh trees being uh removed was to do a new landscape plan with half a dozen additional trees, and we provided that immediately upon receiving EPB's um comments.

We turned that landscaping plan around.

We added the additional trees, and again, it's a net uh gain of trees.

Um Ms.

Cohen notes in her um staff report there was um a question about the need for a zoning permit for some of the grading uh near um the property line or uh retaining walls and such uh to avoid any issue we're uh in the process of you know seeking that that zoning permit.

So um the as the staff memo points out, um, this development is uh quite consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Checks a lot of boxes, frankly, and the comprehensive plan.

Here you have the site plan, some floor plans uh and elevations that we can go into more detail about if uh desired, certainly, and members of the team can answer your questions about the project.

But I want to skip down to the master plan uh with comprehensive plan as it's now called.

We are in the res uh RES One uh residential single family uh comprehensive plan category.

And uh notably that category as designed to have um single family detached homes, which we have with existing and enhanced opportunities for senior housing or cottage clusters as permitted by the zoning regulations.

So that's exactly what we aim to provide.

And uh we're trying to diversify the housing uh opportunities and housing typologies uh in Stanford.

We utilize um consistent with the comprehensive plan, we utilize cluster style housing for efficient use of space.

Uh consistent with uh comprehensive plan, we're providing opportunities for seniors to age in place.

Uh the number of residents age 65 and older has increased by 43% since 2018, according to the comprehensive plan.

And uh we aim to provide flexible living arrangements for seniors and the disabled while still preserving the look and feel of low density of the low density zone.

So uh those 65 and older make up uh growing proportion of Stanford's population.

So we aim to address that growing need.

We diversify housing options, uh, we make it easier to age in place.

And uh another goal of the comprehensive plan is to encourage home ownership.

And so with ownership units as opposed to rental units uh for our senior and disabled housing, uh, we uh serve that goal as well.

And this uh as the staff report notes, this is uh could considered an example of the quote unquote missing middle housing, about which there's been much uh planning research um and uh interest, and rightly so.

Uh it's the type of uh development that we think is ideal because it's an in-field development where you can take an existing residential neighborhood, you can put in a very low intensity use like senior housing, uh, that's a low traffic generator that's not going to be um a disturbance to the neighborhood in terms of light, noise, uh, pollution, odors, any anything of that, the sort.

Um, and you can uh integrate it into the existing residential neighborhood.

So with that, um I respectfully request that the planning board give us a favorable recommendation uh so that we can move on to the zoning board um to seek a special permit.

We meet all the special permit uh criteria um for the reasons I discuss, and we want to uh create a desirable senior residential use and appropriately an appropriate lot uh in keeping with the uh the master plan or the comprehensive plan.

Um so with that, uh I'd like to take any questions that you may have.

Any questions from the board.

Um I I have a question.

I am wondering as pertains to the um the garage arrangement, um the rationale for having a number of two garage, uh two-car garage units.

Um I mean, I think that part of the reason why senior housing is considered a low intensity use is because there's an expectation that there will be less driving and also less car ownership.

Yeah, I'd like to address that in a couple of different ways, uh, Madam Chair.

So uh first of all, um we're talking about um those over 55, right?

So not necessarily talking about um people who are not no longer able to drive, people are living living longer and living better, right?

So um it's an over 55 community restricted, d-restricted to over 55, but people are still uh potentially gonna have cars.

You're also talking about the disabled, um, a family that has a disabled resident resident with a proven disability, and they may have an even uh greater need for a larger vehicle, right, to accommodate a wheelchair.

Um, at the same time, uh a lot of the developments um that uh the staff memo praises for their contributions to Stanford's, you know, various housing typologies like River Oaks and uh and others, those those have two car garages as well, right?

So we're we're talking about uh a housing typology that's not incompatible with having a two-car garage.

And in terms of the market, um the the applicant thinks that this development strikes the right balance.

You have three units that just have a one-car garage for those who can make do with a one-car garage.

You have three units that have two car garages for those who may want to have uh two cars in the family for the reasons that I described, and so they can have two um spaces for cars that are um sheltered from the elements, um, and you go into the interior of the house.

The um the the extras uh three extra spaces you know per zoning that can bring you up to to 12, I think is sort of just a feature of the fact that you have a large space um in front of the garage.

So it's really you know uh nine spaces for six units, which is not uh a high parking ratio as as things go in terms of the market um and in terms of the um you know what uh what the market will uh require or or demand.

Uh I think the mix of one car and two car garages is what the applicant believes they can uh sell.

Um so it's important from for that perspective.

The last thing I like to point out is that we're not taking advantage of the uh ownership, homeownership density bonus that we could have because we wanted to keep um you know a little more space on the site.

So with the uh the the fact that we're providing ownership units, we could have had seven units uh on site if we took advantage of that bonus.

We're only providing six, and again, uh four in this zone, uh you could do four as of rate, just in terms of the density, dividing the acreage by the the lot size.

Um there are no further questions.

Uh to have a motion on this item.

Uh Ravi, move for approval.

Yes.

Okay.

I have a second.

Uh second from Jeremy.

Um all in favor, take your hand.

Uh Chet, are you?

You're muted.

I apologize to everyone for coming in late, but because I was late, I'll abstain from this.

So we'll consider three, then the voting pool.

So uh classes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh next on our agenda.

Uh zoning board referrals.

Um, we have our sorry.

Next on the zoning board referrals agenda.

ZB application 225-4-7, Stanford zoning board text change.

Purpose of this text change is to add comprehensive regulations to the CL limited commercial district in section 5H.

Currently, the C L district is only roughly defined by the use regulations contained in Appendix A and the bulk regulations in Appendix B and did not contain any site and urban design requirements.

Appendices A and B would be updated accordingly.

In addition, a definition for arterial street would be added to section three and the regulations for large scale development review in 2E adjusted.

Also proposed are changes to the drive-through use standards and regulations in section four.

And presenting for ladies.

Okay.

So I'm here today with a whole handful of um tax change applications.

So I will go through them one by one.

And the first one, as you mentioned, is 20 uh 225-47, which deals with the CL district.

We also have a zoning map change to rezone two parcels that are city-owned to a park district.

A clean up we uh have some proposals for the R6 two-family districts.

And uh we have a text change for uh changing the lot coverage for special permit uses in single family districts.

But let's start um with the CL district first.

Um the CL district really is intended to provide the zoning um for uh the new comprehensive plan um category CLRF, which is commercial large format retail.

Uh so that is retail uh that is um uh uh auto-oriented.

Um uh it's often found or should be along uh arterial streets, uh so it's easily accessible.

Um and often comes uh in a big box format.

So uh examples that we have here in Stanford are uh the shop right, uh the Home Depot, um, various shopping centers.

So um this district is really to provide um the type of zoning for those uh types of districts.

Um not my favorite, but um, I mean it is um um something that that exists and and people use.

So uh we need to provide uh the adequate um zoning for that.

Um and as you mentioned when you uh read the docket.

Uh this is what we currently have for CL regulations.

So uh we have the sentence here that basically refers you back to the appendices, and this is all we have here highlighted in yellow um for the CL district regulation.

So there's nothing in there about um uh any design guidelines, the uh any design considerations.

Uh there are no provisions in there for lot coverage uh, for example, uh, to better manage um storm water uh and to have at least a minimum amount of landscaping uh and shading.

So um we thought it is uh um about time uh to change that.

The CL is one of a couple of districts um that uh really exists only in bare bones in the zoning regulations, and we're slowly making our way through the zoning regulations to add uh some meat uh to those bones.

There will be a purpose section that refers to the comprehensive plan that I just mentioned.

There will be designation criteria, minimum size, location in comprehensive plan categories, permitted uses, and then there will be a whole section on development standards as well as on review and approval criteria.

So as we do in other districts, the bigger the development gets, the more scrutiny there is on approval.

So relatively small projects are as of right.

If projects uh get really big, uh then they require uh a special permit by the zoning board.

At the same time, we didn't want to uh make too many changes uh to what is already in uh the zoning regulations.

Um so what you see here on the right side is how um the proposed CL regulations uh compare to the current CL regulations.

So one thing is we increasing the minimum lot size.

It is a district for uh large scale large format retail, so the minimum lot sizes and the the minimum lot frontage um requirements go up, but as you can also see the density will remain the same uh at an uh 1.0 FAR.

Um the um we propose to slightly increase uh the building height because commercial um uh buildings have higher floor to ceiling heights than residential buildings, for example.

But uh what is also very important is we're creating um uh buffer um uh uh regulations when a CL district borders on a uh residential district.

So we want to have a greater separation of the um the commercial buildings, the potentially big commercial buildings from uh residential districts.

Um so uh there's a minimum now uh of uh 100 feet uh uh for single family districts.

Currently it's just uh governed by the setback regulations, which could be uh zero for a side yard uh requirement.

Um we're not changing the building coverage.

Um we um are um basically leaving the front setback uh alone.

Um as I said, there was no side yard required um uh in or is required in the currency regulations.

We propose that it should be at least 15 feet um and uh at least 30 feet when it's abutting on uh a residential district, and uh we also increasing uh the rear setback requirement uh by uh to 20 feet and 40 feet when it's abutting uh on a lot uh that is uh in a residential district.

Um so um one thing uh that is not on this table that we're also doing is uh we introducing uh um a lot coverage maximum.

So currently you can pave the whole lot.

Um we limit the lot coverage to um 80 percent.

Uh once again, the idea here is that uh we will preserve um uh planted areas, uh pervious areas for stormwater management and for plantings.

I mentioned before that uh we put in uh design guidelines.

So some of the design guidelines uh include that the buildings have to be on the street, so it's not a building in a sea of parking that as a pedestrian uh or cyclist you have a hard time getting to uh crossing uh like big parking lots.

Um we have glazing requirements for um uh the buildings so that there is transparency on the street.

Um we have requirements for uh safe uh walkways and sidewalks within the development.

Um so those are some of the design guidelines uh that we added that we have added um to the regulations um to to make sure that um those uses uh sort of fit uh in in the urban uh environment.

Once again, um, or not once again, but I just also want to be um very uh explicit that we're not proposing to uh any new CL districts as part of this application.

Uh this is a regulation change, so we're not uh uh allowing CL where it hasn't been allowed before.

Uh it is a regulation change that, as I said, is based on the current regulations and uh actually makes them tighter as they uh currently are.

Um so with that I'm happy to take any questions about this tax change.

Questions from the chat.

Thank you.

Um Ralph, thanks so much.

The um if if I'm understanding you correctly, and this new um these new regulations will be uh basically superimposed over the current CL lots.

Um I assume land use has verified that all the current land um CL lots comply with the proposed um requirements.

Um we we didn't check all of them.

So first of all, there aren't that many CL districts.

Um so uh that is one thing.

Um I mean, in in some instances there can be uh non-conformities, but um uh if if you have an already existing building that's grandfathered in, so it doesn't impact really on the usability of existing buildings.

Um, but obviously moving forward, we want to make sure that we have those stricter uh guidelines in place for developments in uh in the CL district.

Yeah.

So in that in that circumstance, um there could be lots that comply with the current requirements, but would not comply with this.

So they would not necessarily be grandfathered in, um, but they would immediately be non-conforming.

Um what we did do is um uh in particular with regard to the the lot sizes we put in basically a savings clause that basically said if a lot was uh existing before the the um uh uh effective date of this regulation, then that small a lot uh can be uh developed based on the guidelines um of the CL district.

Okay, all right.

I think that addresses it.

Thank you.

Any further uh Kathy?

Hey and Alf two questions.

One is can you have this uh seal zone or seal uh kind of buildings next to a residential zone?

I mean, that seems very unattractive to say the least, right?

If you have a home depot next to a single family residential zone, is there any restriction around that?

I mean, uh so uh currently uh so what we did was we um uh added those distance requirements and larger buffers and uh the Home Depot, I'm not sure if it's a single family district it's next to, but it is next to a residential district, and uh some of the um the uh uh obviously we have we have shopping centers all over town that oftentimes border uh on residential districts, so we're increasing the protection for residential districts, and once again, this is not about proposing new CL districts.

Um this is uh changing the regulations for existing uh CL districts.

So if uh we were to introduce a new uh CL district anywhere in the city, um uh it would require map change application that would come to you and would have to be approved um uh by the zoning board.

But it was important to us that we create uh better buffers between residential districts and those large scale um uh uh commercial districts.

And I think uh you also uh when you um approved the comprehensive plan, uh you were very deliberate in where to put those master plan categories where uh those districts uh could land.

Um but once again, we're not proposing any new um uh CL districts with this application.

This is just to uh increase controls for already existing CL districts.

Yeah, I understand.

So for example, Home Depot is right of Route One, you know, so it of course it makes sense to put it there, but I don't know where the other CL buildings are.

And uh I was just wondering the side setback and rare spec.

Granted that right now there is no requirement at all, and you are increasing it from zero to 15 feet, for example, or 10 feet to 20 feet.

Is that enough?

I mean, I'm just not 10 feet or 15 feet from a warehouse to uh RA1 zone, for example, it's not enough in my humble view.

Um yeah.

So I always thought these kind of you know, buildings and all that, they come up in a slightly uh you know different part of the town, not next to uh I don't know where these buildings are right now.

And that goes back to the question that Chet was asking, how does this match what we have today?

You know, and I'm just questioning why did we say 15 feet and 20 feet is good enough?

I mean, we should be probably much bigger.

I mean, you you have uh, as I said, and and those will be um uh uh so a lot of the shopping centers we have are actually not in CL districts uh currently.

So in the future we will we will also have to work um on that.

Um but um uh uh I would doubt that there is any CL district anywhere near an RA district.

Um and um I mean the the the norm for uh those type of developments uh I mean we we have very few big box stores in Stamford.

What is more typical is sort of the the stripmall kind of uh uh development, single story um uh uh commercial uh establishments, often also um a smaller footprint.

Um so those uh at the moment, if they were if they are in a CL district, uh they could be much closer.

Um, but it's also important to know that like in an R7 and a half single family district, the side yard requirement is six feet.

Um so um we're dramatically increasing um the the distances that that can uh exist or have to exist uh between those those types of uses.

Once again, it's it's not about establishing new CL districts anywhere, it's making sure that when we have development in a CL district that it works better uh than it does now.

Yeah, no, I understand that.

I just I'm not an expert on this, but I would like you to consider 15 and 20 feet that is adequate or should it be you know um higher than that.

I mean, it's it's also um a uh it's it's a compromise.

I mean, if if uh uh if a um lot is 100 feet deep or or 150 feet deep, if you have um uh uh a hundred foot set uh rear yard requirement, then uh the lot becomes pretty much unbuildable.

So it's trying to find the balance between um buildability um uh and um uh protection of uh of neighbors.

Um and I mean the the other question, of course, is what what happens in the areas where you don't have a building, you usually have parking, which is also not necessarily uh desirable use.

Um but speaking of parking, um where uh those new regulations work with existing regulations, is that um we now have and we had for quite some time requirements that parking areas uh that there needs to be a planted buffer around them to create uh more protection of uh uh of neighbors uh and so on and so forth.

So overall um I think it is uh a great improvement uh over what we had um only a few years ago.

Yeah, and last question this development standards and architectural design.

Was it in this document, or you're just going to work on it in the future?

That's in this document.

So if you um Lindsay, did you did you post the whole um text uh on the website?

So there is uh there is a whole uh section on uh sorry uh whole section on uh uh architectural design that talks about the materials, the glazing, uh the requirements for sidewalks, um uh and so on and so forth.

That's that's included.

Yeah.

Got it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um also before uh we leave this application.

I just um wanted to make sure that that we talk about the the um other smaller changes as well.

Um so uh there is with each district uh a table of uses attached.

So we're making some changes for that.

So currently, for example, in the CL districts, gyms are not allowed.

Uh we're going to allow gyms.

Uh there um the same token we um uh won't allow uh uh residential development in the CL district uh anymore because I do think it is not compatible with like a large-scale uh retail use.

The C L district is also one of three districts in the city that allows for drive-throughs.

Um we will make some changes uh to the drive-thru definition.

Uh and and by the way, um we also tighten the the requirements for drive-throughs uh such that um a drive-thru has to be located to the interior of the site, that you don't have queuing on a street uh uh outside uh of the drive-thru that that would block uh traffic um uh on a street.

So so that's also one of the the design uh uh guidelines uh and requirements that we make sure that all the loading will be interior to the site and not on the street, so that that you don't have trucks blocking uh traffic um uh going by and um for zoning purposes uh we didn't have a definition for arterial streets, so we uh we add that definition as well.

Are there any further questions?

Um seeing none, doing motion on this text change.

Ravi no rule motion to be approved, second from Jeremy.

All in favor, trage your hand.

Uh and chat, are you voting on this one?

All right, yes.

Um my video seems to be so you can't see me.

Uh I can see you now, yes.

Uh, my video may be lagging actually a little bit.

So the emotion passes unanimously, thank you.

Uh next on the agenda.

Um things in front of me.

Uh here we go.

Uh CP application 2202602 Stanford Stanford zoning bork map change.

Um applicant is proposing a map change to McKeithan Park from the current R5 zoning district to the P zoning district road from the current R7 and a half district to the P zoning district.

So let me share um my screen again.

So this application 2 to 6-02 uh is a zoning map change.

So the previous application was about the regulations.

And the two areas in question are on the east side.

So you see here is the railroad line, the New Haven line, here's Courtland Avenue with the Courtland Avenue Park here and I-95 down here.

And what we're proposing to do is to rezone McKeethan Park, which is a developed park.

Here's a picture with with the playground at McKeithan Park.

It's next to this housing authority development.

We're proposing to make that a park district.

So if something is zoned as a park, it becomes very difficult to not have it being a park anymore.

So it adds a layer of protection.

So there's there's a couple of uh very very prominent parks uh in town that are actually not zoned as parks, which doesn't mean the city could like sell them or or or build something on them, but um uh obviously it makes sense to have them designated uh as or zoned uh as park.

So an example for that is Veterans Park, it's not zoned as a park.

Um uh Schofield Town Park is not zoned um uh as a park.

So also as part of uh implementation of the comprehensive plan and protecting those open spaces and open areas, uh we starting the process of uh of doing that.

Um so McKehan Park uh is is one area and then one block over to the east uh uh at uh Maidland Road and Judy Lane.

Um there is this uh city-owned parcel here that is currently vacant.

Um so uh the idea is so that there are no plans for the city to build a park there or playground or anything like that.

Um but uh since uh uh on the east side as the comprehensive plan has established, there are very few parks.

Um it seems to make sense to protect that area um as an open space.

Um uh uh and uh that's why we're including it uh in this proposed uh map change.

And that's that's basically what's uh what's proposed as part of this application.

And once again, moving forward, you will probably see more of those applications to rezone parks to parkland, uh including parcels uh that currently are not used as parks.

Um so that's that's the plan at least.

And with that, happy to answer any questions.

And oh, by the way, sorry.

This is actually what what the zoning change map looks like.

So you see the existing district.

So this here is uh the R5 district, uh, and this parcel here, McKeethan Park would be rezoned from R5 to P park district, and this uh parcel here would be rezoned from R7 and a half um to uh also P a park district.

Any questions from the board?

Yeah, just one.

Uh Ralph, um I just want to make sure you can hear me.

Um we the protections you alluded a moment ago to um protecting this land and and presumably the uh the implications of that kind of protection is protection from development.

Yeah.

Of course, the um I'm wondering if there's anything else that we need to do, especially for these vacant parcels, um, to actually protect them.

Um so that we can't get um mischief done, you know, within these uh areas.

Are they fenced, for example, or any of them to be fenced.

Um or other notions of of protection.

So uh the the parcel we uh so obviously McCaeffin Park is is a park uh and functions as such.

Uh the other one is fenced.

Um so um, but I think also what uh zoning them as park does is that uh people start thinking about them as parks and what can be done uh with those parcels as parks, and and uh it doesn't necessarily need to be uh like another playground or anything like that.

That's that's obviously also dependent on availability of capital funds or something like that.

But uh the parcel we just talked about, the the second one, the maidland uh uh parcel, maybe uh that might be a good site for a microforest.

Um as I said before, we we we do have on the east side when you look at the heat map, uh we have a lot of uh uh impervious surface there.

So uh maybe a good idea for um utilizing the site is is putting a microforest there.

Um so um, and I think that's also um why working with with the parks and rec commission is important uh on this and and obviously they they're supportive um of this effort.

Um uh because they are then the ones who can program uh uh the parks.

I mean, it's not really um the task of the zoning board to decide uh what what should go there, is it a playground or whatnot?

But but this is really um, and I think that's that's important to note uh that that's really a uh uh coordinated effort with uh the parks and recs um uh commission.

And uh Melanie Hollis, who is is the the uh chair uh of the parks and rec commission.

Uh I've worked with her uh very closely, and she also brought this to the attention of the board of representatives.

So there's a review item at the board of rent uh representatives for this effort.

So it's I think also an important uh uh means of of like creating some attention for um uh for those sites and what can be done with them.

And not everything is like a um uh uh coming's park or or anything like that, but um it's uh those small parts or natural areas can can have uh value uh as well for for a neighborhood.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Um I'll just say I had a similar thought about this that um the city on the site being a good microforest candidate given the slide.

Yeah, um all right.

I have a motion on this item.

Uh move approval from Jeremy.

Second.

Second from Lavi, all in favor.

Your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Uh next, the V application 226-03, Stanford zoning board text change.

The purpose of the text change is to update and streamline various sections of the city of Stanford zoning regulations.

Changes include new or updated language, two definitions, section 3b, use standards regulations, section four, publicly accessible amenity spaces, section six, BMR regulations, section seven, fine, section eleven, mobility, section twelve, and appendix B bulk regulations changes are minor in character.

Okay, cruising on.

Um so uh this uh um uh text change has uh is a bouquet of of different things that we're planning to do, uh all relatively small um uh in uh in scope.

But nonetheless, I think they can make an important um difference.

So with regard to the definitions that section three of the zoning regulations once again relatively small changes.

So permitted obstructions are things you can have in a yard, like a flagpole or a bench or or uh something like that or mailbox, uh, those kinds of things.

So we are proposing to add um like hiking shelters uh and and bus shelters uh to the permitted obstructions uh that that can be in the front yard.

Um with uh regards to updates to the use regulations, the most important one uh is probably that um we are creating a cap for the number of smokeshops in the city.

So over the last uh uh couple of months and years uh we have um incrementally increased uh the regulations for smoke shops um so that they don't proliferate.

Uh unfortunately from a zoning perspective, there's very little you can do about existing smoke shops because they are grandfathered in, but uh we we made it increasingly more difficult for new smoke shops um uh to open.

And uh as part of that effort, um we are proposing to put in a cap for uh uh smoke shops.

Uh so we would allow uh once not more than one smoke shop uh per 15,000 uh residents.

So that would leave us with about eight uh or so uh smoke shops.

Um currently we have more than uh 60, I think.

Um so this is also an effort that we've been working with the Stanford Prevention Council, which is a coalition of liberation programs, Stanford Schools and other civic institutions uh that um are working tirelessly to uh in particular protect young people from from smoking um uh and vaping and and all uh kinds of things.

So we've been working very closely with them uh on that cap for um for smoke shops.

Um and I think also we we did uh get um a lot of support from the health department um for this effort.

Um one thing uh we're also proposing is to update the uh uh private uh publicly accessible amenity space regulations.

Uh so that's the PAAS.

Uh so um for example, uh if you have waterfront property, um like not single family homes, but but commercial areas, you have to provide waterfront access.

Um what we realized was we have pretty good design guidelines for uh waterfront access along the sound, uh, but not uh along the rivers.

So uh along the rivers, we often have like very natural areas, so we don't want to put in a 10-foot-wide uh asphalt walkway uh along the Ripplewam River uh somewhere.

We want to have something that that doesn't impact on the natural environment uh very much.

So we we um added regulations for uh those more natural trails, um so that you have waterfront access without interfering um with the environment.

So that's that's the big change in uh in section six.

Um we're also proposing to increase the fee and loop payments for uh um some BMR units.

Uh so what we've seen is that in areas where uh we have lower densities uh when when new uh apartment complexes are built, um uh a lot of the developers decided to um uh buy out of the BMR requirement.

So um we decided to make it more expensive for them to buy out uh in order to get more on-site uh uh units.

Um and uh we actually also proposing because we've seen a lot of conversions of office buildings into residential buildings to increase the BMR requirement for conversions um uh to capture more units um there.

And then in an effort to do more about street trees and tree planting.

So that's not a not a big change that is proposed, but the intention is moving forward doing more for tree planting and tree protection in the zoning regulations.

Ralph, this is a very minor point, but just for clarification.

So that's where it comes into play.

So we we have a requirement that in many districts that the front setback is not based on the on the property line, it's based on the curb line.

So the bus shelter might end up on uh private property.

And for those instances, we we added bus shelters as um uh as a permitted obstruction.

In that kind of circumstance, would it's partly in the public right-of-way and partly on private property?

Um does the does the city have to seek the um property holders permission to do that?

Yes, uh, and there will be um, I mean, it it becomes uh something uh for new development, obviously.

Um in those instances, um uh as part of the approval uh uh process, the property owner has to give uh the city a public access easement.

Um and uh the developer is also required to build the sidewalk.

Um so uh if there is no sidewalk that meets certain minimum uh uh standards, uh the developer has to provide that sidewalk, and if it needs to be on private property for that like two or three feet on private property, uh they have to give the city um a public access easement.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Um seeing none.

Um I do just want to note appreciation in particular for the new um publicly accessible uh amenity-free finance regulation and assess the city of those.

Yes, we uh yeah, one one of the things we also trying to do is to come up with with like unified uh signage for publicly accessible amenity space.

So actually, what um I uh design here uh is um uh a proposal that every publicly accessible uh uh amenity space has signage like that, so that it's very clear for people, yes, you can walk there, you can use the space, this is your space, um, even though it's on uh on uh on private property.

Okay.

Would that um signage then also um have braille on it so that it is usable by others?

Um we're we're still uh working on that.

Like we learned a lot about uh ADA requirements for signage.

So obviously that that is a is a big um uh uh uh issue that that we're contending with.

Um and and this this is a this is a draft, so we're not uh done yet, but but obviously uh accessibility um for for people with with different abilities is a big uh issue that we're trying to address.

Um and and Brial and I mean one of the previous uh designs, uh we actually had it in green, but apparently between uh uh green and white, the contrast wasn't big enough.

So it didn't meet the ADA requirements.

So there's a lot of those types of things that that we're trying to work um our way through, but uh at least we will have unified um uh signage at all uh those spaces so people know um that that they can use them.

Uh if you haven't, if land use hasn't already, I I'd strongly urge to um have some conversations with the um um ADA um yeah or accessible.

I forget what the name of our our our committee is.

Uh yes, yes, that that that'll be part of the of the signage discussion.

Okay, um thank you.

Uh certainly, yeah.

Right.

Um do I have a motion on this text change.

Rabbi move for approval in a second.

Second from Jeremy, all in favor.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Um we have two more.

Um DB application 226-04, Stanford Zoning Board Text Change.

Purpose of this proposed text amendment is to align the regulations for the R6 zone with the general structure of the zoning regulation.

Add additional development safeguards and special standards for already permitted non-residential uses.

The text change would also streamline the additional parking requirements for large dwellings in section 121 of the regulations.

So the R6 district, we we've actually been uh to you before uh uh last year.

Um we decided to make some additional changes, um, which requires us um to come back and to basically start the process from the beginning, uh, because we think those those were changes that were significant enough to warrant uh that uh uh the city departments, the planning board and and other agencies uh take um another look.

Um so um uh the biggest change from the previous version uh is actually has to do with uh side yard requirements.

Um so uh um in the previous version um the uh the the we did we we left the side yard requirements as they exist right now alone.

Um but we realized that um if the side yard requirement is six feet on either side, which which has been the side yard requirement for our six districts forever, uh that um you force basically people to park in the front yard.

Um so uh we decided uh to actually require on one side a 10-foot wide sidewalk, uh side yard, so that you can get a car past um uh the house.

So um that you uh actually don't have people parked in the front yard.

So front yard parking uh we hear this a lot from residents that that is something uh that uh uh they they don't like it also creates dangerous uh situations for pedestrians when basically the whole front yard or the whole street is a curb cut uh and and people just pull out.

So uh that is really the big change between uh what we brought to you previously and this this new version uh of um the R6 district.

Um as you can see in this table, um we uh try to be very much in line uh with uh the existing uh uh R6 um uh regulation.

So you see here like the minimum lot our area, the frontage, um it's pretty much the same.

It didn't used to be an FAR, we introduced an FAR.

Um this was part of the previous application.

Uh there was no uh minimum lot coverage uh uh or currently there isn't um we uh propose to introduce lot coverage uh uh requirements to make sure that people don't pave over the whole yard and that there is uh purview surface.

Um but as I said, the the big change between what you've already seen and this this revised version is really the side yards um uh or the yard regulations in general.

We propose to increase the rear yard requirement and reduce the front yard requirement um uh uh a little bit to just make the buildings fit better uh on uh the the parcels and this is basically uh what uh uh it looks like um so um here you see the setback line for the front yard that's 15 feet uh that's reduced from 25.

Um we increase the rear yard from um 30 to 35, and as I said before, uh in the current regulations you have a side yard requirement of six feet uh on either side.

Now we're saying you have to have uh at least one side yard that is 10 feet wide.

We also put in a provision to um uh uh encourage shared driveways to reduce um uh the number of driveways that uh when you have uh an easement agreement with your neighbor, uh you can actually reduce uh the second side yard for the chair driveway uh to six feet.

So we the idea is to reduce the number of curb cuts and then the the amount of asphalt um in uh uh in those um uh types uh of areas and uh yeah that's that's pretty much it um for this um text change.

All right.

Um like the uh driveway provision in particular.

Um chat, you see your hand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ralph, uh actually let me lower this again.

Okay, good.

Um in the side yard change.

Um if the 10 foot was introduced to allow parking parking in the side yard uh further back so that it's not in the front yard.

Um for those lots that don't need that or don't wish to park a car there.

It seems like it's creating a little bit more uh onerous a requirement for them.

They're giving up um more developable land than currently exist uh to um to this additional side yard.

Um was there any consideration given to you know to potentially yeah?

So that's why we reduced um the front yard requirement from 25 feet to 15 feet.

So you you um that I mean basically what what zoning does it defines this box um where your your building uh can be in um and because the box became a little bit more narrow because we instead of um six feet we now require 10 feet, we made the box a little bit longer.

Um so that that uh takes that into account.

The other thing is that uh this this box, so the lot coverage uh the percentage of lot coverage doesn't change, and uh the lot coverage is smaller, the 25% is smaller than the box.

feed we made the box a little bit longer um so that that uh takes that into account the other thing is that uh this this box so the lot coverage uh the percentage of lot coverage doesn't change and uh the lot coverage is is smaller the 25 percent is smaller than the box so um uh yes that the box has gotten a little bit tighter but um it it is uh uh it doesn't have any effect on the lot um uh coverage so so you you can still cover 25 percent of the lot with your building it it fits in the box just uh in addition to that uh i'm just wondering if there's any merit or or had was any consideration given uh i know on some corner lot uh provisions in certain zones um there are um there's a minimum um side for example but then if if you're and and i have to admit i'm not even uh quite uh uh understanding of how it works um 10 foot but um if if it's on both sides it's um you know it's 20 feet or however that works um so where the current provision is six uh 12 feet total um this is now increased obviously to 16 is there any uh possibility of you know in those lots pertinent to new development of course where somebody chooses to um elect uh to use that 10 foot you know for the purposes that you're talking about they might have the uh the uh the opportunity to reduce the other side yard say from six to five or something else um no we did we so the way corner lots work in in uh single family districts is uh you basically have two front yards and two side yards so you don't have a rear yard so uh in that case um we would have so let's say here's here's the street for for this lot so you would have a 15 foot setback here 15 foot setback here uh six feet here and 10 feet here here or vice versa um we um we didn't want to reduce the six feet um because um you can have the neighboring building could also be uh uh just six feet from the property line uh so what we didn't want to do is uh allow houses to be closer together than they currently are um so uh that's why why we didn't do something oh we keep it at 12 feet but you can make the one side more narrow than that um because I think it's very important to have um uh light and air uh uh between the buildings so that's that's why we didn't uh uh do that and and and think about something oh you you you can move it around you have to have a minimum six feet which it is now uh you have to have at least a minimum of six feet okay thank you all right um I'm just gonna note I just turned off my camera because my internet quality seems to be deteriorating um Bill I see your hand um yeah I just was basically going to say hello that I joined the meeting can you hear me?

Glad to have you yeah thank you.

Um do I have a motion on this item uh I might get rid of it okay uh Ravi move approval that a second a second from Jeremy um all in favor and I'm making mine uh and it passes unanimously uh so Bill uh glad you could join um so we have one more item um it's D application 226-05 Stanford zoning board text change the purpose of this text change is to make corrections and add additional definitions and clarify the regulations for special permit use in single family districts so uh we're almost done uh the last one is um also uh mostly um a cleanup um uh uh action so uh the biggest the biggest change has to do with lot coverage um uh for special um permit uses in single family districts so um in single family districts uh you can have um houses of worships uh child daycare centers uh and things like that but only uh per per special permit um and uh we uh started introducing lot coverage requirements uh or uh in single family districts last year there weren't any

So in single family districts, uh you can have um houses of worships, uh child daycare centers, uh and things like that, but only uh per special permit.

Um and uh we uh started introducing lot coverage requirements uh or uh in single family districts last year.

There weren't any.

So in theory, you you could have had an RA one lot and paved over the whole acre.

Uh there was nothing in zoning that that would have prohibited you from doing that.

So um we introduced um lot coverage maximums uh for single family uses, uh, but we haven't done that for special permit uses such as houses of worship, uh daycare centers, like the the JCC or or the Italian center, those those are all special permit uses in single family districts or or private schools, uh all those types of things.

So um we realize that the single family coverage is too low for those special permit uses because um if you have for example a private school uh in a in a single family district, uh they have parking uh uh lots, they have athletic fields, which we don't count as as pervious surface.

So uh they do need um larger allowances for uh uh for lot coverage than a single family district.

So uh we're proposing to change that, and those are the lot coverage limits we're proposing for special permit uses, uh, and those are the ones that are already established for single family uses uh in single family districts.

Um another big change, or not big change, but another change we're proposing is um we're adding a definition for physical culture establishment.

Maybe you've um uh followed the discussion about the bathhouse uh application in the south end.

There was a lot of confusion because um uh we have a definition for adult physical culture establishment, which is not allowed in Stamford, uh, and physical culture establishments for which there wasn't a definition in the zoning regulation, so we decided to add uh a definition for that to clarify that, and there were just a couple of of references that um we didn't we missed in in previous updates, uh so we found like another reference to the old master plan that we obviously want to correct and those kinds of things.

But the the important thing or the big thing about this text change is really the lot coverage uh allowances for special permit uses in in single family districts.

Uh are there any questions from make sure I get yes?

I have a question.

Ralph, if if the lot coverage in um if one of its purpose primary purposes is um uh so that we don't pave over you know entire lots, so uh i.e.

that it emphasizes uh that's a certain amount of uh the lot needs to be allocated, not paved, has to be permeable.

Well, I appreciate what you're saying about uh this some special needs of special permit uses.

Um why is the reduced permeability more acceptable in special permits?

If I have a lot in an R20 zone, whether it be by a house or by a house of worship, um is the permeability any less of an issue.

Um so so I'm wondering in this particular case, you know, instead of can the difference um can they completely impermeable surface in the special use permit more closely align with the single family, and then the additional space that they might need for parking is a more permeable uh paving, for example, instead of completely impermeable.

Yeah.

So um I I um very much uh um no, it I think it's it's a great question.

Um we have been very uh we have a very tough definition of uh permeable surface.

So basically the only thing that we recognize as permeable surface is like a natural area, like grass, uh plantings, landscaping.

So part of it is um we we didn't want to get into a discussion.

You were like um uh smart people or or or or people who thought they were particularly clever, they came in and said, hey, I'm putting astroturf in my front yard, uh, and it's pervious.

Um so I'm eating the the permeability uh requirements.

So um we didn't want to get into this discussion at all uh with people.

Um and uh yes, a uh uh a parking lot with with uh permeable pavers is better than uh a parking lot with um uh impervious uh pavers, but the the usability uh depends on it needs to be maintained, like um those those permeable pavers need to be maintained to to stay uh uh permeable.

So um we uh decided rather than to have uh the discussion about is this really uh permeable, how permeable is it to be very strict in our application, what is uh um a uh impervious surface versus uh uh pervious uh surface.

That's that's one part of it.

Um I think the other thing is that a lot of those um uh special permit uses uh they are community uses.

So yes, from from like an environmental perspective, um uh why should we treat um uh uh a church differently from uh uh a single family house from from the previous area perspective, but I think um that because those special permit uses provide a community benefit, um uh it is it is justified that they have um higher allowances um for uh uh for uh impervious surface than than a single family lot because they're used by many more people.

Um uh they create uh um community uh and once again I believe because we have such a tough definition of what we consider permeable versus non-permeable, um it's it's uh something that that is um justifiable.

And once again, a year ago, we didn't have any of those uh neither for special permit uses nor for single family uh uses.

So it is it is not perfect, um, but it is I think uh a big step in the right direction.

I think it also is more realistic uh with regard to what's actually there, like when you use uh when you look at an existing uh house of worship, um uh in an R20 district, they don't have just a 35% uh coverage, they have more than that already.

Uh so it makes it very difficult for them uh to expand uh uh or or add whatever they need, classroom space or or or uh any of those kinds of things.

Well, uh maybe another strategy with all due respect is to um not be quite so binary relative to what's permeable and what's not permeable, because the technologies have changed tremendously in the last uh decade, and um there are without playing games, AstroTurf being one there are tons now of uh pavement materials, you know, that can be 50% permeable and and can still support a fire truck, you know, things of that sort.

Um I I just wish that um that could be factored in a little bit more.

No, no, I I totally get it.

I totally hear you.

Um I mean the other thing that that is sort of layered on top of this is that um there is also the stormwater drainage manual, uh, which obviously also uh requires stormwater management uh on site.

Um so uh that is that is something um that um I mean regardless of the of the lot coverage you still have to be able to manage the the the stormwater the one inch uh rain um uh fall on site.

Um so um obviously that that also uh um is is a very important tool um to uh to manage um stormwater.

So you're saying that that that requirement would help mitigate some of the excess of okay.

Yeah, yeah.

That's true.

All right, thank you.

But I I mean obviously uh I mean that's that's the reason why we started putting in lot coverage uh maximums to begin with that that we have to be more conscious of of um uh pervious and impervious surfaces and and as I said I I fully understand your argument and that's something that that we that we struggled with.

Um but um I think uh and and maybe in the future I think you made a very good uh um um point about uh maybe incorporating things like pervious uh uh permeable pavers and and things like that.

Uh that's that's certainly something we'll keep in mind.

All right.

Um further questions.

Uh we have a motion on this uh text change.

Uh Bradley, move for approval.

Five seconds.

Uh do I have a second?

Uh second from Jeremy.

All in favor, take your hand.

Um as well.

Um passes unanimously, I think.

Um I didn't actually I can actually see Bill in my expanse here.

Uh he's got his hand raised.

Okay, great.

Um, all right.

So that is our document for this evening.

Um the next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are February 24th, March 10th, and March 24th.

We'll see that.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

Time is 8 16.

Have a good night.

You too.