All right.

Good evening.

This is the uh Tuesday, April 14th meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

Um, before we proceed with our agenda, I would like to go ahead and um uh welcome some new members to our board as well as to celebrate the re um confirmation and a little shift in position for um one of our existing members.

Um so I'll first I'll just go ahead and introduce myself and say a little bit about how long I've been on, and then we can go around if you want to just introduce yourself, what brought you to this.

Um so I'm Jennifer Godzeno.

Uh I am uh uh currently chair and have served as chair for um about um two a year and a half.

Um I I first joined the board as an alternate um uh a little over 10 years ago and then was confirmed as a full member um in 2015.

Um I am in professional urban planner.

Um I'm so glad to be able to bring that expertise to this work.

Um Chet, you want to go ahead?

Well, sure, sure.

Um so so my name is Chet Salett.

Um I also uh joined as an alternate um two and a half years now ago.

And um just this past um um well, yesterday, as a matter of fact, I was sworn in as a regular member.

Um happy to do that.

Though though the last year and a half, it it's felt like we were regular members anyway, you know, because we were essentially voting on at every meeting.

Um so uh I'm happy to be here in that capacity.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chet.

Um, and just something of note, Chet, um just background of architecture and uh your service on the uh school committee, school construction committee.

Correct, correct.

Uh specifically the uh school construction committee and and and the West Hill High School uh planning committee.

So they're they're technically I think still two different committees, though one could be a subcommittee of the other.

I'm not quite sure.

That sounds right.

Yeah.

Um Ashley, would you like to go next?

Sure.

Um I'm Ashley Lye.

I am a professional urban planner as well.

Uh prior to being on the planning board, I was on the board of representatives for four years, representing District 20, and I served on the operations committee, the state and commerce committee, the charter revision committee, and the um housing and social services committees during that time.

And then before that, I was on the environmental protection board for about six years, starting as an alternate and then a full-time member.

Thank you.

And Drew.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh Drew McKay, um, a project executive for a construction management firm in uh in Connecticut.

Um I've been in construction and development for the better part of 20 years now.

Um, mostly in uh the New York City and Tri-State area and uh recently I've transitioned into the Connecticut uh region.

I've been a Stanford resident for over 10 years now.

Uh kids go to Davenport Ridge up in uh um over uh in North Stanford area.

And I'm I'm glad to be here.

Okay.

All right, great.

Um I'm glad to that all of you were able to be um confirmed into those roles.

Um I do want to note um and thank uh Bill Levin uh who had been serving as one of our alternates for many years.

Um also brought a background as a professional urban planner.

Um and uh now with the appointment of some new members will no longer be a member of our board, but was uh he was on before I started.

Um and uh really appreciate his long service to the city.

Uh Jeremy, I don't think introduced himself.

If he'd like to take the opportunity to do that.

Yes, please.

Thanks, Lindsay.

Uh Jeremy Linder.

Uh I've been on the planning board now for just about a year.

Uh been a Stanford resident for 13 years.

I live in District 10.

Uh, my professional background is a project manager um in construction in the tri-state area for about the last 14 years.

And look forward to continuing to serve.

Thank you.

And Jeremy is going to be our vice chair.

And our secretary, Robbie is traveling currently.

Australia.

Okay.

He also went and climbed Mount Everest.

So wow.

Yes.

I do also just want to note that I mean, so during um during the time uh from when I started on the planning board, um, you know, Bill is mentioned as an alternate brought experience as an urban planner, but the rest of the board was made up of um members of the public who, you know, knew and understand the city very well.

Um and brought a lot of perspective and also weren't built environment professionals.

And so I just want to note it is actually a pretty significant change now to have um to have a board that brings uh this kind of expertise.

Um so with that, um, we'll go ahead and uh introduce uh the first agenda item, which is the planning board meeting minutes uh of March twenty-fourth uh twenty twenty-six.

Um and so um in order to vote on minutes approval, um, you are required to be um present at the meeting.

Um, and then uh if we have a forum of those who were present, then we're able to vote on the minutes.

Um are there any uh questions or corrections on the minutes uh chat, Jeremy?

No.

So I'll move the acceptance of the minutes of the March twenty-fourth two thousand twenty-six meeting.

Second from Jeremy.

Okay.

Okay, she is not carrying on.

Um so let's just take a little uh intermission.

Okay, all right.

All right, no problem.

And actually, we I think we need her for our quorum uh for this uh the meeting minutes vote, don't we?

Yeah, we do.

Yeah.

And it gives me time on the proper procedure for either removing agenda item or tabling an agenda item.

So all good thanks.

All right, um, so she has to restart.

I might ask if we can proceed in her absence, depending on how I'll let me check in and see how long it's gonna take her.

Um then maybe Jeremy will get his uh 15 minutes in the spotlight.

All right.

Um Jeremy would mind um please kind of taking over.

No problem.

So what we'll have to do is um have a motion to table the minutes, and then um you can move on to reading in the uh lease agenda item, which we will also have to table.

Okay, we don't have the fully completed and signed lease.

Not a problem.

Okay.

Um so to continue on with our first order of business without us having a quorum uh for approval of the March 24th, 2026 regular meeting.

I'll move to table that uh for a quorum.

I'll second moving on to our first order of business is the request for authorization, lease of zero and three thirty-eight Courtland Avenue for school bus parking.

Uh do I continue to read this, Lindsay?

Um just the first line, I think is a good one.

From the receptor respective owners, following summary as is um with the lease not completed.

Uh would somebody be able to make a motion to table this.

I'll move that we table this item.

Second.

Great.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Okay.

All right.

We'll move to table uh the request for authorization for the lease.

Uh moving on to the next order of business uh is zoning board referrals.

ZB application number 226-07, Melrose Place LLC 27, 29 and 31 Melrose Place and 445 Fairfield Avenue map change.

Applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the district current R6 one and two family zoning district to the MG General Industrial Zoning District.

Uh thank you, Jeremy.

And uh just noting that Jennifer has come back.

It's uh 645.

Sorry for that uh technical blip there.

Um that sounds like the next agenda item has been uh read in.

So we can go ahead and uh see.

If you can introduce yourself for the record.

Sure, sure.

Uh Lindsay, would you like me to proceed?

Uh yes, I was just about to say, and here for the applicant, our are Bill Hennessy and Madison Smith.

Thanks very much.

And before I begin, let me just uh congratulate and thank uh our new members and our existing members.

Uh we not only uh spend a lot of time uh before this board, but we also live here in town and we uh appreciate the uh the uh the the work you do uh uh uncompensated work you do, I would say.

We're acutely aware of that.

So I'll move quickly uh in respect of your time and please uh if I move too quickly, just interrupt me and tackle me and slow me down.

But uh, you know, uh Madison and I are here this evening on behalf of Melrose LLC, which is a closely held corporation that uh the limited liability company that owns a small piece of property on the north side of uh Melrose Place, uh down in the Waterside neighborhood.

Uh the uh managing member of the uh company is Stephen Goldblum.

Uh and Stephen is uh a part of the Goldblum family owns a lot of property here in town, including this and uh has interest in the larger, you know, 30 plus acre industrial park to the north.

Uh and as you can see, the there are four properties involved in this uh uh proposed rezoning of uh uh the north side of uh Melrose Place.

Two of them are uh affiliated with uh Mr.

Goldblum, that would be 445 Fairfield Avenue, which is a building and a lot, which is attached to the building to the north of it.

So this is an unusual situation where there's a zone line that runs through a building uh and then the uh the uh three properties uh to the east of that, 31 Melrose, owned by a Mr.

uh Titelbaum and his partner, 29 Melrose, owned by Mr.

Goldblum, and 27 Melrose uh owned by uh uh uh Mr.

Uh Sinasi uh and his partner who are landscapers.

So the story of this is interesting, and as uh Lindsay and I were talking, and as we've talked through the land use bureau about this since uh Mr.

Goldblum approached us, is that this is uh sort of a textbook case for you planners on the board of you know just how nonconformities come into existence and how to treat them and how you can sometimes solve the problem and sometimes you don't.

You can't wish nonconformities away.

And this story of this is fascinating in that uh this all developed as MG property uh well before zoning was introduced uh to Stanford.

And when zoning was introduced to Stanford, the whole north side of um Melrose, let's go back to the initial slide.

The whole north side of Melrose Place, uh Madison, maybe you can just trace the street, Melrose, if you have the error, uh, was in the uh MG zone.

And and it was uh, you know, the the land use largely matched everything you see to the north of it.

Um it was deemed incompatible with the residential property on the south side of Melrose Place.

And it probably was incompatible.

So you had these two very different uses butting up against each other.

There was the R5 uh zone that was laying over from the time zoning was introduced in Stanford until the mid-1980s over everything on the south side of Melrose, and everything on the north side of Melrose was in the MG uh land use category.

I suppose seeking to resolve that in the mid-1980s when the Stanford went through a very, very comprehensive uh analysis of really every lot in town uh for both purposes of its then new master plan, the 1984 master plan, and uh it and then uh which was done really as a precursor for a what was then called comprehensive rezoning of Stanford remapping, uh some things happened.

The the planning board changed the land use category to category three, which was uh low density multifamily, and the uh zoning board then created a new zoning category called R6, which was less dense than the R5 that was there.

It was really a uh these are my terms and how I've always interpreted it, was a single family zone that allowed for a second unit under some unusual circumstances.

And that was what was put put on the property, you know, 45 years ago, with the hope and the aspiration that the north side would transition into some kind of single or uh uh two-family uh uh development.

And what happened was exactly the opposite.

What happened was the nonconformities that existed there either just before the new zone went in place, or uh uh expanded themselves.

Or once the new zone was in place, they just perpetuated themselves.

And so we've had nearly a half a century of this conflict, and nothing's really worked out.

And the reality is sometimes you know, these nonconformities fade away, which is what, you know, if you pick up many zoning textbooks, that'll tell you what happens.

In my experience, more often they become more valuable because of their nonconformities, and they perpetuate themselves.

So we've had this situation where there's a conflict of uses for now uh over well over 40 years.

And um Mr.

Goldblum's 29 Melrose place recently uh lost its tenant of 30 years, and he was a roofer.

So he ran his business out of there.

You know, trucks and product and fabricated product, ran the business office, and occasionally even probably lived in in the property.

This is like a this is like homage to nonconformity of this this uh uh this little tiny property.

It's everything's non-conforming about it, as is the property to the east of it and the two properties to the west of it.

So when we sat with with Ms.

Cone and uh Ralph and Vanita and said, you know, you're doing a new master plan.

What can we do about this?

Uh we said, well, first of all, it's in the wrong master plan category.

It shouldn't be in a low density multifamily because it's just not going to transition.

And the reality is probably shouldn't, you know, I mean, everything to it to the interior lots, everything to the east and west of them and the north of them is MG, and it's developed that way and it's used that way.

So it's not going to transition.

So let's recognize that.

Let's put it in an industrial category, and we thank you for doing that.

And you put it in your uh, you know, you know, the flexible uh industrial category, and it's probably appropriate here.

And then so we we discussed what should we do in terms of the rezoning once that occurred.

And we were encouraged, you know, there was a lot of talk about it.

Should it be ML or MG, but ultimately, you know, what we arrived at was the MG because that would conform to the properties to the north.

And it would avoid any appearance on a map of it being a spot zone or something less than really what it was.

And so that's what led us to filing this.

Ralph and Vanita also felt strongly that not only should 29 Melrose be rezoned, because that would look like a, you know, the the tooth knocked out in the smile, if you will, but that the other properties that are similarly used for clear and have been used for non-conforming purposes, also be included.

So we approached the two property owners who uh the three property owners, but one of which was uh uh an affiliation of Mr.

Goldblum.

So two I would call you know non-affiliated uh non th third-party property owners and asked them if they wanted to be included.

And we explained the pluses and minuses, and both of them said, sure, you know, this is this is what we intend to use our property for.

It's what we built it for, uh, and how we intend to use it going forward.

So making it conform to zoning is better.

Uh and uh that is what that's what led to this application.

Uh and that that's really the heart and soul of it.

Uh we have slides that'll take you through the whole history of all the zoning and the rezoning and the master plan, and if you uh wanted to endeavor in an academic exercise, we're happy to take your time to do it.

But I I think you're you're not going to get much more out of it that than what we have.

You know, there's uh uh a building used uh uh at 445 for uh fabric, I think there's cabinet makers and other tradesmen in there.

Uh there's uh 31 Melrose is mostly a warehouse type building.

Uh 29 Melrose, as I indicated, is a roofing contractor who recently left, but you know, it's non-conforming, it could be put to that use.

And then there's the landscapers uh at the extreme uh uh eastern edge at 27 Melrose.

Happy to take questions.

Can I can I ask a uh a question at this point?

Um I understand that um the project the lots, the properties much fur further to the east of the of 27.

Yeah.

Um they at least from this, they they all also appear to be industrial.

And I understand that this um this issue is only dealing with these four four parcels.

But um the what is the current zoning of those properties to the east of this along Melrose?

Uh you mean uh on the northern side of Melrose, Mr.

Yeah.

Well, two of them, the the the two closest to these four, the ones that face Melrose are are used residentially.

Uh huh.

Okay.

And then the ones the the others uh uh really uh uh orient themselves toward Fairfield Avenue.

Oh, I see.

And and they are used uh commercially.

There's a deli restaurant, that sort of thing, which you know could be MG, but you know, they they aren't so out of whack and uh I we we felt that they were just different than than these this collection of four properties that really relate to what's going on to the north of them.

So at the time um you just there was a decision to reach out to the all these property owners.

So at the time um you just there was a decision to reach out to the all these property owners um was consideration g you know given to those two residential properties further to the east that are that uh front on Melrose um I have to say no you know we and it was just it wasn't a hard decision it just never really occurred to us because you know we just looked at them and said they look to conform to the R6 zone they they look to me kind of nice and tidy what why would they why would they want to change we we never knocked on their door no got it okay all right all right thank you.

Um any other questions from the board yeah um I I am wondering um so I mean I I know that um the the kind of ML versus MG um that landed on MG uh in order to not have you know a spot zoning situation um but um I I do wonder in terms of the compatibility of some of the uh permitted MG uses next to residential um I guess um yeah if you could comment on that a bit more and sort of what um mitigation might be yeah well you know it it there is I as I think as I as I said earlier that there's really no perfect solution to what we have here what what we have here began a hundred literally a hundred more than a hundred years ago probably in fact I was I was talking to Madison until recently I I I taught land use and if if uh if if I was teaching this semester I would definitely use this property as a great object lesson in in nonconformities and you know what the real world is like out there you know when you encounter this stuff um so I I wish I wish there was a perfect solution we debated you know because you know the area height bulk setbacks developmental uh potential in the ML or the MG are identical right so it's really not an issue of how much you can build or you know where you can build it or what the uh front yard setbacks are and all that that's immaterial because in either zone they're the same there's a slight difference in the uses and so on the one hand if it were ML you would you would arguably not arguably you would actually eliminate some of the more noxious uses that were potentially there.

I will I will grant you that on the other hand you know the counterbalancing argument is you what you might wind up with in the future is what you have at 445 Fairfield Avenue now which is a zone line that runs through a building because you can imagine that some of these properties might want to orient themselves back to the north with the other properties.

That could happen you know there could be an expansion so do you want a zone line running through it we ultimately sitting with Ralph and Vanita we came up with this but I can't tell you either either one is perfect.

And you know we're happy to discuss it further you know some of those more noxious uses uh madam chairwoman are are are anachronistic I mean that there we actually have a use called you know vinegar and sauerkraut manufacturing that's a use in our in our zoning regs uh it's not permitted in the ML.

It is permitted in the MG.

So most of the uses uh are either not practical to go here um you know because that there's other reasons why they can't go here you know adult establishments that sort of thing can't go here even though you might look down the table and they might be checked because they they're located in proximity to residential zones which in other sections of the zoning reg eliminate them.

So there's a you know it's layers of complication at the end of the day you know we we decided to go with DMG and I I wish I had a better better answer for it but you know we had two options and we picked one um if if if you wanted to send a signal to the zoning board that we that you think you know further consideration might be given to I mean if if you want to send a signal that a rezoning is appropriate um and you know the applicants encouraged to you know think you know uh about uh um uh uh it uh uh a different you know ask here I I don't think we have a problem with that um as a practical matter I think most of the the uses that would likely go here are allowed in both zones does that make sense does that answer your question it I I'd say it mostly does I mean I I I do think you know a lot of the most noxious uses probably wouldn't fit on this site um there's some kind of in between of like you know having a junkyard or something like that here which would be um permitted in the MG.

you know the applicants encouraged to you know think you know uh uh about uh um uh uh uh uh a different you know ask here i i don't think we have a problem with that um as a practical matter i think most of the the uses that would likely go here are allowed in both zones does that make sense does that answer your question it i i'd say it mostly does i mean i i do think you know a lot of the most noxious uses probably wouldn't fit on this site um there's some kind of in between of like you know having a junkyard or something like that here which would be um permitted in the mg um i i wonder if you could say more too about i mean i i obviously the practicality of having a a law um uh a zone line go right through the middle of of a building is is um something that ought to be resolved but can you say more about how the um like kind of practically how this uh this nonconformity is um impacting the ability of the owners to um have the property convert to um some other use now with the tenant having vacated sure uh it so let let's uh uh 29 milrose is probably the best example of that so it's it's a the it's a uh old building that seems to have been used residentially uh initially yeah there it is and um it it it doesn't lend itself well toward any kind of uh res uh uh industrial commercial use it's just not built for that it was adaptively reused for that many years ago but it's reaching the end of its useful life it's a terrible terrible spot for a residential use in the R6 zone you could have on this size lot a single family house so you'd have you'd have a warehouse on one side uh a contractor storage yard on the other and literally a factory in the backyard and it's it's a bad spot for it so how do you make use of that property now uh if you're the owner of it you know you would you're you're not gonna knock it down and turn it into an a new house you're it's just uh you're not gonna get any return on your investment by you know renovating it and using it as a single family house what you really want to do is go out and find a new tenant maybe maybe a roofer maybe another roofer maybe an electrician maybe a cabinet maker maybe uh service repair kind of business you know you got to fixes our copying machine was here all day complaining he can't find anything right so maybe it's that but they can't reuse this building they would want to take this down and build a new building they cannot do that today so that's that's that's what's wrong you can't rebuild a new building here let's say the landscaper says I want to put some of my material and uh uh machinery under roof get it out of the weather and cover it up and can't do that it's in the R6 zone can't expand his nonconforming building so that's the reason I see it it handcuffs the property um thank you for those details um are there any other uh questions or comments from the board on this item no all right um do you have a motion on this item then a lot of pondering well um I'll I'll move that we recommend um approval of of this uh the um it seems um both logical and rational that we do so um you know I I think we'll ultimately probably contend with this issue um certainly not immediately but in the future relative to those two remaining um lots to the east of of this assemblage um and and I assume those the that the that's still you know uh residential zone residential uh lots that are surrounded by this um um you know industrial manufacturing commercial um uh uses commercial on one side industrial manufacturing on the other um but that's that's for another day um I I it would have been nice to have a comprehensive solution for these even though it it didn't um it's not needed today um but so I'll I'll I'll move to uh to recommend approval I'll second that's motion to all in favor of the motion to raise your hand and it passes unanimously thank you very much for your time thank you very much um next on our agenda um on referral from the zoning board of appeals um is CBA application uh 023-2621 wishing well lane Brian Cleveland representing Paul G Pulos and Georgia Menagios variant

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much.

Um next on our agenda um on referral from the zoning board of appeals um is CBA application uh 023-2621 wishing well lane, Brian Cleveland representing Paul G.

Pulos and Georgia Menagios variants of table 12.6 location of parking areas and table 12.5 distances of parking areas.

Um the applicant owns a two-story single-family dwelling with an attached garage deck and a shed, and is proposing to convert the existing 25 foot um by 24 foot two-car garage into habitable space with a front and rear entrance.

The applicant is requesting an allowance for the parking areas to be located in the front yard between building lines and a street line set back for the surface parking lot of nine feet in lieu of the 10 feet required.

Um sorry, this is Brian Cleveland.

I'm hoping that you guys can hear me.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

All right, perfect.

Um, I also have Ashley uh Canon on.

Um I can't share anything with where I'm at right now, so she's gonna actually share her screen um as we kind of talk about this application.

Okay, I just promoted her to panelists, so um, it's gonna take a second for her to pop up, and here she is.

Uh and Ashley, you can uh share screen and I'll get the request.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So um as was described in our uh application, uh the owner is looking to convert the garage space of their two-car garage of the raised ranch house into a small uh living space that has a kitchenette, a bathroom, um, which is actually part of the original portion of the basement of the house.

Um it was a two-car garage, and and they just want to convert it into living space.

Um the building currently is identified to have four bedrooms within the um the residence, um, with this conversion that will add a fifth bedroom to the property as a whole.

Uh that is what is necessitating the third parking space to be shown um within the the driveway area.

Um because we are no longer allowed or not going to be able to use the two-car um garage, uh those two cars, of course, come out onto the driveway, which is in front of the house, directly in front of the house, and then the third car would be tandem to one of those spaces.

Uh as you can see, the profile of the lot is uh pretty constrained right at the uh front of it because it's on a cul-de-sac.

It's a triangular kind of shape there as you get to the front.

Um the regulation within the table specifically states that in this zone, which is different than then I believe the R5 zone, um, that we are not allowed to park within the building lines of the primary structure, which effectively states that we cannot park in front of our our building, even though we have a driveway there.

Um as you can see, there are some wetlands in the back of the property, um, and we are very constrained on either side of the primary residence uh to be able to provide any sort of parking on either side of the building.

Plus, that would add unnecessary impervious surface area to the property, which we already have a driveway here, which is more than sufficient to provide the three required parking spaces.

Um so we are seeking to get a variance to allow for that one foot of overlap of the third parking space over the front yard setback.

Um so we got nine feet there instead of ten, just a very small corner of that uh parking space is going over the setback line there.

And then of course, the the table that is prohibiting us from being able to actually place these parking spaces in that existing driveway.

We're seeking a variance for that portion as well.

Thank you.

Um any questions from the board.

Um I see Ashley's hand actually, and then sure.

So I just want to to be clear.

So you're not proposing to expand the driveway at all.

Is that correct?

You're just going to be parking the three cars in the existing driveway.

Correct.

There is an existing two-car garage there.

The driveway is the full width of the two cars as it comes out to the cul-de-sac.

Okay.

So from, you know, so it's not really going to change the look of it at all.

Correct.

I mean, obviously, we're going to take away the garage doors, um, but it's not going to change anything relative to the site.

Okay.

No further questions.

Thank you.

All right.

Chet.

Yes.

Um, I'm just curious.

Um how is how is this um different?

I I understand by definition.

Um, it is you're not considering it an accessory dwelling unit, but how is it actually materially different than an accessory dwelling unit?

Um the interior space is directly connected to the basement area.

Um, and on the first on that ground floor there, you can see that the bathroom is actually accessed, I believe, between the that small, as you're saying, uh, dwelling unit, if you can consider that, and the living room space or the family room space of the lower level of the house.

Um, it does have its own primary entrance.

It does have another entrance off the back of it, but it it still does maintain connection into the um the primary residence.

So I understand it's not it's it's not by definition accessory dwelling unit.

Um, but but could it have been just I I'm I'm just curious.

I I know it's not something you're uh you're asking for.

Right.

And my understanding is that this is not for it to be rented out or to be uh you know used as an Airbnb kind of situation.

It is for um one of the family members to be able to utilize this space um that has mobility problems with being able to get to the second floor and therefore having a living space for them down on the ground floor.

Got it.

Got it.

Because I thought there was a uh a provision um currently, uh I could certainly I could be mistaken that allows garage conversions into accessory dwelling units even when they're attached garages and things of that sort.

Am I um mistaken about that, Lindsay?

Uh I'm sorry, I'm reading the uh definition of an accessory dwelling unit while you were asking that question.

Um can you please repeat?

I was just wondering if it I know it's not pertinent, um, but I'm just using this kind of to kind of apply lessons learned, you know, to other prospective projects.

Um could this um by by definition could could it have been a uh considered an accessory dwelling unit?

Uh really good question.

And um what I was doing could probably help answer that.

Um so it's an accessory dwelling unit is located on the same lot as a principal dwelling unit, which is of greater square footage.

Um, and it can be attached to or within the principal dwelling unit, or it could be detached from the principal dwelling unit.

Um so it could.

I have to look.

There's a a number of different, there's about 11 different um more specific criteria.

Uh but that's a good question as to is it an ADU?

And if what if not, why?

Um, and yep.

I mean, just specific to this plan.

We we do not have an actual cooking um utens here or appliance here.

So it still is going to rely on the primary residence's kitchen.

Oh, got it.

Okay.

Because I saw the sink and dishwasher, and I wasn't sure if there was just a you know, if there was a it was constituting a kitchen, but you're you're clearly right, Brian.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right.

Um other questions from the board.

Um, seeing none, um I have a motion on this item.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Right.

Motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

Second from chat.

All in favor, please raise your hand.

And the motion passes.

Thank you, everyone very much.

Have a good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Next uh on the agenda uh is uh ZVA application 024-26 uh 243 Glenbrook Road.

Um Ben Alander uh variants of appendix B table two schedule of requirements.

Ben Allener variants of appendix B, Table 2 Schedule of Requirements.

Applicant owns a single family dwelling with a finished garage and is proposing to construct a second story over the existing finished garage footprint.

Applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 3.9 feet in lieu of the six feet required.

All right.

And we do have the applicant here to speak.

So he can Mr.

Alander, you can unmute yourself if you want to speak on your application.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Awesome.

Thank you.

So let me share what I'm trying to do here.

But basically, how do I share here?

I'm sorry.

Is there a way for me to share?

Yeah.

So bottom, hopefully, uh bottom of your screen.

Um there's should be an uh button.

It's a square with an arrow pointing up.

Okay, let me see.

Let's press share.

You unfortunately I don't see it.

Um we see settings here.

Hold on.

Oh, share screen.

Perfect.

Okay.

Okay.

Um hopefully that'll let me share.

Oh, actually, I think I might have to make you uh um sorry, you're in as a guest, so I have to I'm gonna mute you and then make you a participant.

Okay, great.

Um, yep.

There you go.

All right, he's being promoted to panelists and then he'll be able to share screen.

All right, Ben, you should be able to share screen now.

Uh maybe see a few different buttons than you were before.

Perfect.

Okay.

And you are on mute.

Um, so we can see your screen, but we cannot hear you right now.

Let's fix that problem.

Okay.

We can see and we can hear.

Perfect.

So what I am um proposing to do is um the current footprint of the house with the finished garage um extends the distance from the that garage to the property line is uh 3.9 feet.

The house was built um in 41.

Um, and my understanding is that zoning regulations didn't come into effect until uh 1950.

So um, so the house is I currently non-conforming.

Um, so what I'm uh uh hoping to do is basically get the variance of 3.9 feet so that I can build um over the finished garage.

Because otherwise we'd have to there'd be that foot setback off the footprint.

So we're trying to keep the line of the um uh new edition clean with the where the garage ends, where the finished garage ends.

Okay.

Um, and does not um worsen the existing non-conformance.

Uh are there any questions comments from the board.

Uh seeing none.

Uh have a motion on the second.

Jeremy.

I'll make a motion to approve.

All right, I have a second.

Second from chat.

All in favor, takes your hand.

And it passes.

Thank you very much.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and next we have uh CBA application 026-2644 Taconic Road.

Um, Joseph J.

Capalbo, the second Esquire representing uh Rafael Bassendowski variants of appendix B, table two schedule of requirements.

Applicant owns this parcel that contains the foundation for a single family dwelling, which was built from an inaccurate survey and is proposing to complete the construction of the single family dwelling.

Applicant is requesting a front yard street line set back of 57.8 feet in lieu of the 60 feet required and a front yard street center setback of 82.8 feet in lieu of the 85 feet required.

Uh so the applicant's representative uh Joe Gapalbo is not here to present the item.

Um the new surveyor is here.

Um, I'm sure if we have any questions, uh, but I don't think we necessarily even uh need to go there right now.

Um seem fairly straightforward and minor.

Yes, yeah.

Um it is also a uh corner lot, so it has it is required to meet two front yard setback requirements.

Um being in the res one residential single family zone.

We want you know having this uh uh single family use on a large lot fits exactly within this.

Um we would hate to have such a financial burden put onto the applicant because of um a technical error when they were trying to do the right thing in the first place.

Um questions or comments from the board.

Uh motion on item.

Approval.

Approval.

Second.

All right.

All in favor.

And it passes.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

See you again soon.

All right, good night, everybody.

Good night.

Enjoy the weather.

Yes, you too.

Bye.

Thank you, Drew and Ashley.

Thank you.