Kidoki.

Good evening.

This is the Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

Our first agenda item is the Planning Board meeting minutes.

The first is from at the mean the minutes of March 24th.

And trying to recall, did were we lacking a quorum?

We had no, we we're so close.

We were so close.

Okay.

And then you fell off, and we never we didn't couldn't tie that up.

So yeah.

Okay.

Thank you for refreshing me on the logistics that ran into that.

So we do technically still have a motion on the table.

That's been seconded.

Okay.

So if there are no amendments to that motion, um, then uh can I have uh a vote on uh approval of the minutes, um, all who were present on March 24th.

Um raise your hand.

Uh and passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh next on the agenda is the minutes from our most recent meeting, the meeting of April 14th.

Um there any questions or um amendments to the minutes.

No.

All right.

Um seeing none, um, all who were present are able to vote on the minutes.

Uh, do I have a motion uh for the April 14 minutes?

Okay.

Jeremy motion for approval, second from chat.

Um, all in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes.

Thank you.

Uh next we have um an item that had been tabled from our last meeting because we were still waiting for some final documentation.

Uh the lease uh for zero and three thirty-eight Courtland Avenue uh for school bus parking.

Um to read that into the record.

Uh the city plans to lease the combined parcels.

Oh, sorry, Chet.

Did you have a no just clear mortar?

All right, okay.

That's what I thought.

Okay.

Um so the city plans to lease the combined parcels of zero and three thirty-eight Cortland Avenue in Stanford from the respective owners.

Um the following of the summary of the terms, size of the combined parcels is 2.93 acres, uh, of which Zero Courtland uh comprises 1.53 acres and 338 Portland is 1.4 acres.

The use will be for a school bus parking area and other related uses.

Um, and the initial term is for 15 years with uh additional five-year options for a possible total term of 25 years.

I will not walk through all of the annual uh rent uh increases, but um the annual rent for the for the years of exercise where the city will increase by 2.5% each year.

Um I think I will go ahead and hand this over to our presenter at this point, given the level of detail that is included.

Uh and I think uh Christela Salva will be presenting on this.

Luke's raised his hand, so I think he's also gonna come up here.

So I will promote him as well.

Thank you.

And Matt.

Okay.

Uh so Luke Buttonweiser and Matt Cunonez are also joining.

And Ryan Feely, I'm sure they're all take the time to identify themselves.

All right.

Um whoever like to begin.

Uh go ahead and identify yourself for the record.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh I'll just kick us off.

Um Macy None is director of operations uh for the city of Stanford.

Uh this has been a uh agreement that we've been working on for quite some time.

I appreciate the planning board's patience uh with us as we attempted to bring this before you last month.

Um did not have a uh signed uh lease agreement to present to you, uh, which we do this evening.

Um this comes out of a uh extended period of time where we have uh conducted uh research and and planning to attempt to uh offer the board of education uh space available for school bus parking um to be able to support their RFP process, which uh allows uh the city and the board of ed uh opportunity to present potential vendors with options for parking, thus putting the uh board of ed in a in a better position to solicit competitive bid prices.

Uh we've been successful in in identifying uh location and and coming up with several scenarios to be able to support the board of ed RFP process, which allowed them to go out um and and solicit uh proposals, which they have since uh done so.

Um Ryan Feely uh from the Board of Education is also with us this evening who can speak a little bit more to um that process.

But ultimately uh the city found that it was in our best interest to be able to identify a location um where we would be able to offer to prospective vendors um and as I mentioned, thus making us more competitive in the process.

Um so this location is is just that.

Um we are are seeking um your support to uh move along in the lease approval process, which will require both Board of Finance and Board of Representative approval.

Um, and we can speak to kind of what the the timeline, the plans are for um preparing the site um and any details of the agreement.

Um I'll just note for the board that should we get into kind of any of the specifics around the uh agreement, um, it it may be best to move towards executive session, but I'll defer to attorney Chris Delaselva next to just give you an outline of the lease agreement.

Um, and then from there um uh joined with our our senior transportation planner, Luke Buttonweiser, who can speak to some of the preparations that will undergo for the site, or if there's uh questions regarding the RFP process, as I mentioned, Ryan's with us as well.

But I think at this point it's probably good to just introduce you to the actual agreement.

Um with that, I think Chris is on.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um, and just as a process point, I'll note for our new members that um all leases with the city do come before the planning board before they go through the approval process that that Matt had just outlined.

Um and that includes the city leasing or the city um taking on tenants, such as in the government center.

Um proceed with uh describing the lease.

Can everyone hear me?

Yes.

Hi, everyone.

This is Chris Ella Salva, assistant court counsel for the city.

And and I see you know, tonight's agenda has all of the terms of the lease as I forwarded them.

And this mirrors my uh memo to the mayor as well.

If you want me to recite them, uh I'm I'm happy to do that.

Uh or if you prefer to just ask me questions about them, uh I'm happy to do that as well, which you prefer.

Um, I think we can we can take the question option, although if there are any um basically kind of got up to reading about the um the financial terms uh for the rent, um, but didn't read into the record anything further from there.

So if there's anything about the utility costs, site improvements um in particular that you feel are important to highlight, you can go ahead and do that, and then we'll see if there are questions from the board.

Sure.

Uh if it's a triple net lease, meaning you know, we essentially own it while we lease it.

We are responsible for all of the utilities and the costs related to the property.

The the owners have agreed to do some site cleanup.

There's some items listed, like uh, you know, the before the city takes possession.

And you know, if they don't, the city has a right to self-perform that work and and get a uh a rent credit for the cost, but but I don't I don't think that'll happen.

Um the rent starts off around looks at 600 a year and it goes up two and a half percent every year.

You know, that's the math that gets you all the way through to 847,74.29 cents by year 50.

The city has two options to extend.

They're the city's option.

As long as we're not in default of the lease, we can exercise those options to extend unilaterally for an extra five years twice, so essentially a total of 25 years.

And um we have an option to purchase if if they uh you know get a bona fide purchaser, uh the city has a right of first refusal on that, as long as we're willing to match the uh the offer.

But but even still, the if we don't the lease runs with that, even if they you know the buyers, the owner sells property, the city's lease still runs with that for so long as we're not in default.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um there questions from the board.

Uh Chad, I see your hand.

Yeah.

Um I'm I'm not sure if this is in Chris's belly book as a as in legal or or operational or what, but um so uh help me understand.

Um it sounds uh Matt from what you the intro that you offered that the um uh the public school system um needs to uh put out an RFP for a new bus service.

Is that it?

And the bus and to make it more attractive uh to uh uh potential proposers, um it was deemed uh appropriate that um a place to park the buses uh was identified.

Yes, so uh answer that.

Oh, go ahead, Chris.

Sure.

Uh the city sorry, the Stanford Public Schools contracts with school bus uh service providers, and they do do so.

They procure a vendor through a competitive process, particularly a request for proposals.

And they have historically had trouble with getting competition, uh mostly getting proposals from local firms, maybe only a single local firm, because there's nowhere to park the buses.

And it was deemed, I believe, wisely by the administration that they could attract more competition by having somewhere to park the buses.

So it was made a priority to find a piece of property such as this to include in the next RFP, which already has gone out that has already been awarded.

Um it works.

They they got more competition, they they you know presumably got a lower price, factoring inflation, and and that's where we are now.

So this this piece of property, these two parcels are are kind of part and parcel of a bigger deal to kind of reduce the cost of busing services, which is quite significant on an annual basis.

Okay.

And um I'm not sure if this is a related question or not, but uh but uh one that uh still um needs to be asked, I'm afraid.

Um so at some point in the process, uh someone uh identified um the these two parcels.

Um I couldn't quite tell uh uh on the map uh the original uh documentation that was given to us um you know last week or two weeks ago.

Um I'm assuming uh they're contiguous in some way.

Um but um was there was there ever uh a um an a consideration given to once these were identified um or a study or an analysis done to determine whether it was made more financial sense to try to buy the property outright versus leasing it.

Uh in this particular um instance that was not an option.

Okay.

Got it.

Well we did explore that.

Okay.

And and um I don't I don't uh forgive me, I don't know if this is uh executive uh session type uh thing, but uh but I was interested in knowing what what the determined market value of the property was.

So anyway, you could be the you if it is executive session type uh of question, don't hesitate to say so.

Yeah, given that that wasn't an option, we didn't explore it with any detail.

Um, but it was something that we inquired about.

I see.

Okay.

Um to the extent, excuse me, uh just I just want to add in to the extent that it helps answer that question without you know revealing anything sensitive.

The city works with a broker.

We're not you we're not you know that we have professionals assisting the city with locating properties for the proper price.

Okay, all right, right.

All right, thank you.

Other questions from the board.

Um I guess my this is more just a clarification.

So it sounds like between the lease cost of the um for these lots and then the sort of anticipated uh contract with who whichever busing company um ends up uh being awarded the contract, that the net of that is less than uh previously.

Oh good evening.

I'll speak to that.

Ryan Feeling, the CFO of the Stanford Public Schools.

Uh we did an analysis of the likely costs over the next five years without the ability to offer a property.

And we base that on the reality of the increases that we've seen from our current vendor, which has been significant and in fact could be even higher than we estimated if you look at what other districts have had to pay recently for increased transportation costs.

So we believe just over the next five years, it will be less expensive for the city to pay for this lease and to pay for the services of a new contractor compared to what we would have paid otherwise.

And it's very likely, though not guaranteed that those savings will compound over the long run because once the city has control of a property, we have the ability to periodically bid out the service, whereas we would not have had the audibility otherwise.

Thank you for that clarification.

And I know that transportation has been a significant cost driver, not only directly in the school budget, but I hear a lot about how the cost of transportation then limits the ability to do other things like field trips and all of that.

So appreciate the city seeking out an option on this.

Um there are no other questions.

Uh, are there um for the motion from the board?

And uh, I guess I need to designate uh footwear.

Okay, I just want to make sure I had our headcount credit.

Um motion of approval.

Um and second from Jeremy.

Um, all in favor, please your hand.

And the motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, all right.

Next on our agenda, um, purchase and sale agreement, uh, City of Stanford and Main Street Housing Partners, LLC uh at 41 Main Street, the proposed agreement to sell 41 Main Street to Main Street Housing Partners, LLC.

Uh the city issued request for proposals number uh 2025 0225, seeking qualified developers to develop affordable housing for students, seniors, and low in and income constrained households at 41 Main Street in Stanford, the former MITA site, Main Street Housing Partners LLC submitted a proposal to purchase the property for seven million eight hundred and fifty-five thousand six hundred dollars, of which 250,000 will be in the form of a cash payment.

The remaining 7,605,600 will be in the form of a cash equivalency consideration credit for developing 55 units of affordable housing.

Uh and in the record is the table of equivalencies.

Um I'm just looking at um I will not continue to read all of the terms into the record, and we'll go ahead and uh uh invite our presenter to uh continue to walk through the pertinent points.

Hi, Jennifer, thank you so much.

Um hi everyone, it's Bridget Flax.

I'm very sorry that my laptop isn't working this evening, so I'm gonna be doing this from my phone.

But I am joined tonight by Chris Delaselva and Ralph Blessing, who will be providing additional information as needed.

But I'm just gonna share some contextual information with all of you as to how we got to where we are today.

Um, so again, as I know many of you know, one of the key ways that a mayor can increase the stock of affordable housing is through the sale and conversion of city-owned property.

So when the mayor assumed office in 2021, we took stock of the number of properties across the city that were actually city-owned and realized that 41 Main Street was a city-owned property and could be a potential site for future affordable housing.

The site is in the heart of downtown, adjacent to Mill River Park and Stanford Manor, and offers an excellent location for new affordable housing units.

Its location is within walking distance to the train as well as community amenities and services.

Recognizing that increasing affordable housing stock is a key priority for the mayor.

Our team determined not to renew the lease agreement with the prior tenant, MITIS, and instead pursue the possibility of leveraging the property for affordable housing.

We created and issued an RFP on that was distributed on November 7th, 2024.

We hosted a mandatory walkthrough session, which took place on November 14th, 2024, and proposals were due in late December 2024.

I worked to designate a selection committee at the city level, which included myself, Emily Gordon of the Land Use Bureau, Ben Barnes, who then was director of administration, Ralph Blessing, land use bureau chief, Matt Kinnonis, director of administration, and Leah Kagan, Director of Economic Development.

We ultimately received two proposals.

There were four criteria, as with all of these projects that the selection committee used to weigh the two proposals that came to us.

They included quality and feasibility of the proposed project, qualifications and experience, evidence of financial capability, and price.

So ultimately, the group decided to move forward with the proposal that's before you tonight.

And there were many reasons to support the main street housing partners proposal.

I will share that the firm's plan to finance the project and demonstrated progress at demonstrated experience in doing so were key reasons that the committee made the determination.

And I know you received a very thorough memo from Chris Delaselva, and we are now here to answer any questions you all may have on the proposal.

I see your hand.

Yeah.

Um Bridget, um again, I don't know if this is actually um should be posed to you or or not, but in as much as you asked uh for questions, I'll direct it to you.

Um so in and I'm just curious to know it since it doesn't mention uh this statistic anywhere in in the at least the document that's currently in front of us.

Um what's the area of this property?

Oh, the actual square footage.

Yeah, I have I have that in front of me.

I should, you know, I'm not great at reading these.

Hold on.

Chris, do you know that offhand?

I don't, but I believe it's somewhat less than 20,000 square feet.

I I think uh Ralph Blessing told me that when we were discussing what type of zoning approvals would or wouldn't be required.

Ralph, are you on the call?

Uh yes, I am.

I I don't uh have the exact number, but I think Chris is right that somewhere between 10 and 20,000 square feet.

It's not a big site.

Okay, so somewhere between a quarter and a half an acre.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

That's all I was interested in asking.

Okay.

I answered that question.

Um it's in the RFP.

It's um 0.38 acres.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ashley.

Um, thank you.

And and what's the what's the time frame for this project?

Yeah, so the original time frame that was laid out in the proposal, it from the time of all of the board approvals, it looked like about a year from when they planned to actually like construction would start within six months, and then it would be another year.

I don't so I think at the end of the day, they'll have to revise their proposal, but their proposal initially laid out um about a 13 to 14 month timeline.

Okay.

But I do think that again, given the seasons and all these approvals and how this will work, we'll just determine their construction cycle.

But that was the original plan.

Okay.

May I chime in on that?

Yeah.

Okay.

So again, this is Chris Telesava, assistant court counsel for the city.

Um I'm not exactly sure.

I hope I'm not answering the wrong question, but uh I believe the question was about timing for the project.

And you you kind of have to back your way into that because the buyers have some contingencies.

So they have a uh a contingency to get all the approvals they need to do this project from the city.

If they don't get those approvals, they can walk away from the steals.

And uh I believe you know there's so I think that's 120 days uh from the date that we actually have a signed contract.

The mayor can't sign until all the boards approve.

And then after that, they have a financing contingency.

I don't I don't think the buyer will start seeking financing until they know that they have a project they can build.

And then that looks like it's about another 200 days with a possible 60 day uh extension.

And then you know, the time once they get their financing, uh we we close, we give them a deed, they give us our money, and they start building.

And you know, according to the agreement, they have about 24 months from there to complete the project.

So it's it's quite a bit of time.

Is that it that's is that what you ask, or did I just say all that and and answer a question you didn't ask?

No, that was generally what what I was interested in knowing.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

The um I I know it's completely unrelated.

Um, but the bridge right there is has been under uh under discussion uh for quite some time.

And I'm wondering if if um that the fact that the bridge, I I think the current um anticipated uh dealing with for the bridge is to keep it closed uh and not uh open traffic through that.

Um whether that uh becomes a uh help um to the decision for uh housing on this side or or hindrance in terms of access to mass transit and and and the like anyone.

I don't think that it should be an issue either way.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Um Matt Matt Cunone has uh raised his hand, and um Matt, you're able to unmute yourself.

I I think so.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great.

Um yeah, so we're in the process right now.

We are pursuing um uh the dismantling of the existing West Main Street Bridge.

Um, so that is the next step.

Um right now that's in the process of being designed, uh, at which point then that would be put out to bid um from there.

And and that is the current plans for the West Main Street Bridge um separate from the um prefabricated bridge that still still allows pedestrian access.

Okay.

All right, thank you, Matt.

Um, another question.

Um I I have a question about um and this may please tell me if this is not appropriately related, but I know that in the recent past that trying to get approval for um a sale that involved cash equivalency of units has been a challenge.

And I'm wondering for this parcel, um the kind of what if any uh shifts have occurred either with the way this is constructed or um the uh chain of approvals that um would uh facilitate this moving forward.

Um I I can take a stab at that answer, but please, Ralph, feel free to jump in.

I I guess my reaction to that question is that the location of this property is centrally located downtown in an area that already has a good amount of housing and high density, so we don't anticipate the level of adversity to this concept as perhaps previous proposed sales have generated and I think it's also um you're you're not displacing um a particularly uh um valuable use here.

Um and um I think also uh if if you look at at sort of the um the cost structure and the financing, it it seems to be a very solid uh proposal, and within sort of the the costs that we've seen for similar projects.

Um hopefully um people will um support this and um as bridge said I mean it's it's a downtown location.

Uh that's where things are happening, and I think that's uh where we want to have uh more affordability uh and and create those opportunities for people.

Thank you for that context and also just want to note I appreciate the the mix of affordability levels that that's baked into this chart.

Um if is there no further questions or comments?

Um do I have a motion on this item, the purchase and sale agreement for 41 Main Street.

All right.

Uh move approved.

Okay, approval from chat, second from Ashley, all in favor, trace your hand.

And it passes.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much.

Um next on our agenda, uh request for authorization, supplemental capital project appropriation request uh for citywide dredging project number CP0231, total amount requested, $62,500.

Final design and permitting of the Cummings Marina and the basin um revetment are currently underway.

Dredging will be necessary to accommodate a new marina.

Um biological testing of the sediments determines if the dredge spoils can be disposed of in the open water uh per the required Connecticut um DEEP permit.

The alternative upland disposal is significantly more expensive.

Um pause there and allow our uh uh presenter to introduce themselves for the record and give us a bit more detail.

Good evening, Lou Castle, City Engineer.

Um thank you for restating the description and the item.

Um the work here is to or the request is to fund $62,500 uh source of funding through the Connecticut State of Connecticut Port Authority.

This this grant um is available for the purposes of um doing biological testing of uh spoils to dredge the marina at Cummings uh a Cummings Marina, and um the cost of the testing is not inexpensive, but the ups side of it is by doing the testing, we um have the opportunity to uh uh do offshore disposal if the if the testing proves out.

And the um if that if that is the case, uh that would save a significant amount of money um to do open water disposal versus upland disposal.

So the numbers are uh uh estimated in the uh in the description of the request.

Um the the grant is through um the port authority um uh through the small harbor improvement projects program.

Um the city's been very successful in getting grants through SHIP over the years.

It's enabled us to do a lot of work at Cold Island, for example.

Um also um proving out to be uh beneficial here for Cummings.

Um the grant requires a 50% match.

We already have the authorization for the match in the existing capital project, CP 0231.

Um so at this time um I'll take any questions or ask for your approval of this uh appropriation.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um so again, the approval is just for acceptance of a state grant that for which the match is already um budgeted and authorized.

Correct.

Okay.

Um any questions on the board.

All right, Jeremy.

Just motion for approval.

No approval.

Do I have a second?

Second from chat.

I think I saw you just before Drew.

Um all in favor, trace your hand.

And it passes.

Great.

Thank you very much.

I'm glad we were able to secure this to uh hopefully um realize some significant savings.

Thank you for your time.

Right.

Um next zoning board referrals.

Uh ZB application 226-08 zoning board text change.

The purpose of this text change is to strengthen the zoning regulations with regard to sustainability.

It would require a achieving a certain grade on the sustainability scorecard for certain developments, B adding solar panels or green roofs to larger newly constructed roofs, and C establishing standards for tree protection for zoning board applications.

I presume Ralph, you're presenting on this.

Thank you very much for the record, Ralph Blessing.

So we have worked on a tax change to make Stanford more sustainable.

As you all know, that is a very important goal of the city's comprehensive plan.

So we think this will get us a little bit closer to all the sustainability goals that the comprehensive plan has laid out.

So as uh Jennifer has just mentioned, um, there's three main goals uh with uh this tax change.

First would be to make the sustainability scorecard a requirement.

Uh secondly to add measures for tree protection, and thirdly, to require um solar or green roofs on uh newly constructed uh constructed buildings.

So um first the sustainability scorecard.

The sustainability scorecard has been around for quite some time, and um even though it's a requirement to complete the scorecard for larger projects, i.e.

projects with 10 or more units or uh a floor area of 10,000 square feet or more, um, you're currently not required to reach a certain grade.

Um that was part uh in part for uh political reasons.

Um obviously uh the development community has some belly aches with regard to uh meeting certain requirements or or having a requirement to meet certain standards, and second of all, um we also uh we're still sort of experimenting a little bit with the scorecard.

So the scorecard uh is uh is a development that we did in-house uh based on um a lot of available sustainability um uh standards like lead and and those kinds of things, but we wanted to um uh customize all those standards uh to fit the Stanford situation better.

Um so the scorecard has been around for several years now, and actually, together with the sex change, what will happen is we're rolling out uh version five um of the scorecard, which has some um is streamlined uh and then also adds a couple of new features um for that and uh Kendall Ridge, um, our new planner, uh she has worked hard and diligently in adapting and updating uh the scorecard.

And um important feature of that is that it also now includes substantial renovations, not just new construction.

Um so as you can see uh on the left of your screen, um in certain districts for new construction, we will require a B moving forward on the scorecard.

Uh, and then in most other instances at least um a C.

And uh this is how it works.

So we have uh nine different categories, and uh every development can um earn points in one of those uh categories.

Um we put a very high uh focus on energy use.

So that's sort of the main uh goal uh that we're interested in in making buildings more energy efficient.

Um so that's why it has a relatively high um value.

And um then, based on uh the points you achieve uh in all those different categories, uh you would get uh a letter grade um assigned to your uh project.

So it works a lot like uh when you're walking around in New York City, uh you see buildings that have um letter grades for the energy efficiency uh posted um at their doors.

So um it's a similar mechanism.

Um I think it probably makes sense uh to pause here if there are any questions uh before we go to the next item.

Ralph, I I have one if I may.

I'm just curious.

Um what I assume a definition for substantial renovation has been developed to um uh join this, or yes, one that's been in place for a while.

It it has been in place, uh, and that's basically the same definition that we use for um uh uh coastal uh regulations uh when you have to bring your building up to uh full FEMA compliance.

So it's basically if if the cost of the improvements uh is 50% or more of the value um of uh the building um uh then it's a substantial renovation, and then you would be required uh to complete um the the scorecard.

Okay.

Thank you.

So this uh Ralph, this uh as you mentioned works very much like LEED and and and USGBCs, you know, and similar programs.

Um I I assume the inadequacy of those other existing programs uh as opposed uh that led you to develop uh this customized one is that you wanted uh one that focuses specifically on multifamily mixed use in office and industrial projects as opposed to just new building in in general.

I mean, those are certainly um the um the the buildings uh where we uh can probably the most return or or and uh efficiency gains uh for our buck, meaning staff resources uh and and things like that.

Um so uh that's why we're focusing on uh larger projects.

Um and then as I said before, with regard to lead and all those other standards, um we really wanted to focus on energy efficiency, like lead tries to sort of do everything at once.

Um and obviously like water use uh is a big issue in the southwest, it's not that much of an issue uh here in the Northeast.

So uh we really try to focus on uh issues that we think in in Stanford are uh uh important um uh from like a sustainability perspective.

Okay, thank you.

Uh thanks, Jennifer.

Thank you, Ralph, for the presentation or for this part of it.

Um, I know that that you know, based on the comprehensive plan that we just um you know finished last year, um, you know, development is is a key part of the growth of Stanford, and um with this sustainability scorecard, um, you know, I guess has there been any analysis on how um and affordable housing uh on how you know the cost to achieve this sustainability scorecard is going to affect future developments in Stanford, or you know have developers shy away from from wanting to develop in Stanford due to the stringent, you know uh increased costs that the Stanford is is burdening.

You know, I I understand the importance of of sustainability and um climate change, but uh you know at what cost are we saying one thing in our comprehensive plan and and at the same time you know making it more difficult to achieve some of those goals so um we we don't have uh we we haven't heard anything from uh developers specifically about uh increased cost.

I mean there has been um and uh as in many instances uh some developers really embraced it and actually um uh were like why don't we only get a C?

We want an A.

And we uh we worked hard with them to uh to uh uh explore some of the the things that in the previous versions uh didn't uh work as well.

Um other other um developers really sort of um uh took it more as like a nuisance.

really embraced it and actually um uh were like why don't we only get a C we want an A and we uh we worked hard with them to uh to uh uh explore some of the the the things that in the previous versions uh didn't uh work as well um other other um developers really sort of um uh took it more as like a nuisance um uh I think one other reason why we went with the scorecard and not one of the the existing uh building standards is that uh lead for example is very expensive um uh to achieve a certification um here you might have to um uh get someone involved who has experienced with those kinds of things but in developing the scorecard we also try to make it as easy as possible and uh get a lot of the information um out of uh documentation that developers have to submit anyway as part of a building permit for example um and so on and so forth so we really try to we were cognizant of the issue that that um uh obviously it's it's another thing that makes development uh more complicated and therefore uh probably more expensive so that's why we we also try to keep it uh very simple um and the other thing is that I believe that a lot of those things actually in the long run will pay uh uh for the building owner so uh obviously higher uh uh or buildings with higher energy efficiency uh they save an owner uh money in the long run um so uh that's that's really um the goal here so so we didn't just want to add like uh another layer of of red tape we were very uh conscious of of uh sort of streamlining it as much as possible and um actually as part of this version five we also got rid of a lot of things that that we thought might be um uh a little bit overkill and and too much for um uh especially for smaller developers okay so has this updated version gotten feedback from developers or that was just in the the past sort of reviews where you've gotten developer feedback and in the updating of the structure um we've gotten uh we got feedback um over the course i mean quite honestly there's also not that many projects uh around we actually posted on the website uh and i can share the link with you um we we posted uh the the projects uh that have gone through the process um and it's um um probably two hands full uh so far um but um when uh when we revised uh the the scorecard we did a lot of um uh analysis um where uh in the past um uh uh buildings had problems achieving uh the number of points and we have also i mean this this is also just sort of starting the public review process but as part of the public review process uh we have sent it to um um a couple of um uh developers or land use attorneys um uh and um hope to get their feedback um on uh uh on the scorecard as well so it has gone out to to a multitude of different um people so i guess this is coming to us for review prior to receiving that feedback for possible changing yes so uh we are in the referral um period i mean um uh i'm not quite sure when we filed it um but uh we haven't heard anything yet uh from from anyone uh and it's probably been uh out there for um uh at least two or three weeks i would think so um uh it's um that's that's where we are thank you for see we have as april 15 um and yes so this per like as a process point all zoning board text changes come to planning on referral um but then that um opens a uh public process with the zoning board after and i mean i also want to point out that obviously this this has been vetted by other city departments so um we um we have worked with the previous versions but also with this version uh very uh closely with the engineering department for example like with the city's energy manager um to go over all the like energy efficiency um uh uh measurements and and criteria um so this this has been um i think a robust um uh uh process thank you for the presentation um so if this is implemented and all this new paperwork is created who's gonna be responsible for managing this paperwork

Um so this this has been um I think a robust um uh uh process.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um if this is implemented and all this new paperwork is created, who's gonna be responsible for managing this paperwork and seeing this process through from getting all the documents from developers to giving the developers a grade for the building.

What does that look like?

So that's actually something that's not changing uh significantly because we've been doing it for years now.

Um that documentation uh has been uh collected by uh by the land use by land use bureau staff uh and they review it.

Um and uh then um uh uh assign the grades based on the points.

And it's it's really it's it's a pretty straightforward process.

So there's there's um uh I think in in rare instances there's the we encountered issues like oh, we don't know what grade to give them.

It's um you meet a criteria or you don't meet the criteria, and that's really um uh works.

So um yeah, we we basically all the um uh the the staff that is reviewing uh land use applications, um uh they are also reviewing uh the scorecard.

Thank you.

Um actually then uh on that Ralph.

Um so the text changes specifically about the requirement of a minimum scorecard grade, but the revisions to the scorecard themselves are not subject to zoning text change reviews.

Uh no, the scorecard lives outside of the um uh zoning regulations.

So section 9F of the zoning regulations sets up the scorecard, but we uh kept the scorecard itself um sort of out of uh the zoning regulations because um if you if you have to make minor changes um uh then uh obviously going through a whole text change process is is very cumbersome.

So uh and and we did this with a number of of other sort of uh more policy or implementation uh documents, um, like uh the street tree planting manual, for example, um, is also something that is set up through the zoning regulations, but the manual itself lives outside um uh of the zoning regulations um so that when we want to add a tree to the approved tree list, we don't have to do like a full um text change application.

Thanks.

And the the um the example of the the tree manual is helpful for context as well.

So you've so you've presented the changes just for the sake of being able to provide context to the kind of why now makes sense to add this uh grade requirement.

Yeah.

And it's it's also obviously we we want, I mean, it's about the text change, and the text change is really very very short.

Right.

It's basically a table that that um I mean uh this is basically the text change.

So uh it adds this table here and basically says, hey, um now uh if you are in any of those districts, you have to meet uh you have to get those grades.

Um so that's that's all there is to the text change, but um obviously it is important to understand what the the scorecard is and what the scorecard tries um to achieve.

So that's why I I uh went a little bit in more detail um to uh uh to explain that.

Um well, if there are any further questions on this section, I think we can move forward.

Um for our newer members procedurally, when we receive an application for text change, it includes all of the items, and so when we vote, it is for the full slate of them.

We're not able to vote individually on each of the text changes.

So and this is only one text change, so there's one application.

Uh it's all sustainability related, so it's it's one um uh application.

So uh the next uh piece has to do with um tree protection.

Um so uh the goal here um is to uh protect uh mature trees uh in particular.

Um and it applies to all projects uh currently uh requiring zoning board approval, so side pan approval, special permits, those kinds of things.

And it applies to uh trees uh that all have a um diameter um or dbh, uh the diameter at breast height that's the um the the technical term uh of four inches or more, so we're not worried about everything that is smaller than that, and uh if a tree uh has to be removed as part of a development process, um the total diameter uh has to be replaced.

So let's say um you uh uh remove a tree that has a diameter of eight inches, um, you would have to plant uh four trees with a diameter of two inches to do that.

If that's not possible, um just because of the type of the development or underground utilities or anything like that, uh, then there is a fee in lieu uh that goes into the city's uh tree fund.

And um one goal, of course, is also that trees that are remaining are uh protected during the construction process.

So um when you see here, uh what it's important for tree protection is uh to basically make sure that that um there's no activity in the in the critical root zone.

Um because then the tree actually has a fair um uh chance of survival if that critical root zone uh uh is not impacted um by um the construction activity.

Um this actually is probably also more of like a formalization of what the zoning board has been doing.

So the zoning board uh has been uh with past uh development uh projects, uh they've routinely asked for developers to sort of disclose the trees that will uh be removed as part of the development process, and have asked for for uh replacement trees.

So uh in that sense, I think this is not something that comes as a surprise for anyone.

Uh it's just sort of formalizing of what has been practiced um at the zoning board um for quite some time.

So you want to go first and then I can go to chat.

Thank you.

Um would this only apply to trees within the city right away, or would this apply to trees throughout the property?

Throughout the property.

Um was there any consideration for trees to be replaced at a higher ratio?

Because there's you know, if you're removing a large tree and replacing it with a much smaller tree and having to put money into the tree fund, um, we're still losing the value of that tree, especially if it's a city tree street tree.

Um so I know under the the previous border reps had had had a tree ordinance that considered a higher replacement ratio.

I was wondering if that was something that was considered.

Yeah.

Um we try to keep it simple.

Uh, I mean, the the other thing um uh with regard to street trees, we already have in the zoning regulations a requirement to plant street trees, so where they where they do not exist or replace them were uh they were lost.

Um so uh this this is really uh what I'm here for today is is the uh all trees on the development side.

Okay.

Um and uh so uh yes, obviously a mature tree uh is uh like the the example that I said, an eight-inch tree is probably more valuable than four two-inch trees.

Um uh but uh um I think um uh in order to keep it keep it simple.

Um we uh left it um uh at that.

I mean there's there's also requirement that the new trees they have to be native trees.

So uh during the whole process, uh if if you want to sort of value the trees, then it gets very complicated very quickly.

than four two inch trees um uh but uh um i think um uh in order to keep it keep it simple um we uh left it um uh at that i mean there's there's also requirement that the uh the new trees they have to be native trees so uh during the whole process uh if if you want to sort of value the trees then it gets very complicated very quickly um so uh we uh decided also for for uh our sake and and the administrative burden to keep it very simple each uh uh inch of tree cut down has to be replaced uh with an inch of newly uh planted trees and in the long run hopefully you actually get more trees than uh were uh cut down uh in the first place um i see that the re the minimum replacement size is an inch and a half dBh um any consideration to increasing that to two inches um that's an option uh we actually talked to a landscape um architect about sort of what which trees do best uh when they are planted um and uh they suggested sort of a range between one and a half to three inches so everything larger than that really uh doesn't do particularly well uh when uh replanted um so um i think yeah going to two inches is is certainly something um that that we would consider okay um i think that's it for me for now thank you chat thank you um ralph uh uh the first uh bullet re indicates that it applies to all projects requiring zoning border approval um so uh does i i assume by de definition that would apply to you know single family residential uh parcels is that is that true no um they are as of right developments so uh they just need a building permit so this is really site plan approvals um uh special permit approvals so this is this is not um uh uh for single family um uh properties or smaller multifamily uh uh developments um this is this is really for um think of a site like 800 longward row 900 long road row uh those uh those types of places and but i think you raise a very important point uh and that is also something um that um we we the land use bureau but also maybe the planning board uh should discuss with uh the board of reps um uh which i believe is working on um uh um revised version of the tree ordinance um so what can be better done through ordinance and what can be better done through zoning regulations so in this case um this is stuff that we're already seeing so the idea is um because we're already seeing it we can we can uh make sure that during uh development uh projects um uh uh that trees are replaced um uh but um if some property owner wants to cut down trees just because um maybe an ordinance is the better way of dealing with that so um this this is not supposed to uh be uh the be all end all of tree protection um this is really something where i think the zoning board can make a difference um uh and obviously development projects are projects where uh a lot of trees get lost um uh so um but i don't think it's it's it's the end of the discussion about uh uh tree protection okay thank you Rober questions on the text changes um so this is not a question actually on the text change before us but i i was actually just wondering the other day when the um the text for the warranty on street trees was added because i saw a tree recently and i couldn't remember if the development was built before after this this uh warranty requirement was added um i would i would have to look it up it's probably in place for like um a couple of years now so um if if there is a dead tree somewhere you should you should let us know and we can we can check if if uh the rec if it was after the the requirement uh went into effect and we do hold bonds for uh the the the uh warranty so uh we as the city can replant a tree if the developer is is not willing to do it um should we move on

And we do hold bonds for uh the the warranty.

So uh we as the city can replant a tree if the developer is is not willing to do it.

Um yes, please.

So um other thing that we're proposing to do is um to require uh solar and/or green roofs.

Um so uh they would be required on roofs uh that have a size of at least 5,000 square feet.

Um and uh at least 50% of the roof area um would have to be covered.

Um we uh didn't go for 100% um because uh roofs uh have multiple functions.

Uh in many instances, mechanical equipment is on the roofs, like air conditioning equipment and things like that.

Um also the fire marshal has oftentimes uh requirements um that they need the roof for access or or or egress in in case of a fire.

Um so once again, we try to keep it simple.

Um and uh you're also not required to do it uh if 50% or more of the roof are covered by a residential amenity.

Uh so um uh that's that's another uh point there.

So um just the benefits of a green roof uh are uh multiple.

So they retain storm water, so it's an important element of stormwater management.

Uh they actually insulate the building better so they keep them uh cooler in the summer, warmer in the winter, um, they cool the surrounding areas um uh through evaporation, uh they reduce noise within the building, but also by absorbing uh uh noise on the outside.

Uh they sequester uh carbon dioxide, they uh clean the air uh and they uh increase or kind of increase biodiversity.

So um a lot of benefits um with regard to uh green roofs, and then of course uh solar roofs um also uh have the very obvious benefit of producing energy.

Uh and this is just um like a little case study, and the Home Depot um on uh West Main Street uh actually has solar roofs, uh solar panels.

Um just uh as a matter of comparison, uh the the 50% of the roof covered by solar panels would probably uh be enough to power uh that charter oak communities uh public housing uh development just um north of it.

So um there's uh great potential uh here in uh in in producing renewable energy.

And if you look at the prices for uh gas and and electricity uh going up, then that's certainly also something uh that then has uh can have economic uh impact as well.

Um what related to that um uh we are also uh proposing to make those solar canopies that you sometimes see over parking uh uh spaces, um uh making it easier for those to be built.

So currently they are treated as accessory structures, so you can't have them uh in front of a building uh uh for example.

Um so we're changing the status of uh those solar canopies and making them permitted obstructions, so they're excluded from height regulations and uh uh and are not considered accessory structures anymore.

So that makes it easier for those to uh to be cited on uh parking lots and uh and for example on roofs of parking garages um where there's an opportunity um uh for that.

And that's pretty much it for the text changes.

Actually, I see there's a maximum height of 15 feet proposed for the solar academies within parking group structures and parking garages.

Um I'm wondering if that needs to be increased a little bit for areas that have truck traffic.

Um if you're trying to put these in industrial areas, maybe there needs to be an exception for a higher height.

Um that's a good point.

Um we are aiming for now, really at sort of um like uh more um like uh commercial parking uh uh lots and and uh parking lots near like shopping centers and and stuff like that.

Obviously, yes, for for uh um delivery traffic and stuff like that.

You have you have to keep an open path for the trucks to get through.

Um we also want to be uh so the 15 feet is is the height of a accessory structure.

So uh we wanted to see how this goes.

Um, and then um in the future, maybe make adjustments and maybe in industrial areas we we increase the um the height of the canopies.

Um there's actually not that much information out on solar canopies, so so we we try to err a little bit on the side of caution here.

Um, but point taken.

Um and then another consideration is if you have these on the top of a parking structure, and there's like an elevator bank at the top of the structure, um, that's another situation where you may want to have it a little bit higher, or have some sort of an exception for if the solar panel uh was basically rested almost like a roof on top of a parapet, whether that counted as the roof or um especially potentially exempt from the height calculation of the structure itself.

That's that's how it's currently uh um uh conceived is that basically when you put a solar uh canopy on top of it, um as long as the solar canopy itself is not more than 15 feet, uh it doesn't count towards the building height.

So it can exceed the building height, um, but by no more than 15 feet, basically.

And that's the same reason.

Um the thing is also that that uh some people are very creative and sort of using and abusing the regulations.

So and uh we simply don't have the creativity to anticipate um what what crazy stuff people come up with.

Um so um we we we want to create the opportunity and but at the same time the ability to observe and see how it goes and um then take it from there.

And as I said before, I mean all those things um uh be it the tree protection, be it the scorecard, uh, be it the solar roofs, um uh I think it's important to start moving in the right direction, um, but at the same time acknowledging that um uh we don't know everything, uh and that uh things of course also change.

I mean, if you look at the scorecard, for example, and all the sustainability uh requirements, I mean building codes get stricter.

So uh building technology changes.

So um you you have to adapt um uh uh as you move forward.

And um I think especially for for zoning regulations that have to do with sustainability, it's it's sort of a moving target, and you cannot say, okay, we're doing this and then we're done for the next 30 years um with those regulations.

Um we we will be um back to you with changes to this or additions um probably sooner rather than later.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Any other questions from the board.

All right.

Um seeing none, um go ahead and call for a motion.

I will note that um if your motion can include any uh recommendations for the zoning board on changes, such as I know there was the comment about the street tree, or sorry, not the street tree, the um the the tree replacement and a minimum um on that.

So that's the sort of thing that you could include as a comment.

I'll make a motion to approve uh with a recommendation that they consider increasing the minimum size of the replacement tree to two inches caliber diameter or breast height, and potentially increasing the maximum height of the solar canopies uh when considering locations that have high truck traffic.

Um second on that motion.

One second from chat.

Right.

Um, all in favor, traise your hand.

And it passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um there ends our agenda.

Um our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are May 5th, May 19th, June 9th, and June 23rd, um, and a note to um well, note for our new members and reminder for our uh folks who've been on a little bit longer that we uh take a hiatus in July.

So there are no planning board meetings in July.

Uh the zoning board takes a hiatus in August.

All right.

Um Jennifer, we have a meeting next week.

Uh May 5th.

Yes.

Yeah, that's right.

Yes, uh, they got I think they got squished a bit because of the placement of spring break and the um and Easter um pushing out uh when we would typically have a meeting in April.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Um all right.

Well, thank you very much, and good evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The time is 7 52.