Problem.

Okay, good evening.

Today is Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 at 6 34 p.m.

And I will call the uh Stanford Planning Board regular meeting to order.

Um our first item on the agenda is the planning board meeting minutes from February 20.

Sorry, Jeremy, hold on one sec.

Let's do a roll call first if you don't mind.

Uh so in attendance, we have myself, Jeremy Linder, Vice Chair, Ravi.

Uh Marnian.

William Levin in uh Chet Sub.

And now uh Madam Chair Jennifer Gonzalez.

So I'll turn it over to you.

Good evening.

Sorry, my computer.

Jeremy officially opened the meeting and um uh did a roll call.

It's Jennifer joined at 6 35.

And we should be good to go.

Um, starting with our planning board meeting minutes.

Uh the agenda item has not been read into the record yet.

Okay.

Um so the first item on our agenda is the planning board meeting minutes from uh February 24th.

Um are there any questions or amendments on the minutes?

All right.

Um make a motion to approve.

Sorry, uh without a motion to approve.

Um second from Robbie, and I'm all in favor, please your hand.

Yeah, so uh I'm not voting since I wasn't here.

All right.

Um so do we um we have forum to pass the minutes?

Uh yes, but you have quorum with three.

Um if you are yeah, you have a quorum with three.

Ravi, Jeremy, and Jennifer.

Okay.

So motion passes.

Uh next on the agenda, uh, the request for authorization, supplemental capital project appropriation requests, uh Latham Wider Community Center renovations.

Um appropriation supports a total of 2.5 million in planned renovations and capital improvements at the Lathin Wider Community Center, a city-owned facility serving Stanford residents.

Of this amount, 1.5 million has been awarded through a HUD community project funding earmark secured through Senators Bloom and Bell and Murphy.

An additional one million is available from special revenue community development program funds to support the remainder.

Uh the remaining renovation needs associated with the currently defined project scope.

These improvements will enhance the safety, functionality, and long-term sustainability of the facility, which primarily serves low and moderate income residents in the surrounding neighborhood.

No new city funding is requested in this appropriation.

Um we have anyone presenting on this item.

Uh yes, if you have any questions, um Anita Carpenter from our grants office is is available in here to speak to this item.

Um are there any questions from the board?

This just uh one question.

Uh is this again as we budget we just approved, or this is the previous it is.

What is this going to be at home?

Um this is supplemental capital um so it it's not out of the the capital budget that we um have recommended for next fiscal year for the current fiscal year.

Any other questions?

I think that it's coming specifically from the special revenue.

The money is coming specifically from the special revenue um account for community development, and it's essentially authorizing um the use of that one million dollars from special revenue for this project.

Anita, can correct me if I'm wrong.

That is absolutely correct.

There's no city funding, no internal city funding with this project.

Yeah.

Um further questions on this item.

Can have a motion.

Ravi vote move for approval by the second.

Second from Jeremy, all in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next item is zoning board referrals ZB application 22606, Stanford Zoning Board Text Change.

The purpose of this text change is to make corrections to various sections of the zoning regulations and add a new definition for temporary signs.

I presume Benita, you're here to present the sign.

Good evening, planning board members.

Let me share my screen.

Alright.

So there are a few items that are just corrections in the regulations, such as the first one, which is a correction of the section reference in section 2D.

Next again, this one is also a correction, removing an outdated section reference.

So temporary signs are allowed and they've been allowed in the city.

The way that they've been handled till now is that the standards that are applicable to permanent signs on buildings, you know, also apply to temporary signs.

Require states what the penalty is if the signs are not taken down.

There's a bond that's required to be placed if your sign is bigger than the permitted signage.

That's one of the things that's changing here.

Allow that under the current regulations for us.

Wall sign, we don't want to permit something that big to you know to be placed on a building on a permanent basis, or you know, give it a permit, or even give them a variance for for something that's you know bigger than what uh a sign would, you know, a regular sign would be allowed at that scale.

So that that was one of the impetus of bringing it up now, but this has been something that we've been meaning to do uh to kind of lay out what the process is for temporary signs overall.

I can go through the different um elements here.

Um this section 11D reference is just signs that are not permitted anywhere, and you know, really these are flashing signs or other in other ways that are distracting.

So this section covers that.

Um, we don't want any temporary signs to be illuminated.

Um it states that it requires a zoning permit, which would provide details of what the sign would uh look like, the materials so that the zoning enforcement officer has all the information that's necessary to allow this.

The next one talks about some flexibility in the location of the sign and the size of the sign that the CEO can employ.

And then the time extension, typically these signs would be allowed for three months at a time.

But the CEO may allow 30 more days.

So right this what this says is that the deposit has to be $5,000, which can be returned once the sign is taken off.

This really is the means for come you know ensuring compliance, because this is usually not the top at the top of the list for zoning enforcement when they're looking for you know violations that so we don't we don't we want to shift the burden uh onto the the applicant and make sure that they remove any temporary signs.

Um and there's also you know the zoning violation penalty that will be enforced after the three-month period.

So in addition to the bond, you also have that as a mechanism to ensure compliance.

Um essentially that's it for this for the temporary signs.

Um if you have any questions on this, I can take that now, or I can move on to the rest.

Yes, and hi Vanita, thank you.

Um question.

Um, certainly within um the construction industry, um, temporary construction signs, you know, are commonly put up um, you know, on uh construction projects, um, you know, general contractors, construction managers, subcontractors, architects, etc.

etc.

And and of course, those projects are going to take well in excess of three months.

Is that something that would um fall under this uh regulation?

Um that's a good point.

We do not we we look thinking of building signs here, not so much sign, you know, building signs have to comply with setback.

So typically it is that's a gray area, any signs on the fences.

Um so maybe we can account for that.

I mean, they what because you you know, I as I look at this, you know.

What uh could be a problem is the bond, you know, maybe maybe one way to do it is like maybe have them go through the same process, or if we think that you want to exempt certain kind of signs like during construction period, that's another approach.

Or we could say that okay, if you're seeking a build, we know that there's a building, getting a building permit, we have them go through this um whole process for a temporary sign to cover any of the construction signs that they need.

Well, um or alternatively, I'm I am curious.

Is can you give us a specific example of a temporary sign that you know has arisen recently that you know created the impetus for this?

Um what kind of a sign would this even apply to?

Yeah, so the one that came up recently was uh at 200 Elm Street, um, and this is the Henkel building, um, or the you know Henkel is a tenant in that building, the tenant.

Um, so they have um a facade, you know, the big building is angled um and kind of goes in, you know, yeah, uh is at the corner, um, and they have uh a slew of windows uh kind of in this in the center.

They want to put a poster that's about a hundred foot by sixty feet, not a poster, it's you know, it will be a vinyl um decal.

Like a banner.

Yes, yes.

Um you know, uh it will, you know, it's especially being uh crafted uh to be of good quality and you know, and you know, kind of taking into account how what the experience will be from the inside the building, not to obstruct um light inside the building uh given the size.

Um so that was what uh was the recent uh impetus for this um text amendment.

I can actually think of another example of that that might be relevant here.

Um if you guys were downtown at all during the um election period.

Vanita, do you remember that large banner that got hung on the Stanford Savings Bank building between one set of pillars?

Yes.

Yeah.

So is that a temporary that's a temporary sign?

And I remember saying, how did that happen?

Right.

And you know, it's we understand we all understand that it's going to come down after the election period, the intense intent is not malicious in any way, but there was no way for us to allow such a thing in the past.

So that would have been another one that you know could have come in.

But the the good part would be with these regulations that they'd have to ask for permission, um, and you know, post a bond, so it's all legitimized.

Um because then it's easier to enforce.

I mean, it they would it you could just directly enforce it as well and have them take it down, but you know, understanding that it's a temporary sign and not a permanent sign, you know, this is a better way to handle it rather than you know going after something that's um expected to come down in a few uh weeks or months.

So I would would um do these uh revision revised regulations um also um define perhaps uh sizes, maximum sizes of temporary signs or materials that are typically used for a temporary sign versus a permanent one.

Right.

So the size we haven't put down a maximum here, but I think we've had that discussion, and I think we do want to maybe add a maximum limitation on what that size could be.

Um that would give allow the ZEO, you know, it would be easier for them to uh you know use this regulations rather than leaving it all open to the amount of signage that's permitted.

So it could be um what proportion it is to the permitted sign of that building, like if it's you know twice you're allowed twice the size or three times three times or some ratio of of what's what's currently permitted.

Ravi, you had a question.

Yeah, so you know, I am um generally not in favor of more regulations in the city.

I know we need some discipline, but we want the town to be vibrant and colorful and you know soccer match.

We want people to be celebrating it, not going around $5,000 bond.

Um lesson, I mean, even it's a democratic country, people hang banners outside the houses, and I don't want zonal enforcement to go around saying, hey, what did you hang this banner which is 10 inches too long on the left-hand corner?

And so I'm not sure what is the problem and why we need uh lines of regulations on sure.

I'm not convinced of it.

I mean, I I know it it you think it provides clarity, but I think it adds brutality.

Um I'm glad to support it.

Sure.

I I understand that um that you know we're it's a it's a lot of process for a temporary sign.

However, what we what we don't want is like some of our you know, you know, buildings in the downtown, what you want is you know, for the vibrancy of the buildings, you also don't want them to be entirely plastered with signs, and because we really can't control the the quality of the sign, like in terms of the the content, what it can be, whatever they want it to be.

Um we want the the people to be able to look into the buildings, have some transparency.

Um I understand, but that goes back to what Jake was asking.

How many such cases have I mean, is this a real problem, or we are trying to find a solution to a non-existent problem?

Um so this, you know, we have sign regulations.

And everybody has to abide by that.

If anybody asks for something more than that, we currently don't have the ability to give them.

This gives them a path to do it on a temporary basis without asking for a variance.

A variance has a higher threshold because you need you have to demonstrate a hardship.

Wanting a bigger sign is not a hardship, like you know, just you know, it makes sense.

So you know uh the variances are tied to land-based hardships.

So we don't have venue for some somebody actually wanting a little bit of flexibility.

So it's this is a way to kind of that is the problem, then I would recommend you proposing a different solution, allowing zoning department some kind of flexibility and deciding rather than forcing a whole set of new regulations on the public.

Because you know, I'm just saying the street was uh house which had a huge banner.

I don't want to say what the banner said, but during election it had a huge banner.

And this is certainly going to be it was not illuminated.

Yeah, I don't think it was based on any uh size dimensions.

I think it's data for more than three months.

I'm I'm I'm sure of it.

So I don't want look, we don't want to hassle our residents with real regulations.

So if the problem is we mean you know the zoning department needs clarity on approving exceptions for science, that's a different request, and that should be if we should be different solutions instead of adding more.

Um right.

I mean, I we we have we're having this discussion with the CEO, um, and kind of what if we she just had the discretion, but I think she you know felt that you know uncomfortable with get just getting a blank slate because then if she says no, this is too much, like you know, uh she could allow temporary sign, and the process here is a zoning permit, not a board review.

So, but if she it you know, if she allows one versus for the other, she thinks it's too much, then you know somebody could challenge that judgment.

Um, and you know, there's so you know, you you need some kind of framework for some you know, people to be able to make the judgment because you know, we have a very hard line in our regulations as to what the signs allow, you know, uh, you know, are allowed.

So it's unfair to people who go through the permit process, you know, get this the sign that's permitted, you know, that they are permitted, and then somebody else coming and you know putting a temporary sign that you know exceeds the regulations, and then you know not having, you know, there's no uh it's not a fair uh uh you know it's not fair to them who uh who for the people who actually went through the process and paid the sign, you know, for paid the permit fee and all of that.

So it's just kind of leveling the playing field a little bit.

Um, you know, you could so it that does tend to happen.

They you know, the ZEO doesn't, it's not the highest priority to go after temporary signs, so probably why your the neighbor whoever whichever neighbor had that sign, you know, they were not uh send a violation because there are other things that are more important to health safety um and welfare um that the ZO might consider but at the same time, you know, the this people could may want to like we don't may want to cover a large part of the buildings and it kind of takes away from the the design, the the streetscape, and we don't want to completely uh let our uh buildings get away with that, you know.

But I understand that you know, there's there's a you know, we by adding these standards, we add a layer of uh bureaucracy, and it might be inconvenient where you know somebody might say, you know, in good faith that you know we are going to take this down.

Um any other questions?

Are we going to vote on each item secretly, or are we going to work on the whole document at the end of the day under the time?

It is one application overall, so I think um, but Lenzi, if you sorry, you can just say something.

No, no, it's the it is the application, but um, you know, the planning board can you know make comments in their recommendations in their um letter.

Yeah, yeah.

Um if there's no other question on that on the sign portion, I can move on to just cover quickly what else is in the text amendment.

Um here we just adding you know the word residential density divider because this is a defined term.

Um when we talk about what the residential density is for conversions.

Um the R 10 district was repeated, and instead it should have been the R20 district, so we're just making that correction here.

Um then in this chart in section 12.

Um the footnote was in the wrong place.

It should have been uh in the first column here rather than the third column.

So we're just making that correction because you know, this is even though it seems small, it can make a difference as to where people are able to park and when where they're not, and if they don't understand the table or if there's an error, uh it becomes an issue.

Um, and then we're just um changing the name of the transportation department in the regulations to match what the new name for the department is.

It used to be traffic trans transportation traffic and parking deal.

Um that's all.

And if there are any other questions, I'll be happy to take them.

Well, uh, I mean, just for my feedback, I mean not on the assigned topic, but overall, if there are some small grammatical errors or something in the document, you I mean, what should you come to us for?

You're just changing amounts on the first row, but you're asking us to review an approval document.

The main changes around the temporary permit.

And I think this whole the way this proposal has been constructed is not correct.

I mean, I I mean, how do I say no to some small changes you are proposing?

I mean, we all nobody would say no to that.

But now, along with that, you have bundled something else also where I have reservations.

Uh so my recommendation is somehow in the town has to find a way to do these changes on on your own when it is just uh fixing a grammatical mistake or you had the wrong footnote reference.

Yeah, my first separate separately is what you mean.

Separate them.

So that you know what we're approving.

So as it's I'm I don't know what I should I disagree with the sign thing, but I am absolutely okay with the rest, but I leave it to the chair and the other members to figure out what rule we can put that in the in the letter too.

If you whatever way you vote, we can note that you know uh Ravi Subramani is in favor of everything with the exception of the temporary sign.

So we can we can specify that.

Well, and and at a deeper level, you know, um as as Ravi points out, you know, the the grammatical uh clarifications.

Um I guess it it doesn't change the meaning of the of the provision.

Um why why does it even need to come before us?

You know, yeah when you get to that level.

Right.

It I think we have like there are some changes, you know, it it's very it's very hard to draw the line on what is meaningful and what's like what requires an application versus something that is not something that does not in my experience having updated regulations, just you know, if it was a bullet that is not in the right place, some things that are just formatting based are fine for us, but adding words or taking away words, we tend not to do unless it's a pure repetition because you know what in the zoning, one word can make difference between something being permitted or not permitted, like you know, a check mark in the table means it's permitted, a dash means it's not permitted.

So it's you know, as perfect example is of the table of where that 200 square foot turnaround is permitted.

And now by adding this, it is permitted in the front yard.

And we did that because of you know, reasons that engineering and traffic and and and public.

So it's a small move but a significant meaning.

Lucy, this is my problem with this.

So thanks for pointing it out.

I I would have never considered the footnote being referenced as something really make making a change, you know.

So there are some things here which the planning board needs to understand and approve consciously.

Like this particular change you mentioned now, Lindsay is one of that.

But there are so many other changes on this document which are just cosmetic, you know, and it's very hard for at least for me to differentiate those two.

And it'll really help us if you know the UNL for somebody else make that distinction and have this is this is cosmetic and it has real world implications, is what I was saying.

Like this rule already exists, but the way it's written is inaccurate.

Yes, it was so the intent was when the text amendment was, you know, when this table was being approved, the intent was for this footnote to be here in the first column.

But you know, as an error, it ended up being here in the third one.

Um so we once it's published and the legal notice is published, you know, it is binding on us.

Um we cannot just change it because then we're making, you know, it's it's something that you know the zoning board approved, we approved, and by moving it here, we would start allowing it, even though we understand that was the intent from the beginning, we don't have the ability to make that kind of change.

And I've checked with the law department, like you know, in the process of um, you know, updating the regulations, we said, you know, oops, we for you know, we should have done this instead of that.

Um, and what the law department told us that you know you'll have to make that correction in a future text change.

You can't just they'll they'll tell us things that we can fix um as you know as something that's not consequential and versus some things that will legal be legally um problematic because you know, but it's subsubject to appeal, like if we have a text that reads one way and it's in the legal notice and in the regulations, and then we change it, it could be good, it's sub it can be appealed to the court or the board of raps.

In this particular case, uh, you know, given that our purview in this in this case and in all cases is to determine as far as I can tell, um, whether whether the proposed changes that you're you're uh proposing to make here to the zoning regulations are at odds somehow with the comprehensive plan.

Um and uh but I would argue that you know most of what you've proposed in this uh basically are so granular in nature that the comprehensive um plan, you know, may not even address them.

So there's no basis for which uh we can even make that judgment.

You know, actually I I what I would say is that you know they've said that you know regulations should be clear, it should be user-friendly, and if they're not that you know, and we that's what the impetus is to trying to address these.

So, you know, we want you know, develop you know, public to be able to understand our regulations and not be confused.

Oh uh agreed that somebody has to, you know, I suppose there's the distinction is an administrative level of authority versus you know, uh some aboard approval.

In this particular case, uh I would question why given that it has so little uh bearing uh, you know, relative to the comprehensive plan, why the perhaps it's the charter that defines it.

You know, the the sole board the sole uh basis of approval would be the zoning board.

They're the ones who ultimately should be approving these things um in in this particular uh document.

And they will be.

This is just uh this is a recommendation, and if the recommendation, I mean you could write in the recommendation that you know the grammatical revisions and uh reference to new section titles.

Uh I mean, I agree with Vanita that you know, any action items that we have in the comp plan with respect to making things more user-friendly, that these corrections do speak to that.

Um except maybe the signage one.

The signage one, you yeah, so I I maybe we could speak to this kind of in the uh recommendation letter.

You you guys are right that it is uh that sorry, what was I thinking?

Um you can put yes, you can put comments in the recommendation letters, but Chester, you're right that it's the zoning board that is making the final decision here.

It is a recommendation from the planning board required by the general statutes of the state of Connecticut.

So you wonder why the planning board has to opine on a comma or a new chat section title.

Um it's the general statutes.

So yes, and okay, understood.

So what we do uh yeah, uh when we do use our discretion is once we've done, you know, once we've taken this through your board, if you make minor changes, we we will not bring it back to to the board unless there's substantive changes between now and the zoning board hearing.

Um, and if there are substantive changes, then we bring it only then we bring it back.

So you know, we try to keep it uh to what you know if we try to take all the comments you know that we see from your board, um other departments and incorporate them and bring them to the to the zoning board.

So um if this is something that we just require to do, and we don't have the ability to you know skip the step.

Okay, then in that particular case, uh I I'd like to, and I'll I don't know.

Um ultimately what you're looking for is approval of the uh of each item, but I'd like to put that motion you know basically split the motion into one for the the temporary signage issue, one for the the and the and there are two other issues uh in this.

Um and I and I do uh I would uh move as a part of my motion of approval, um that in the spirit of making things um easier to understand by the public, um the what what you're proposing here for the signage does not do that.

Okay.

Um so uh that if if that has to be part of the motion, that's that's needs to be information that the zoning, the zoning board when they when they deliberate deliberate this needs to understand if my motion for approval was approved.

Um and and I think we need to also recommend in the future that you know uh grammatical or cosmetic or or or changes that do not affect the meaning of of the regulation.

Um somehow um there should be a different uh level of of uh approval.

Sure.

Um that's my that's my motion, as complicated as that is so my understanding procedurally is that we can't if an item has come before us as one application, we have to consider it as one application.

We can't split it into pieces.

Um, but as Lindsay noted earlier, um it is possible to make a comment on a portion, but you do have to vote.

Um, yeah, yeah.

So my so my motion was one motion for the approval of this, but set three separate comments uh on the three different provisions.

Okay.

Um I will note I I don't know that all of us will necessarily agree on all of the comments.

So um I I would recommend that we have a vote on the the package of the zoning text.

Um and then I think um members, and unless there's something that is pretty unanimously held, um, I think it'd probably be um better to vote on the whole stack, and then if individual members would like to add comments, we can do that.

Um is it too difficult for the town to split this into two?

Well, it again, it's just I mean, we we could decline to vote on it, and then it can be withdrawn and be brought back into pieces.

I don't know that zoning is inclined to do that, but the only way for it to be broken into I have I have a in-principle objection to this.

We want our process to be very simple and easy to understand.

And that a complex request is brought forward, and yeah, will you have an option to say yes or no to the whole thing?

Then in the proposal, there are different elements.

That would be unfair to the planning board to say either you say yes or you say no.

And that's not the way it should be.

So we clearly see here uh two different types of requests.

One is cosmetic changes, simplification of some existing regulations, and then there's a completely new regulation coming up.

So my I mean, if it's possible, I would request the town to you know come back with these two separate proposals so that we can have a clear vote.

And if it's too difficult for people to do, then I'm going to say no to the whole thing, that's all.

Okay.

So sorry, we need to share.

If I could jump in here, um there is a time constraint here, you know, for the you know, for the sign at the Henkel building, they want to be able to put it up in time.

Um in mate, and for them, they once this goes through your board, it has to be scheduled at the uh zoning board, and they have to you know construct the sign.

So right now the regulations don't allow such a thing.

So if we have to start the process over, then it might you know may not work timing-wise.

So that's just one consideration.

Otherwise, yeah, uh, you know, there's no other time critical element to this, other than we, you know, we won't be able to be able to support that uh particular request that we have in front of us.

Um I would anyone like to put forward a motion of this motion is on the floor, so what do we do with that on mute?

You're on mute, chat.

I will note chat.

The piece about the um the grammatical is is sort of more of a general comment.

Yeah, and also I think we have a motion on the floor that has not been yet been seconded.

So if it if it's not seconded, then that you then we've taken action.

If it uh and another motion can be put forward.

Um if it is seconded, then we have a motion on the floor.

Um I I guess I'll just make a comment here.

You know, I I appreciate both Chet and Ravi's uh points here, and and you know, I I'm in agreement with uh you know the sign regulation, you know, does not sort of make things easier as we we've approved in the comprehensive plan.

Um and you know, the other changes are are you know somewhat important and and minimal at the at the same time to be approved.

Um but but I think you know approving this with a note that the planning board does not you know recognize the the temporary sign or or support the temporary sign regulation is is doing that somewhat of a disservice in in my my opinion.

I think that makes sense, and I I think it is even though it is a package, I think it I mean, given the way that this was um addressed, the core piece that is changing is the signage regulation.

So I think that if you would like to consider that as the primary thing that we're voting on, knowing I mean, I think my understanding is that from a time sensitivity standpoint, the uh the changes that are um more with regard to you know kind of editing and formatting do not have as much time sensitivity to them.

Um, not that the time sensitivity should sway how you vote, but just I think that um I think it's okay to consider really that the core matter before us is that the addition of the signage regulations.

Does that make sense?

And you could kind of invert the the comment, you know, if it is the um sentiment of the board to deny that piece of it, but that we are in favor of the the procedural pieces.

And so the motion would be declined if there was a majority that voted that was not voting in favor, but we could still have the a comment.

So do you want to modify your motion or restate your motion?

Um yeah, I uh uh I'm okay to modify it.

I'll I'll need a little help as Jen, what what the we understand the signage issue is is the biggest piece of this uh issue.

Um and I and I I may maybe I should change withdraw my original motion motion and actually propose a motion to reject uh maybe it would be clearer to reject the entirety of this change um because of the signage wording, which which in my opinion is not consistent with the master plan, the the comprehensive plan.

Um so you can withdraw the motion, put forward and put forward a motion to deny.

And so then if people vote in the affirmative, it's in agreement with denying the application, and if we vote um no, then it is uh vote supportive of the change.

Oh hang on just a second, sorry.

Okay, so I I've I've withdrawn the uh the old one and put forward the new one.

Now it just needs a second.

If anyone is interested in proposing a second, yeah.

I second the motion and uh and I wish I'd I wish I could have approved it, but as we discussed, you know, the uh signage is appropriate, you know, it's not acceptable.

So I second your motion.

Okay.

Um so all in favor of the motion to uh deny the application to your hand.

Um opposed opposed.

Um and so the um motion uh to deny carries uh for um and support and one against.

Um and I think we can add the comment um one that the planning board is supportive of the um the balance of the changes that are um yeah, corrections and grammatical and formatting and nature.

Um and then I I invite um anyone else to add a specific comment about uh uh reason for denial so that that can be used to inform any changes.

Well, I uh my my motion already did add a a comment, Jen, and that was um in my personal view, um, it being inconsistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan, and so far as making um regulations uh you know um uh clear, easy to follow, simplified, etc.

Yeah, so I understand that as the rationale.

I think and perhaps it does not have to be on the record here, but I it's I think that guidance on what clear would be would be helpful.

Yeah, I'm anything I don't know whether I'm on the record on the record, but my humble view, and we need sorry, but don't did not present a case to clause why we need set of 10 complex regulations.

Um something which this is my my my uh that in the absence of such a regulation the the EU has to make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis.

You know, that's what I think I think you are speaking.

You didn't you know if you had told me, for example, there were 20 such applications, and we ran into a whole lot of issues in the last six months trying to decide what to do and what not to do, and therefore we want some clear cut on paper kind of regulations.

I would have been more convinced, but that was not the case.

And right.

I mean, uh at present we just tell them that it's not permitted and they have to go away.

So that's the end of the an end of the question.

So right now that's what we have is an inflexible system that doesn't allow uh any sign that's larger than what's permitted.

Um so they're not allowed to hang, I'm just a resident now.

So I know I'm not supposed to hang a political sign in my on my house.

Not one that's larger than the signs permitted in a single family residential.

You're subject to a zoning violation.

Yes.

150 dollars a day.

Is it clear?

I mean, is it is it will still will document?

Yes, it's all it's all in the every district has its own limitation.

So that's what they're everybody is bound by, and this kind of gives an out for temporary situations.

I'm sorry.

But anyway, we pass the resolution, so I'm not going to go back and post something.

So um, and I'll just also reiterate then.

So we're um we're reviewing this on referral.

own limitation so that's what they're everybody is bound by and this kind of gives an out for temporary situations I'm sorry but anyway possible solution so I'm not going to go back and post something so um and I'll just also reiterate then so we're um we're reviewing this on referral um and so my understanding is that if a supermajority of zoning votes in approval they are able to move forward with it just so that if if that were to occur there or not or surprise sure yeah yes and you know in hindsight you know another option could have been uh that you recommend that we make it less restrictive the temporary sign standards less restrictive um that would have been another option um and you know we could what do that work between now and um you know when it goes to the zoning board and we you know we still might do that to the extent that the CEO is is amenable to an you know using it the regulations that way because you know she's the ultimate uh person to make the uh interview the permits when they come in yeah I know you know I I my my only comment would be um you know I think something less restrictive would would probably be beneficial you know I I I know um no one wants to hurt a developer and and their tenants with with a time constraint but um you know I I think hindsight on these applications is always always good um but yeah yeah we that that's where we get um are there any other comments um the members would like to have attached to this okay and um I just wanted to know I think that the part of the reason why I think having the comments separate was helpful is because there are very they're varied and differing reasons for why um people have voted the way you have and so I think baking that into the motion would have made it complicated so all of those comments are noted in the record um regarding the uh referral um there are no other items before us um and so um the next uh regularly scheduled planning board meetings are March 24th April 14th and April 28th all right thank you okay thanks everybody 726