All right.

Good evening.

This is the uh May 5th, 2026 meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

Uh first on our agenda is the planning board meeting minutes from our last meeting, April 28th, 2026.

Um do any members of the board have any questions or corrections for the minutes?

Nope.

No.

All right.

Um hearing none, uh, kind of a motion of approval for the minutes.

Right, we'll move uh motion from Drew, second from chat.

All in favor.

And it passes.

Thank you.

Um first uh on the uh business docket is request for authorization, supplemental capital project appropriation requests.

Um uh the first is capital project closeout recommendations.

Um you want to go ahead and uh introduce yourself for the record to present uh the items.

I imagine they're linked together.

Actually, so if you'd like me to read into the record multiple items, please let me know.

So uh Lou Castleau, City Engineer, I'll present the the items.

Uh you are correct.

The items are uh interrelated and um connected to each other.

Uh just to start off.

Um, I think sorry, Lou for um just let's get let's read them both into the record right now just so we can tie up the ends.

We're good to go when we ready to vote.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so reading into the record the capital project appropriation requests, and the first is capital project closeout recommendations inclusive of transfer station, canal wall replacement, um, and the amount of 2,537,000 federal grant.

Um item two on the agenda, transfer station canal wall replacement project CP 400062, total request of 3,437,000.

Um item three, Stanford High Priority Project.

Oh, not Stanford High.

Okay, just those two.

Okay, got it.

Yeah, those two items one and two.

That's what we're gonna be talking about.

I'll do this as quickly as possible, and I'll try to be as clear as I can.

Um just high level.

Jeremy joined at 633.

Thank you so much, Lou.

Please go ahead.

Okay, no problem.

Um, this project is to basically appropriate funds for the design and the construction uh of a new replacement seawall uh along the east branch of the Stanford Harbor.

This is an existing wall that is in poor condition that supports the solid waste facility and the WPCA if you're familiar with that area.

Um you know currently the wall is uh vintage 19, 1980, 81.

Uh there was a lot of work done there in the mid-80s.

It was done in different phases, but the wall has been hit a number of times, it's um heavily deteriorated and uh eroding um uh significantly.

Uh I've done several needs assessments on the wall back in 19 uh 2019 and also in 2023.

So I'm pretty familiar with its condition.

Um it uh just so you know, um the capital budget appropriation was approved uh on August 5th of 2024 for the project.

Um these funds were that were appropriated were based on an EDA economic development uh grant uh that was being pursued at the time, and at that time the grant split was 8020.

Uh that was you know we're going into this thinking it was gonna be 80 20, and the funds that were appropriated back um uh in um at that time were were sufficient.

Uh since then, uh we've learned that the EDA cost share has changed from 80 20 to 60 40.

Okay, so this is teeing the item up now for the reason why we're here.

So um so currently the the EDA is uh interested in funding the project, but not at 80 20, but at 6040, and they're not going to fund the design.

So that's um, this is what's going to happen in item two.

We're going to talk about that a little bit more.

So the first item is a capital project closeout for CP 400 062 and the amount of two million five hundred and thirty seven thousand in federal grants.

That's basically the 20% uh reduction in the federal share from the uh 80 80 to the 60.

Okay.

You following me so far?

Okay.

Um, and then in item two, I'm gonna request your approval for city bond funds in that same amount.

So the city share goes from 20 to 40.

Um, so um if you have any questions at this time, I'd be happy to answer them.

If not, I'm requesting your approval for the closeout of 2,537,000 uh from the capital account noted uh related to the transfer station canal wall replacement project.

Um any questions from the board.

Um, Lou, it no non-technical and and and for those of us for whom the closeouts and the refunding and these and the grants and the federal and the state are are not second nature.

Um I just need a you know a couple a moment to digest.

Yeah.

So just think of it as you approach you appropriated uh a federal share at 80, 80 percent back in um back in um eight, five twenty-four.

So that amount, that federal grant amount was 10,148,000, and the city share was 2,537,000.

That was the 80-20 split.

Uh now we're requesting a 60-40 split, and you'll see that in item number two.

But to you're basically reducing the federal share from 80% to 60.

That's what this closeout is strictly about.

So if you take the 2537 million away, you're down to a 60% federal share uh once we um, you know, once we get into to, yeah, that's basically what you're doing.

If Tony's here if you have any other fiscal questions related to that.

Um I guess my uh my question is more about just the concept of closing it out.

Um, since the project's not finished, um, we still have to design and execute, you know, uh a design that is uh yet to be completed.

Um is it it clo is it closing out one you know account and putting the money in a different account?

Is that why it's close, it's referred to as closing it out?

It's reducing the amount that there is um there are certain bank accounts.

There's a certain accounts associated with this project.

One account has federal grant money in it, one account account has capital city capital dollars in it.

We're basically reducing the federal grant dollar account by 2,537,000, down from 10 million.

So there's still gonna be $8 million in there from the federal grant.

So we're not closing out that whole account entirely, we're just reducing it down, or Lou is requesting to reduce it down by that two million five.

And then the second part, the non-closeout part is the allocation.

I guess that has to be made up on the city side.

Yeah.

Yeah, and if I could just add it's I'm sorry.

I just noting, I think then there's I think there's an error in the um way that item two is listed then.

Because it's supposed to be the same amount for each.

No, no, uh the OPM OPM has there's there's more to this uh that we can discuss in item two.

Got it, but but the what's equivalent is the closeout of a federal share of 20% at 2,537,000.

And item two, we're asking for city bonds to replace that.

So now the city share is going up from 20 to 40, the federal's going from 80 to 60, and there's there's more to discuss in item two as it relates to the design money.

I see.

Okay.

So item one and just it's just um given that the actual allocation did not match uh what was uh projected.

Um the closeout is just remedying that gap.

It's it's adjusting the authorization to reflect what they're actually going to fund.

Right.

Okay.

If we kept it, if we kept it the way it was, you're giving the impression that the federal government is going to give you more than than 60, and they're not.

So we're we're just we're just adjusting that now that we've um, and I I'm sure if our grants officer was on the line, there'd be more to say about it.

There's been a number of uh uh years that have passed, and I think that has to do with other aspects of the federal government.

Um, but but right now the EDA funders are back, they're interested in and funding 60% of this, and that's why we're here tonight.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Uh yeah.

So Jennifer, I'll make that motion if there's no further questions to item one, the closeout.

Yeah, for item one.

Um do I have a second?

Second from chat.

All in favor, item one, the closeout, and it passes.

Thank you.

Okay, so moving thank you.

Moving on to item two, you'll notice that it's the same capital project account number, the four zero zero zero zero six two.

Same project.

Um, let's let's do this in somewhat of a logical order.

So we just closed out the federal share to to make it 60%.

Now we got to increase the city share to 40%.

And that that's the first row in part B.

That's the two million uh five hundred thirty-seven thousand dollars.

It it also happens to be the third paragraph in the description where it says EDA funding is being secured.

EDA's most recent funding allocation is 6040.

Um, the city's authorization is increasing to offset that reduction in the EDA's uh uh uh change in allocation.

So the first part of the request is to um uh approve or review the 2,537,000 is city bond.

The next part is the design funding, and this is where FEMA comes in.

So uh the grants department, mainly Anita Carpenter has been working with FEMA, um, and there's an upcoming um application that she's putting in on May 7th, two days from now, and they've given us the indication that they can fund the design portion of this, and their allocation is 7525, so that's the breakout there that you see.

Uh 75 is Fed, eight uh six hundred seventy-five thousand, twenty-five percent is local, two twenty-five, for design, and those are the rows you see in part B for 225 and 675.

So the bond portion and the FEMA portion that you see in the second and third row are just for design purposes, separate and aside from the EDA.

Uh OPM just formatted this on one sheet to make it, I guess, simple more simple.

Okay, I hope that was clear.

So in the end, um, if you are to approve this, which I'm recommending you consider doing, um we then will have two sources of funding, one source to do the design through FEMA BRIC.

If that is proves out, we're making an application, and then the other one would just be the adjustment in EDA monies matching with city bond monies to do the to do the construction.

This project is not gonna be easy.

It's a f it's a waterway.

There's there's different federal permits required, army corps of Engineers, etc., but the wall is failing.

So there's probably gonna be some, you know, it's gonna be logical to want to support this, because if the wall does collapse, that could be a real problem.

So with this authorization, we are we're gonna be moving forward with the FEMA brick application.

In two days.

Okay.

Uh Chet, any questions?

Uh yeah, no, uh, no, I wanted to make a motion to to approve the I think I had a question before we move the item.

I'm sorry.

Oh, sorry.

Um, I did I did want to know.

Um, so this is coming out of supplemental capital.

Um, and I'm just it is it's a obviously it's a really essential project, but um, in allocating you know, two and a half million in city bonds, um, if you could say anything about how that impacts the ability to cover other projects and pipeline at the city.

Sure.

So the um 27 capital budget is um well over that the uh the safe debt limit.

So uh this would fall under that category.

So we would be able to move forward with this project once all the grants are available.

Okay.

Um and um the other is the that sounds this is um for the design share, it's listed as an application, um, but I just it sounds like it's fairly secured.

It's just more a matter of filing the paperwork at this point.

I I just wonder um kind of how final this allocation is.

We've been a carpenter has been in contact with myself with these both of these um federal agencies, and they they seem uh supportive of it, but given the nature of things on the federal level, like you know, I can't say for sure nothing is guaranteed, but um, but we're pursuing it in this fashion.

We're lucky that we have both the construction arm addressed here and uh and also the design.

And um we're hopeful that that the FEMA will allow this uh will prove the funding so I can write an RFP and get the design work underway.

Um, the wall itself is uh only getting worse.

That's evident, and the two inspections that I did, and they were they were a couple years ago.

So um this would be a wonderful thing to get underway.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um, all right.

If there are no further questions, motion from chet for approval.

Yes, please.

I have a second on that motion.

Second from Drew, all in favor.

And it passes.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

I apologize that it was a little bit difficult, a little convoluted, but it's okay.

Appreciate it.

It's not complicated.

You listen, so all right.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

You too.

Um next in the um supplemental capital requests.

Uh Stanford High Priority Project.

Um number 001460.

Total request of 9,925,945.

This request is to amend the fiscal year capital budget 2526 for improvements to the 1971 building um at Stanford High.

It's 55 Strawberry Hill Road.

This increases the prior authorizations to match a total project budget commitment of 27,501,800 with a 60% reimbursement by the state of Connecticut.

The previously authorized local share of 12,900 of 25,846 will not be increased.

Uh this request will increase the state share of project costs, including expenses for design and construction from 4,650,000 to 14,575,954.

A lot of numbers.

Um I would I was hoping uh Travis Schnell, who's the architectural good, that he's being promoted, wonderful.

And while that's happening, um, I would ask this board to now erase from your minds everything that Mr.

Castle just told you about grants and reimbursement.

Because I don't work at the federal level with this project.

This is a project that's going through uh the department of administration with the Office of Grants Administration, OGA, um state school construction program that is that's not federal and it's it's different.

So there are a little different rules on the field, so to speak.

Um we do have a slide deck.

I I truncated it.

It should have there was a probably a larger one in your packet and we've we've shortened it down a little bit.

Um we know you have a big agenda tonight, so we want to get just go through it very quickly for you.

This has um in terms of process, the ed specification which is required for grants was voted on and approved by the Board of Education, and it was voted on and approved by the building committee, which are two benchmarks um that have to be met to uh to start the grant application.

And uh I guess we're really at the beginning of the pro we're at the beginning of the process with this, but I'll get into that.

Travis, I'll let you introduce yourself and kind of take it away.

Good evening, everyone.

Travis Schnell with KGD Architects.

Um can I share here?

Okay.

Okay.

Good.

Okay, so just a quick presentation to summarize uh the scope of work that we're planning to do with the name of the project, Stanford High Exterior Envelope and Science Lab Alteration and Energy Conservation Project.

Okay, so brief overview.

Um Catherine, I'll just jump in and give you a summary of the grant funding, um, and then I will walk you through the rationale for the project and the proposed uh work being planned.

Great.

So a lot of these are the numbers uh that uh were just read off, um, but a little bit more in a graphic form.

Um over fiscal years, previous fiscal years actually um, and it says 24, but this was actually authorized going all the way back to I believe the 21-22 fiscal year, 22 23 fiscal year.

Um, there's been a a local share and a small state share that was assumed for what was a handful of projects.

Um what we realized as we were going through the process that the interior and the exterior were really more related to each other, uh, and that this really takes smaller projects that would probably face more mobilization charges and frankly would be less eligible for grant reimbursement and pools those projects together, and we are able to be more efficient and to maximize our reimbursement by going for a priority project.

Um that is why I'm here today only asking for an increase to the state share, so the state grant amount.

If we don't get the grant, we don't move forward with the project.

Um, we've had a lot of success getting priority grant applications.

Um you probably know about the large schools.

We've also had some um not as large or maybe as visible as things like the West Hill High School or Roxbury K through eight um or upper and lower schools where we've had success with the with the grants program.

So again, this is a this is an increase to what is called the state, the state share, and we're not anticipating uh any increase to the to the local share.

That's already been authorized.

This is a very long process, however.

So we apply for a grant.

The deadline is June 30th.

You only get one shot a year to apply for this grant.

Um we find out if we made the list, um, it's like uh early Christmas present.

It comes around December 15th.

Um, and then uh the following year in 27 funding will be authorized.

That means that we anticipate construction, this actual work, construction dollars when we're spending the bulk of this value uh to occur in 2028.

That is just to, because you're the planning board.

I want to pull back out and just talk about our global program really quickly.

It's good timing for us.

We're hoping to be wrapping up Roxbury K through eight.

We're about three quarters of the way through West Hill High School, and we're really just starting.

Um, we've locked in the lower school and have gone through effectively like foundations and demolition.

So this is, you know, it's as I said, the priority process is a long process.

Um, however, what makes it really worthwhile is that 60% reimbursement that we're leveraging the the partnership with the state of Connecticut.

Okay.

And so there's two components of this project.

We have the exterior facade replacement component, and then we have the interior science lab um renovation component.

So going over the existing conditions at the exterior, um, the existing envelope, this is of the 1971 editions.

The building has a 1927 wing, a 1971 wing, and a 2004 wing.

So this edition consists of a four-inch brick veneer tied to eight-inch CMU backup wall.

There's several structural deficiencies to the veneer, including the spalling and Boeing brick, rusting lintel, deteriorated brick ties.

Um the existing walls have no insulation, no air vapor barrier, so it's really hard to control um the internal environment, and you're getting a lot of water intrusion.

The windows are single pane, non-insulated, um, and no thermal breaks and are failing and corroding.

There's loose mortar, cracked sills and joint seal and deteriorator deterioration.

Again, all of which are contributing further to water infiltration and further damaging um the building over time that just leads to more costly repairs.

And let's go.

Next slide.

And then with this the science lab component, um, these labs are located in a portion of the 1971 wing, and they just have a static layout and they no longer meet the uh the needs and demands of the district's uh schools, uh the district and the school's program requirements.

So they have not seen any major renovation work since being constructed.

And you can see that the existing mill work and the finishes are well past their useful life, and the existing MEP systems are aged out or inefficient.

That includes the uh the unit ventilators, the separate window ACs that are in there to just try to supplement, and the existing lighting, which lacks any modern controls and the inefficient um view modes.

All right.

This shows the extent of this uh of the envelope scope.

So you can see the 1971 uh wing in the middle there highlighted uh includes the entire brick facade and the windows on that wing.

It also includes the cast stone spandrel panels at the top of those two bridge connectors that tie back to the 1927 building.

And then off to the right there, next to the tennis courts in the field, you have the gym, which is also included as part of the project since it's from the same 1971 um vintage.

So that would also see a replacement of its facade.

That 2004 edition was built within the 1971 um edition.

And Travis, wait, I was gonna say before you move away from that slide.

I I have to do a small brag here.

Uh Google's not keeping up with our capital program.

So the figure eight on the on the image on the left hand side, the eight kind of is those um lighter roofs have actually already been replaced.

And that bid came in under budget and was delivered on time.

Um, and so we are, and that was with a 60% reimbursement.

This roof point that out.

And that's part of that project.

And that roof should.

Oh, yes.

Finally closed out.

Yeah.

So just just saying, you know, we've we've we have had already had some really good successes here.

And we have a you know a history together working on this building, actually.

Yeah.

So now we'll just get into the proposed work.

So the goal of the exterior envelope is to really remedy the poor energy performance and the deteriorated conditions that we've got there while trying to maximize it our grant funding.

So the facade is proposed to be completely replaced at the 1971 portion of the building.

So that'll include completely ripping off the existing brick and then going back in with new insulation, new air vapor barrier, and uh a new combination of masonry veneer and panelized rain screen system.

And uh and we'll also have new uh completely new windows, combination of storefront, punched openings, and some curtain wall.

Um, windows will be code compliant, modern, energy efficient dual pane, uh thermally broken windows.

And we'll also have an opportunity to um increase their security features that match the current district district standards on the new buildings.

The science lab alterations, they'll bring the labs up to modern standards um to meet the needs of the school science program.

So the target right now within fitting within the existing space of the current labs.

Um we can fit 15 uh with total lab size size to about a hundred uh twelve hundred square feet, and that will accommodate 24 students, which matches the ed specs set forth by the district.

Um so this will consist of eight universal labs that will include biology, physics, and earth science, and they'll share four prep rooms.

We'll have four chem labs sharing two prep rooms and three STEM labs that will focus on robotics, coding uh design and uh computing.

I see we have a they will share one prep room.

Yep, Travis.

I just I don't know if we want to do some questions.

Apologies.

Uh thank you.

Um I guess I do have one question just in regards to the financing and sort of any type of contingencies or or uh within that you know financing amount for the the CMU that that's behind the brick facade and you know I know 1970s vintage CMU can sometimes be a sand castle once it becomes exposed and you know attaching rain screen and you know new windows, sort of what type of contingencies are put into that financing amount for for anything like that that can be found and you know deteriorated behind that.

Go ahead, Travis.

You want to say, good question, right now because this isn't you know, this is an early conceptual budget estimate.

So there is a 15% design contingency in there, and once we get through the grant application, we'll be doing further analysis on the facade and the backup wall with destructive testing with our facade engineer from Thornton Tomasetti, and they'll do a complete analysis of the backup wall.

Um, you know, the good news here is too that that back uh that CNU backup wall is also the finish wall inside and from the interior, it looks mostly, you know, okay.

Um so we're hopeful there, and we've had a few glimpses in because again, you're missing some uh sealant in locations, and you can actually see to the CMU and you can see that there's no existing air barrier.

Um so yeah, we we're we're thinking that it's generally in good condition, but we have funds in there to do some minor improvement works.

This this figure doesn't include like a complete replacement to that backup wall.

So it's not like we're ripping everything off and going in with a curtain wall system.

There's money in there to repair it, and there's some money in there to make you know minor um modifications to the window openings because we may want to shift some things around when we do a new facade.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yep.

And then really, this is just a more detailed overview of the building systems that are being affected.

So improvements are include new unit ventilators that will be combination units.

They provide ventilation, heating, and cooling, so it'll be much more efficient.

Um we'll have new efficient fume hoods that'll actually only activate when they're being used.

Uh we'll everything will be integrated into the existing building management system.

We'll have new LED lighting with daylighting and occupancy controls.

We'll have new overhead power in the labs to make more efficient.

We'll also be doing new wiring throughout and dropping new outlets along the perimeter.

There'll be new plumbing throughout the space to meet the needs of the science labs.

Fire alarms will be modified based on the rental work to tie into the existing systems.

Um technology will be upgraded to match the current district district standards, and then we'll maintain and incorporate um district security standards with the new work.

And then the additional improvements inside include, you know, acoustics, your standard, you know, acoustic ceilings, your acoustic um wall separations, your walls will extend the deck to provide a better um acoustic separation between rooms, which they currently don't.

And you'll have generally new finishes throughout.

This will be a gut renovation of the science labs.

You'll have new window shades, you'll have new flooring, you'll have you know new sheetrock, new paint.

Um, and of course, everything will comply with state and uh building accessibility codes.

And that's a quick summary and overview of the proposed work at Stanford High.

Thank you.

I see a hand from Chad.

Yeah.

Travis, um, is the 71 building basically um, does it have other functions beyond science labs?

Yeah, there are other program um classrooms in the space.

So are all the science labs uh uh on the same floor?

No, they're split on two floors and yep.

Okay, and and um the rest of the portion of the 71 building that's not being renovated, um, you know, uh about how much of the total area of the 71 building is is going to be renovated under this versus not the greatest.

Good question.

Do I have that off the top of my head?

I don't know if it's quite 50%, Catherine.

That might be generous, but it might be under 50%.

Um, but there is a fair amount that will not be renovated.

It's this is just the science rooms, actually.

And that was the original authorization, so that was kind of the mandate.

The other rooms kind of function as more general classrooms to begin with.

You know, I could briefly here we have.

Yeah, we have a couple of backup graphics.

So this kind of, I mean, 50%.

Well, this doesn't include there's a lower floor, too.

The lower floor is a weight room.

Yeah.

Just to be clear, it's not it's not necessarily, I mean, it's academic in the sense that it's space for physical fitness activity, but it's not a um, it's a little different.

Got it.

Yeah.

Um, so 50% is close enough for my purpose.

Um, so um we're we're the existing spaces, you know, that have mill work.

That mill work is 50 years old also.

Um, we're gonna be walking, you know, it it the hallways are not being renovated, I take it.

That's not part of the renovations.

Go.

Um, is there is there a game plan for uh Catherine that you might be aware of?

A longer term master plan, you know, to bring the rest of the spaces up to 2026 as opposed to 1971.

Uh this is a great question.

So on general classroom renovation, uh it's not reimbursable effectively by the state.

So if we were to it's a bit of a broad blanket statement that I'm making right there, but generally, uh if you're doing something that's considered a repair or replacement, you have less eligibility.

Um therefore, that's why we're trying to put these um because the 60% reimbursement actually has a clock and I believe it runs out in, it feels like a long way away.

It's like 2040.

I know that feel or 2045 or something.

I know it feels like forever, but we're trying to put these up front.

So I see this, which is more higher bonding to be further out in our plan.

We have um the planning board just had what we're trying to put forth are things that are accessibility, life safety focused, weatherproofing focused.

Those you saw that a little bit in the this year's budget, where we also know we need to focus on a completely separate part of the building, the auditorium.

Um you saw life safety requests for for things like rigging.

Um so those have those are also unfortunately auditoriums receive uh less bonding uh or less not sorry, not less bonding, less grant dollars, if any, depending on what you're doing.

And we know that that's going to be a bit of a burden.

So we really are putting forward projects with those those life safety features first.

Um so I understand the prior the prioritization.

Yeah.

Um correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing you say is that while this project is a uh is more immediate uh as a result of its higher priority, priority needs based on what you're doing with it.

Um at some point in the future, um we'll have to renovate the rest of it too, however, we do it, whether with or without state um funding, right?

I could see a refresh being something that the district would like, but I don't see that within the next five years.

I think it would be very fair to say.

No, no, I understand.

And maybe maybe it's um five and ten years out.

It might even be 10.

Lord Lord knows.

I I'm not uh I'm not asking you to commit to a time frame.

Uh just what what I'm I'm hoping that you'll commit to is that it the rest of the spaces won't be forgotten.

Um we can't tear we can't tear them down, um, unless you tear down the entire building, uh that 71 building, which you're not gonna do after you've invested this money into its renovation.

So at some point we'll have to refresh and update bathrooms, infrastructure, windows, have the same single pane, you know, uh uh unless you're doing all of those.

No, the facade we're doing completely throughout.

Yeah, this graphic is a little misleading because the facade and so the effectively the perimeter of those classrooms will be uh refreshed, so to speak.

I okay, got it.

Yeah.

So this we can Travis and I talked about this slide.

Okay.

Yeah, but you know, it's a challenge because we're replacing, you know, we're doing facade work in portions of the building that are not being renovated on the interior.

So, you know, there is some money also in the budget to kind of just touch up those exterior walls that are getting renovated too.

Um, but you know, those existing rooms are going to be left with uh existing mechanical systems, so we'll have a little inequity.

Because again, yeah, the mechanical system is not a building-wide um system replacement, it's a per room replacement.

It's very focused.

You know, I I trust that the um, you know, things like flooring in the rest of the rooms, you know, 1971 asbestos dial was still, you know, allowed to be there's abatement work.

There is okay.

There's abatement work both inside and um there is actually some waterproofing membranes uh on portions of the facade that will also need to be abated.

Okay, all right.

And abatement would be eligible.

So we are doing flooring abatement replacement in other sections of the building.

We have one of those projects in progress right now.

So um, but I'd like to get us through through that.

And then again, this one rises also because of its we talked a little bit about like accessibility water waterproofing.

Yeah.

Um, thank you.

Okay, Chairman's hand.

Thanks, Senator.

Uh Catherine, one last question.

Um, how does this project and the funding and the reimbursement from the state um affect some of the the capital budget projections for for this building um over the next couple um you know fiscal years?

Is that going to reduce that?

Are we, you know, packaging some of these projects and getting the reimbursement, you know, hopefully is reduce some of these requests, or I I understand there's a lot that needs to be done in a building of of this age and vintage, um, but I'm just curious on that um in terms of cash flow we evaluate that I mean we sit down probably almost weekly or bi-weekly to just kind of evaluate cash flow and requests the idea is that this starts to alleviate certainly you know operational maintenance needs that are coming out of the board of ed so we often sit down and like evaluate you know how many times they're getting calls into these buildings and where they're finding a lot of pressure points um some of that is why the auditorium was raised in this year's capital budget um due to their their rooftop unit and what's going on at the rigging there um want to answer your question very directly you want you could you kind of repeat that for me I'm not sure if I'm giving you the right answer yeah yeah so I I guess it sounds like there's a lot that needs to be done in the building so it may not reduce any capital funding requests in the next couple fiscal years.

At this building I'd really like to get that auditorium done.

Putting that auditorium off this year doesn't mean it wouldn't might not be it would be back before you again so no but we are this is a I will say this is a very I mean you can see these are two very large masses on in this in this school so I don't have the effected square footage for you in front of me but this goes a very long way it's it's certainly impactful.

Thank you.

There are no further questions we have a motion on this item chat I'll move to recommend approval right I have a second second from Jeremy all in favor and it passes thank you.

Thank you so much for your time we appreciate it.

Thank you everyone have a good night thank you.

Next on our agenda is um Stanford Harbor boat launch feasibility study phase project 001461 total request of 12500.

There's currently no public boat launch facility in the Stanford Harbor shoreline in pursuit of enhanced emergency and recreational access to the Stanford Harbor the Stanford Harbor Management Commission pursued and obtained a Connecticut port authority small harbor improvement projects program grant in 2022 to complete the Stanford harbor boat launch feasibility study um completed in 2025 it found the most suitable site is the northern or it's northeastern side of Coskiusco Park in March the city um and SHMC received notice of an award for a second uh ship grant to complete a site evaluation and preliminary boat launch design do we have a presenter for this item not that I'm aware of um I know we were um asked the Harbor Management Commission there they're aware that it's on the agenda today um I'm not I know they do have a consultant and I'm not sure what the consultant's name is so if there is somebody in the attendees that's here to speak on this um that would be Kevin is the only one Tony can okay hold on.

Sorry Tony I I demoted him you should be rejoining he's rejoining as a panelist right now.

You guys hear me?

Yeah.

Yeah, so um I wanted to just like you said, uh someone from the Harbor Commission should should have been here to speak to this.

Um OPM help them with the uh setting up the the uh budget financials, but it's basically this is uh a uh state grant and there's uh which will fund 50% of the project and the other 50% is local share share, which will be funded out of the uh harbor commission fund balance.

Uh the SMA balance in their fund to to do this study.

Uh but basically it's a study um it's a feasibility study to um to see if they uh want to put a bolt launch at uh at uh harbor section.

Um if you decide to hold it, it's it's great.

We can try to get the um the harbor commission to speak to this.

Um but basically if you do approve it today, it's it's for the study of uh of this vault launch.

Very maybe see your hand.

Yes, Tony, I have one question.

They have the the funds to cover the 50% match.

Uh yes, they do.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Chat.

Tony, um, is part of the feasibility study to recommend the location of this boat launch, or has that uh is that generally presumed to be in a certain location already?

Uh I am not aware that they have a location in mind.

Um I can't answer that for you.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Um motion on this item.

I'll make a motion to have a second.

Check in from chat all in favor.

And it passes.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you guys.

Thank you.

Um, uh next on the agenda, zoning board of appeals referrals.

Uh following applications referred to the planning board by the ZBA.

Um CBA application uh 027-26.

Um, Raymond Mazio of Redness and Mead presenting or representing Shushana Walshi and Arya Yasger, uh 78 Old North Stanford Road variants of Appendix B table two, schedule of requirements, and section 5.x.4b3.

Applicant owns a two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage and wood deck, and is proposing to construct an attached two-car garage and a connection to the existing detached garage.

Applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 9.9 feet in lieu of the 15 feet required and a combined side yard setback of 26.9 feet in lieu of the 35 feet required.

Um, if you want to go ahead and introduce yourself for the record.

Uh good evening.

Uh Ray Mazio of Redness and Mead, uh, on behalf of the applicant, and I will share screen and just take you through it.

It's pretty simple application.

Um this is the existing home.

Um both the the house and the detached uh carriage house here are almost 100 years old.

I think it's built around 1930, and both of them still maintain you know some of their historic character, um which they would like to maintain.

Here's a view of the home.

The detached garage is off to the right here, um, and that's kind of a close-up of it there.

Here is a view from the side, and I'll take you through the site a little bit more, but um, you can see that the grade drops off.

Um this is the garage or the carriage house entrance from the driveway here.

Um it has a lower level.

You can see the the historic stone um foundation uh with an entry from this lower level.

Um that grade is made up by these tiered planters, um, and you can get a better idea of that from this photo here from the from the backyard of the house.

So the driveways up here, um, the carriage house is here, and there's the the lower level, a little patio and then the tiered planters with stairs from the patio and the house down to the yard.

Now it's it's a wood structure.

So it may have worked as a carriage house but it's not really structurally sound uh for vehicles certainly not today's vehicles.

So the plan is to create keep this because it is such a cool feature to have um it still maintains a lot of his its historic character um and then create a new garage kind of in front of it.

So here's an idea of of the the zoning and and physical restrictions of the property.

So in the red here are the setbacks the rear of the property is an open space preserve and then in the backyard from the stone wall back is about a 40 foot drop in grade.

So really there's no logical place for a new garage um that meets all of the setbacks so what they've proposed here is one that stays within the limits of what they already have.

So in gray here is the new structure and the existing garage behind it.

So the existing garage is just under 10 feet off the property line um but is a a detached accessory structure um so by connecting everything it becomes part of the primary structure um and therefore would have to meet the primary setbacks of 15 feet um which triggers the the variance request but the new addition is getting no closer to the property line than exists today um there's a bermed planted buffer between uh the garage driveway um and this stone wall here bordering the neighbor's property um they're cutting into that a little bit to create the the drive access so that you can actually get in a vehicle in and out of the garage um but maintaining it for the most part and then this is just the floor plan view so what happens is um this is the the lower level so this is where we showed earlier the the existing garage access um there'd be a connection created to the to the rest of the house the new garage section sits over here so nothing on the lower level there.

And then the new you know it's a tight two car garage but they kind of made it work to try to keep it um within that existing setback that's currently maintained.

And then currently the plan is to just remove the floor of the existing garage and just have it be kind of a a double height space and only accessed um from that lower level um so the where the existing garage door is now that would get closed off.

And then this is a the both the existing on top proposed view on the bottom so you can see here the existing garage would kind of sit behind the addition here which I think is uh is really lovely what they've done um it creates a more cohesive design um of the building and then similarly this is the view from the rear so existing up here and then just kind of filling in um and creating a walkway connection uh to the patio on the back um so that's that's really it um happy to answer any questions yeah thank you um well Ray while while uh you know I agree with you, it it's a very successful um architectural design uh for the new the um and and certainly um I don't I don't know anything about the structures adjacent to it.

Uh this must be a his this is certainly a historic portion of Stamford.

Um so I don't know to the degree that you know the enlargement of this house and the and the the creation of more massive facades, you know, is consistent with or at odds with, you know, any of the adjacent uh properties.

Perhaps you can speak to that.

Um, but I did want to point out to you, this doesn't have any bearing on the comprehensive plan, of course.

Um, the uh the description of the project's scope is is actually incomplete um because it only refers to uh the construction of the garage and and the um the lower low the connection uh to the to the existing garage, but they're also creating another floor above the garage which does not currently exist, um which to as I read this represents occupiable um area, so uh I suspect I you know I don't know whether zoning enforcement or zoning um you know raise this question themselves, but I'm just kind of bringing it to your attention.

You may want to address it before you're next.

That's a good that's a good point.

Thank you.

Um as far as the um the size and massing, it's it's certainly uh within you know the the coverage and height limitations of the zone.

Um the only variance being requested is the setback.

Um I haven't done a full comparison of massing to the other properties on the street.

That's something I'll certainly um look at for the the ZBA hearing.

Um we do have a letter of support from their neighbor to the south.

It's admittedly the neighbor on the other side of the property that speaks to it fitting in with the character of the neighborhood.

Um but I'll I'll do uh a more in-depth review.

Uh just out of curiosity, if you can go back to the site plan for a moment, showing uh you mentioned that berm and the and the new driveway encroachment on it.

Um so the property that's um I forgive me, I don't know my how quite know my orientation.

Is that north is I think north I think north is up for for our purposes, let's call it that.

Okay, so um so does the grade rise in the northerly direction or or fall in the northerly direction?

It berms up to the to this retaining wall a little bit, and then I think their actual grade is about the same as the driveway.

So it goes up and then comes back down.

Got it.

Okay, got it.

Okay, all right.

I mean, uh I agree with you it's it's a um it's a lovely solution.

The um it's not encroaching any more.

There's a little bit more mass now that that will be encroaching, you know, whereas the garage encroachment is a single level, well, I I guess technically a two-level, but one's uh built into the hillside.

Uh will it will now be two stories above grade that you know um that will be uh encroaching.

So a little bit a larger an encroachment, but I support it uh from the comprehensive plan perspective.

I will note that the description in the agenda um is uh written by staff, so I can ask that it be revised to state um that uh proposing to construct an attached two-car garage um with I either a half story or full story, I'm not sure what it is.

Um so I can ask for a Kendall to revise that to include that.

Yeah, okay.

Good.

Thank you.

I think that would help.

Any other questions from the board?

All right, um, hearing none, I have a motion on this item.

True, uh move for approval.

Uh chat a second, all in favor, and it passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, apologies for navigating between windows slowly.

All right.

And so that concludes our agenda for the evening.

Our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are May 19th, June 9th, and June 23rd, and a reminder that that will be our last meeting before our July hiatus.

The planning board does not meet in July.

Thank you all very much.

Go ahead and see you.

Thanks everyone.

Have a good night.

You too.

It's 7 31.

Bye.