All right.

Or our zero attendees.

Good evening.

This is the Tuesday, June 9th, 2026 meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

The first meet item on our agenda is the planning board meeting minutes from our May 19th meeting.

Are there any uh questions about or amendments to the minutes?

Seeing none, uh, can I have a motion for the minutes for May 19th?

I'll move.

All right.

Um and okay, so everyone's ready.

All right.

Um, so um place your hand if you affirm the motion.

And it passes.

Thank you.

Uh next on our agenda um is zoning board referrals, CB application 226-09.

McDonald's Real Estate Company.

Um 1103 East Main Street map change.

Applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the current CN Neighborhood Business Zoning District to the CL Limited Commercial Zoning District.

And for the applicant, um, I don't think Raymond Rizzio is for the applicant.

That's not a name on the um application.

But I'm extremely surprised.

Oh, yep, there we go.

Hey Raymond, you can unmute yourself.

Hey, hi Fox, can you hear me?

Hi, we can.

We can.

Are you here for the applicant?

Yes, I'm Mary Rizio.

Chris Russo of our office has been working on the file also.

Yes.

I've been representing McDonald's for about uh our office, certainly for the last 20 years, uh, with regard to their drive-throughs and all their and their approvals within the state of Connecticut.

Okay.

I'm gonna promote you to panelists so that you have a bit more um.

Yeah, thank you.

My associate George Elias is here with me too, so he can be able to help us with some uh putting up some exhibits.

Okay.

All right.

Um, if you could fully introduce yourself for the record and then go ahead and Jennifer, I think if I think since we talk, if you could introduce both agenda items, so guys we'll be talking about both together, okay.

Or inter you know, maybe one at a time, but you know, and then we'll vote on them separately, but presenting together.

All right, yeah.

Um, so also um the um item two, which is a related item, ZB application 226-10, McDonald's Real Estate Company 1103, East Main Street special permit.

Applicant is proposing to install a second drive-thru lane, including installation of springboard canopy, pre-browse menu board, and an outdoor digital menu board reorganization of the parking area and other related site improvements.

Um, and I will note for um our members that this is um or related proposals have come before us um a couple of different times in the past uh two years, I believe.

Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Raymond Rizzi.

I'm very happy to be before you tonight with the firm of Russo and Rizzio, attend Saskia Hill Road in Firthville, Connecticut.

We're here representing McDonald's real estate company with regard to property at 1103 East Main Street, which I'm sure you're all familiar with.

You know, it's McDonald's has been there in that location for about 50 years, believe it or not.

I think originally McDonald's took over the property in 1986.

Um the property's been developed, uh it's always been non-con a non-conforming use.

It's really been developed over the years from drive-throughs to 24-hour use, all through um uh variances.

Um I know this has been back before you before, and if you give a positive referral for a variance which related to the exact same presentation that we're gonna make tonight, which we're now going to a special permit.

We've worked with staff significantly over the past few months as to coming up with the really the proper uh zone for this for this site in that every time any kind of improvement is done to this site, it is governed through the ZBA, which even pursuant to your master plan, one of your um essential uh things is try to eliminate nonconformities.

Yeah.

Okay.

If you're waving, I'm waving too, so it's fine.

If you need to stop me, go ahead.

Um, so we're we're here tonight.

We've discussed with staff what we thought would be the most appropriate change, and it came to be the decision to change the property from CN to C L.

We believe CL is the most, and staff like thought believe the C L is the most appropriate to go from commercial neighborhood to commercial district.

The issues with the commercial neighborhood is they're really meant for really neighborhood type um uh developments and small small developments, basically properties that are like on Hope Street or on Elm Street, which have you know one lane going each way that are not as heavily traveled, that is not as intensive uses.

Um, the CL district, which we believe is more important, is I think designed for place properties like um where we are on East Main Street, which is basically two lanes, probably one of the heavily traveled thoroughfares, two lanes going each way.

We're between uh I-95 and East Main and on East Main Street, we're right next to that.

We also have proximity to I-95, and one of the um issues that you that we like in a CL zone, it's an attractive environment for shopping and services, accessible by all modes of transportation.

This site is accessible by both bus and motor vehicle, and we plan on doing significant improvements to have ADA handicap sidewalks uh throughout.

Um, so we believe C L is the most appropriate uh designation for this.

Most of the CN neighborhoods that you see, like I said, are scattered throughout the city, but they're not on in your major uh commercial thoroughfares.

Um, for example, the one and in a C L zone, also there's also two other um, at least we know of two other drive-throughs in C L zone, which is Donut Delighted 2720 Summer Street and Dunkin Donuts, which is 411 West Main Street, those are both drive-throughs in significant drive-throughs, both in a CL zone.

What we propose to do here, and that that's basically our presentation with regard to the zone change.

We think it's the most appropriate.

The property's always been misszoned.

The property's always been developed through variances, it's not going anywhere.

Um, it's been there for 50 years.

McDonald's has runs a very successful um operation at this location, but needs to run much more efficiently and better.

We've handled a bunch of their conversions of these single uh lane um drive-throughs throughout the state, and uh the ability for these properties to operate more efficiently, safer for the community, safer for the whole neighborhood, has been to increase the queuing.

What's happened, we started representing McDonald's about over 20 years ago.

I would say probably 30 to 40 percent of McDonald's customers came in, parked, drove, parked, drove to McDonald's park, came in and ate there, or took away there.

And I would say maybe at the most 30 to 30 percent was through the drive-thru.

Over the years, it's evolved that basically up to 70%, and in other areas, more than 70% of the business is gone through drive-throughs.

In fact, McDonald's is a is in some locations testing out just going through a total drive-thru with no sit-down restaurants.

Um this property ends up being way overparked.

So, what you have is we have I think queuing for current queuing for 13, I think 13, 11 vehicles.

And if we can get this drive-thru, we can increase double drive-through, we can increase it to 23 vehicles, which handles more than our peak at all times.

So, what ends up happening, we have these 61 parking spaces currently.

Pursuant with your parking regulations, we'd only be required to have 33 parking spaces.

So, what we end up having is a jammed up, a long queue that sometimes stretches out to East Main Street because our queue can only handle 11 cars.

And what ends up happening is we have an empty parking lot and a loaded drive-thru.

And then what happens is the people that don't want to wait or get stuck out there, the people that use the parking lot most of the times are people that just don't want to wait any longer on the on the drive thru they'll come in order grab their food and go McDonald's is preeminent as far as studying their drive throughs there's a whole McDonald's university out in Chicago that has been studying the drive throughs for 30 years and they're probably the most proficient as far as getting cars out meaning that from the time you order to the time you get out they want you out somewhere between 120 and 150 seconds.

It's pretty amazing with what they do.

So we believe that if we can get this zone change we can then move to a special permit which we hope this commission will also give a positive referral which will allow us to build a double a double drive through now I know the see the the trying not to intertwine the two applications because I think they're two separate um but with regard to the zone change I believe it's the most appropriate zone change it limits nonconformities it fits the description of what the goal for these for the CL zone is and that it is the appropriate zone for the commission.

Without confusing the special permit application I can certainly ask if the commission has any questions or think that there's a more appropriate or any questions I can ask I can answer about this change of zone.

I mean I I will say that though they are two separate um the obviously related applications I actually do think that for the benefit of the members it would be helpful if you could walk through um I was going to but I thought I would just separate the the generic question that as relates to the property whether McDonald's is there or not that this is the proper zone for that piece and then go through our specific so if if there's any I'm I'm I'm gonna roll right into special permit if any of us have any specific questions with regard to the appropriate zone for this piece of property.

Hi do members have any questions about the zone designation.

Let me just ask one general one if you could summarize the the uh key differences between um the current uh zone and the proposed zone in terms of impacts on the on development well the the commercial neighborhood is meant for non-major thoroughfares meant for smaller type within you know abutting residential areas and ones that are not as much serviced by you know close to 95 serviced by multi-lane uh multi-lane roads and has a um uh a smaller uh basically is is a smaller zone designed for a um a less intense use where the commercial limited is designated for properties that are uh can be accessed by all modes of transportation high volume traffic and allow that's why they allow a um drive throughs in these zones okay so so let me be more clear in in my question if I may um are are there other um properties uh let's just say within say um a quarter mile of this current um your your current development um that are similarly face the same kind of issue and and have been successfully rezoned as as CL well really that I can't answer that question that I've done it successfully I can just say that it with regard to this property we think it's the most and in talking with staff we thought this was the most appropriate for the site and for the use um there are CL zones near here, um, and the commercial neighborhood zones are literally all over the it are spotted all over all over the city in basically smaller areas.

Um, do we have the map that we can pull up the zoning map?

I don't know of a rezoning.

Um, in that case, I don't know ones that are would you would would be considered, I think that needed a rezone.

I I just I think this thing has in been improperly labeled it's zoning designation has been improperly labeled, probably for ever since the the uh the drive-thru was put in there.

Is that you know I there's there's plenty of C L zones, uh and there's also some other commercial neighborhood zones, but if you if you looked across the sprinkling, most of them are on Hope Street, Elm Street, they're on they're on they're in neighborhoods.

This is not a residential neighborhood at all.

Um that's why we think it's the most appropriate for this site.

Okay, thank you.

So, Lindsay, let me ask you a question if I may.

Um, the um obviously our purview is not zoning, our purview is the comprehensive plan.

Um, and does the change in the zone use from um CN to C L, uh, impact uh the comprehensive plan in any way.

I do think so.

Um, so the comprehensive plan category here is mixed use one, uh, which is a neighborhood center-based um comprehensive plan category.

And while it may seem like this is, you know, quite an intense road, uh, you know, it's route one, it is uh is a major thoroughfare.

Um, there are quite a few, you know, commercial businesses, good sidewalks, and it is in a residential area.

The north side of East Main Street is highly residential.

R6, R5 with a affordable housing development on Standish Road and a park, uh not not so far away.

So there is a large residential area um just north of this on the north side of the street.

Um so it's really more the mixed use one category is really kind of meant to calm down traffic a little bit on this site, turn it into more of the other typical MU1 areas that we see, which are um Glenbrook train station, Springdale train station.

Will it ever reach the Glenbrook and Springdale level?

No, probably not, but um, some of the other categories are like along um Cove Road.

So it's a major thoroughfare.

There's a lot of cars moving through there, there's bus route, um, but you also have pedestrians and bikes.

So that's the vision for this area of East Main Street.

Uh I wouldn't say the CL aligns with that given the auto orientation.

Um the CN does align really nicely.

Uh okay, yeah.

All right.

Well, one of the things also one of the under your comprehensive plan is trying to improve traffic congestion, traffic flow, road safety, um, and and and to be able to have it a the drive-thru's not going to go away.

Um, and the only way that we can improve it is through a zone change at this point.

Um, and we think it's the appropriate use.

We think it by by being able to um create a double the double drive-thru, which I'll show you, which will pull up in a second.

Um, it will increase the amount of queuing from basically 11 vehicles to 23 vehicles.

The highest we ever have in our peak times is about 18.

Um, it will pull any kind of backup traffic that goes on to um East Main Street.

Everything will be able to now be contained on the street, which certainly will help from safety and traffic congestion.

Otherwise, we're back to where we were, which um I can tell you, we we did we where we've done the exact same changes, both in Yonkers, and we have a letter that we've submitted from the Yonkers Police Chief who greatly supports this.

Um things that we've done in Brantford, which we did the exact same thing where we brook, we've increased our queuing from 11 to 23 spaces, and in doing that reduced our queuing capacity to add a max of 75% during our most peak time.

We reduced the same thing in Norwalk by increasing by do adding the double lanes, and um, and I think if I you'll see, I think it's in your pack, but I can call it up, and you look at the letter from the uh police chief in Yonkers, you'll you'll be impressed by what it can do for this site.

McDonald's take safety very seriously.

I mean, this is not a fly-by-night operation.

Um they study, uh I'm you the extent that they study the efficiencies of drive-throughs is incredible.

And the safety, because remember, McDonald's does own all these, so any liability they have for any accidents that anything happens, safety is of utmost concern to them because not only from a you know general good feeling place, but the liability sticks with them.

So they want the safest, most efficient operation.

Um, and what ends up happening, like I said, if the queue gets too long, people don't not go to McDonald's.

What they do is they pull in and park, but it doesn't stop, prevent the people from going.

I'm just amazed.

More people don't do it.

I go by uh Dunkin' Donuts or a Starbucks in the morning, and I just can't imagine that people wait online, you know, 20 cars deep for 15 minutes when they can park run in, but the world has gone heavily heavily into nobody wants to leave leave their car anymore.

And as I said, it points to our business, which shows that at least 70% of the business done at McDonald's, and certainly more at least that here runs through the drive-throughs.

So we're trying to make get give this the highest and best use for the neighborhood, the safest use for the neighborhood, and consistent with your master plan, reduce traffic congestion and increase safety.

And unfortunately, since we were we just can't continue to operate through variances all the time.

I don't think that's one of your goals.

This zone change has the least amount of impact on the neighborhood, yet allows this property to operate at its highest level.

Ashley, I see your hand.

Yeah, so I'm I'm new to the planning board.

Did this uh dual drive-thru previously come before the board for and it and was it denied at the ZBA then?

So what happened that we was brought before this board, it received a positive referral to the ZBA, and the ZBA was concerned, which is I unfounded, that that would that if they did the double drive-through, it would just increase the amount of people that now go to McDonald's.

And that that's not the case that it really isn't.

Um, and in the end, the more queue you have, the safer, and and when we when we can show what our maximum queuing is, we've given a very detailed traffic report that shows our maximum queuing is about 18 18 spots now.

18 at a peak time is seven cars over the 11 that is current that that currently can handle the queue, which means cars back out on Test Main Street.

We'll now be able to put 23 cars in stacking for the for the for the cars to go around and would still be in excess of the parking that's required.

We can add, and you know what?

Maybe if I pull up the plane, it might be.

Would you like me to do that now?

Maybe that would be a little bit easier.

I think it'll be helpful.

I mean, I did flip through your traffic study and saw that the max queuing at your other sites that were in your study were up.

The maximum I saw was 16.

So I I think for me, I'm disappointed that this didn't go through the ZBA, because from a planning perspective, I would have rather had this be treated as a variance than changing the zoning because it's not truly consistent with the comprehensive plan, but we have a situation here where it's a building that's been here 50 years.

Uh you're drawing traffic off the highway.

I'd imagine that a lot of your trips are getting off 95 and getting back on 95.

Correct.

And people, what would I what I think was unfounded by the ZBAs.

People aren't pulling off 95 to go to McDonald's and then see that the line's too long and go back on 95 to go five more exits down.

They're gonna they're figuring out a way to wait there.

They're gonna wait on east.

And most of the problem is, and I don't say it's a problem.

It's a service that's offered, it's services that thrive and businesses that thrive along the 95 corridor, which Stanford is along the 95 corridor.

You can get a lot of people that aren't from Stanford.

And they don't realize the impact that they're creating on East Main Street or that there's another way in, or they can park go somewhere else.

They're specifically getting off 95 to go to McDonald's.

So we we were happy we've been taking trying to take um staff's guidance on all this, which is why we went to the ZBA.

And this is kind of our last hope to kind of straighten out the situation.

And it's not a matter of if we change the zone, what's going to come there next?

McDonald's isn't going anywhere.

They own it.

It's a successful store, it's been successful for 50 years.

And as long as hamburgers are sold and McDonald's are in business and 95 stays the way it is, and Stanford continues to grow.

This they own the they own the property, so they're not going to go anywhere.

So we're trying to all resolve a problem.

I don't think there's any sometimes you worry about when you change a zone.

Is there a threat of you know what we what's going to go there?

Um there's no Trojan horse here.

It's a McDonald's, it's been a McDonald's for 50 years.

And as long as people are eating hamburgers, it's gonna remain a McDonald's.

So I don't think there's any risk that you know we're changing the zone.

Maybe there's a use that's gonna go there that we don't that that we might not like.

It's more that it's an isolated zone now in an area that's envisioned to be at least the property surrounding you are envisioned to have more of a neighborhood feel.

Correct, but I think that when you look at the site itself and the use of it, and the use and where it's located, it it may be one of the limited properties that really fit the CL better than the CN because it's a high intense use on a high intense road, and what you want to do, and there's a reason why in the CN they don't allow drive-throughs, because you're not you don't want to have a high-intense use on a on a traveled road where you run into a situation where you have property, um, usually in the CN that the properties aren't that big.

If you have a drive-through and it can't handle the queue, you have them cars leaking out onto neighborhood roads.

What's actually more dangerous here is you have cars leaking out to a very highly intense road.

So although I think it would be isolated, I do think it's appropriate for the intensity of the use on the site.

That's that's not gonna go away.

Am I making sense?

We've been trying.

Look, we we love following, we're we we try to cooperate.

We've done everything we can.

We take in all of staff's guidelines as to where we go.

This is not something that we're trying to push down the city's throat.

What we're trying to do is come up with the safest most resolution to an issue that both I think the city encounters and we encounter, and we think this is this is really the last way to the last way that we can go about this.

The Trev's have up.

The Treves is a very um, they're a McDonald's family that own the second McDonald's in the state of Connecticut.

I think they own maybe 40, 50 McDonald's around the state.

Uh Ernie Trev's was one of the first McDonald's franchisees in the state of Connecticut back in the 60s through handwritten notes to uh Ray Crock.

Uh, this is one of his first sites, and uh it's one they they they value and they they're gonna keep and they want to keep within their family and and operate it the safe most safe way they can.

So you have you know, a legitimate company with legitimate operators trying to do the best they can to not only to create a safe environment and use this property the most efficiently and safe way, safest way they can.

One one more, if I may, then um Mr.

Rizio, I I uh understand um that uh uh from what you've said that uh both the ZBA and and it appears that the traffic uh department itself here in the city of Stanford has some concerns at this point about the um the additional um drive-through actually generating more demand that will that will uh eliminate the benefit and and continue to spill out into the road.

Um we obviously we have no uh empirical data uh here in Stanford, um, because this hasn't been done yet, but I'm curious to know whether your uh your other reference facilities in Brantford and Yonkers um has uh how long they've been uh in place and whether there is data uh that they've generated that um has been presented back to ZBA and and traffic uh to address their concerns, and if so, um did it address their concerns or or are they still concerned?

Did we lose them?

Possibly maybe let's give them a minute.

Um, while we're kind of waiting here, I'm wondering if you um had an opportunity to talk with um transportation um at all after they submitted the letter, which I I kind of read as ambiguous.

Um I have they I think the induced they're they're concerned about induced demand that if people see you know car that there's more space that they could be quicker, um, they'll they'll pop into McDonald's.

I'd be I'd be interested to see um the data.

They did this at uh uh a Norwalk on Boston Road in Norwalk right across from the Casco.

And I remember specifically that that traffic was backed up onto Route One all the time.

And now it doesn't seem so much, but I'd like to see the data on that to see how many cars they used to serve versus how many cars they serve in.

In the in the submission packet, there is a table that includes the data about uh the Norwalk location, actually.

I'm sorry, we were we were we lost connection.

Uh so if I didn't respond, Commissioner, um I apologize.

I lost you just as you were asking about not having the empirical data before you, but we do have it for Brantford and Norwalk.

And one thing you'll notice as we went from I could cite you to the page, basically page five or ten of the traffic report.

They looked at the demand when it was single lane and side by side, and there's no real change in the demand.

But what's changed is the percentage of capacity of queuing.

So you'll see that when it was single lane, you were at the in normal in Brantford.

They were, which is the same size as this at 91%, 110% at lunch, 100% at dinner, 110% at lunch on a Saturday, and those percentages drop dramatically once they went side by side, but not the demand.

So that and that's that that's real life stuff.

You know what I mean?

That's not that's a study.

As I said, we're looking to operate this as safely as we can.

We we don't anticipate business growing here much more, but we do uh believe we can operate it a lot more efficiently and safer.

It's it's it's a hazardous situation for everybody.

How long has the Norwalk one been in place?

Just out of curiosking.

Norwalk was 20 2026, the side by side was put in.

Same with they've just they've been studying these things over years.

So in 2022, they did a study uh single lane, and then switched over.

I think I'm not sure if it was 2022 or 2023.

Then in connection with this, they looked at demand and capacity for their side by sides.

And if you look at the study, you'll see that the demand is pretty much the same.

There has not been a big increase of demand, but the percentage of capacity for queuing has gone way down.

Sure.

Sure.

And you said Norwalk was 2026.

Uh we're only in June.

So do you know was it January or was it last month?

Um say it was in February.

I think it was in February.

Okay, so it's just done in February.

Yeah.

Been running operating for four months.

Okay.

Well, no, the study was done in February.

They've been operating prior to that.

So when it in 2022, both Brantford and Norwick were studied in 2026.

They went back and studied that, but I'm I'm almost positive the the side by sides were put in prior to that.

So what we're the 2026 doesn't relate relate to the year the side by sides were installed, it relates to the year the side by sides were studied.

Oh, I see.

Do you happen?

Yeah.

Do you happen to know when they uh when they were installed?

I don't remember, but I know it was within the it was not this year.

I can tell you that.

I know that because we we we handle most of them.

Okay, all right.

Ashley.

Um how are you factoring in like mobile app orders into the drive-thru queuing analysis?

Are they is that something you've considered?

Well, typically what you have is you have a we there's pickup for a lot of mobile apps, so they they designate some parking spots for pickups, so people will drive in and then do a mobile pickup.

So are those people staying out of the drive-thru queue, they're going, they're coming in and going directly to parking spaces.

Typically they come in and go to a parking space, they run in, pick up the mobile app and go.

From the mobile, there's there's typically mobile app spaces reserved on site.

Let's if you can see, this is the the improvements that will happen.

I don't know if you if you can we could we share the screen.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

Um it says disabled share host disabled attendee screen sharing.

Would you mind permitting?

Yes.

There you go.

There you go.

Thank you very much.

Oh, I'm still saying no.

Okay.

You might have to, I don't know.

George, it doesn't matter.

It's you or me.

No, I think it's uh it's a me situation, a setting that I have to figure out.

It was so much easier.

Um I've been doing this 35 years.

Thank God I have young people next to me.

I'd be in trouble.

Um, even if you're a young person, that doesn't make it easy.

Can you request like I sometimes people request share?

It doesn't give you that option.

Okay, yeah, I'm I'm clicking the share button.

Let's see if there's a request share somewhere.

I'm not seeing it.

One panel.

Okay, hold on.

There we go.

There we go.

Okay, you should be good to go now.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Fantastic.

Bear with me.

I can bring up my playlist in the interim.

We can listen to some stuff.

That's about that's all you're gonna get from me.

So this is the plan that we're seeking for a special permit, and as you can see, they'll digitalize order boards, um, increases the queuing to 23.

And it actually, when you look at it, it actually probably has room for three more cars before you really have a block in traffic.

Now, when you turn that down around to unfortunately, I don't, I have the I have the the survey here of existing.

Um, it's along the same lines, but I'll just tell you that um you get to 11 pretty quickly, and that that that drive-thru piles up.

Um, you know, what uh when you got a demand of 18 cars and you got a maximum capacity of 11, that means 11 conforming, but you probably end up with 14 or 15.

You know, you got people hanging out onto East Main Street, which which is not good.

They're not good for us, not good for the city, um, not good for the people in their cars, whether they know it or not.

And as I said, like we talked about before is people coming off 95, they're coming off specifically for McDonald's, they're not going anywhere else.

So it's not like they say, hey, wait a second, that the drive-throughs.

You haven't been a chick a Chick-fil-A, the same thing.

People get off for Chick-fil-A, I can't believe how long they wait in line, but they're not going anywhere else.

Um, so this this double drive-thru will allow us to basically if you look at what our demand in queuing is, it'll allow us to basically go from where at lunch, we're at 127% of occupancy.

At dinner, we're at 164% of occupancy, and at lunch on a Saturday, 136% of occupancy.

That's on page four of our traffic report.

That'll all go down from breakfast will go from 91 to 43%, lunch will go from 127 to 61.

Dinner will go from 164 to 78, and lunch will go from 136 to 65.

I it's incontrovertible that this is not this is gonna help the situation.

Um, and this is really the only way to do it, and we'll be in complete conformity with your regulations.

We won't be dealing with non-conformities.

As you all know, the other thing, uh trying to hardship is trying to prove hardship in a court of in a in a court of law is a whole different thing.

So, although the ZBA may grant some variances sometimes, a lot of times, they're not with regard to hardship, a true hardship that's sustainable in a court of law.

So we really want to be in a in a situation where we can conform to your regulations.

In this instance, we'll be able to add the queuing and remain completely conforming.

In fact, it'd be in excess of the parking required by your regulations.

I look at this as a win-win with no exposure to the commission or the boards of any um unforeseen circumstancing occurring that you know we didn't see that coming.

In other words, we're not there's no other use that's gonna be there that's gonna pop up on this location.

Um, are there questions from the board?

Just a point of information.

I just checked Google Earth, and it looks like the Norwalk McDonald's had their double uh drive-thru in 2024.

Yeah, so that's why I'm saying that the 2026 that's in your report deals with the date it was studied, not the date it was installed.

So thank thanks.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, actually.

So that means at least a year later, that the that the demand is fairly similar.

There was I think it was during the dinner hour that there's some increase.

Well, the nice part about it is it's these look the these these I've been doing McDonald's work for 25 years, and they they never go, they never the good stores are good stores.

They do their volume and they maintain their volume.

They go up or down a little bit um as the economy goes.

For example, when when when the economy's not doing so well and prices get high, uh people go from chilies or a normal restaurant to McDonald's and they go to what what they can afford.

Um, so we go up and down with the economy, but they're not drastic increases.

And here's a and this is a and this thing's been here for 50 years.

This is not something that we're putting in a Chick-fil-A that's never been here, and we're giving you a traffic study or putting a Starbucks.

I mean, I I've dealt with Starbucks, Mc McDonald's, a cue for McDonald's and a cue for Starbucks, if you put on both, the amount of time with which they people get service is like night and day.

Um, and um, so we think by increasing this capacity with the way we operate our stores that we will drastically reduce the the traffic or the the impact that we have on traffic on East Main Street and create a much safer environment for both residents, operators, and anybody that that comes to the site or enters or leaves the site.

Um I can I can continue to take it through the special permit.

I think the you've seen it before.

The if you can bring pull it up again, it speaks for itself.

Um it's a long establish we we have you know historical data on this site, so we know what goes there, we know who comes there.

Um we exceed your parking requirement.

We're gonna have because of the demand, um we have we'll be providing 37 spaces.

We're only required to have 33 spaces, and actually it's interesting because we're required to have 33 spaces when this double drive-thru comes through.

If there's 15 spaces that are used, it'll be a lot.

As I said, because 70% of the business comes through the drive-thru.

When it's going to come through the drive-thru, whether we have queuing for 11 or we have queuing for 23, the question is just going to become is how safely can this operate.

And right now we can't get out on the we can't get put somebody out in the street and flag them away.

Um, so we're doing the best we can.

We're spending a lot of money to improve this site.

Um, it'd be very easy for us to just continue to operate like this and leave the McDonald's the way it is, it'd be the most profitable way to do it.

We're gonna put a couple million dollars into the site into refurbishing the building and and re reconstituting the entire site, adding proper drainage, um, creating a new parking lot, new drive-through.

Um as I said, I I don't see this being anything but a win-win.

Um, because it's not going anywhere.

If our if I were making a new application here, and we were coming in and saying, look, we want to put a McDonald's here, and we don't, you know, this is what the this is what we think's gonna be there, and this is what's gonna happen, and this is what your regs say.

Maybe we have a different discussion.

But we have all the history there, we've all been there, we've all operated, we've seen it operated, it's been here for 50 years, probably gonna be here for another 50 years.

Um, so our feeling is, and I hope staff's feeling is that let's get this operating the safest way possible.

We do believe that the CL zone is the proper zone.

It may be a little bit more intense if you look at East Main Street in general, but it's certainly appropriate the appropriate zone for this site.

Um, more of a comment than a question, I suppose, but um, so I mean, I so ultimately when this came before uh the board last time, um, I think we found the data about the reduction in demand for parking quite compelling um and counterintuitive, but you know, it's certainly based in data from many different locations.

Um given what you've said about the um that the requirements for parking um based on our our current regulations far exceed the ex the expected demand.

Um I believe this would probably require either an additional variance or something, but if if it were possible as part of this to actually reduce the parking requirement and have some of the parking spaces that um as you've said are really not expected to be in use and and turn it into some sort of um like open space amenity.

Um is that something that um you think the applicant might be open to?

Again, I know that's not before us, and we'd have to figure out functionally how that works, but it would certainly be something we look, we want to make the most attractive site possible.

Um given the demands, we're at 37.

We need to be going to 33.

I would think we would be able to find four spaces that we can turn into green space.

I don't think that would be an issue at all.

I think the applicant would probably be more than happy to do that.

Um if you've been by McDonald's and you've been by some of these drive-throughs, the world, it's just change.

People are, I mean, the seats sit empty.

I mean, you don't see anybody building with the playgrounds.

Remember, you have for a while you had all the McDonald's had playgrounds in them.

You know, um just the world's change, we tried to address it.

What worked 50 years ago and 30 years ago when they first put in this drive-in, you know, when it was 30% of your um when it was 30% of your gross was uh it probably was it was okay, but now when you when you flip it around to 70%, I don't see that changing.

Um we think we'd be willing to just meet your the minimum of spaces required and in exchange to have it for the ability to have this queue.

Um, and I'll just that's really important.

I think this would uh I think on our part, this would have to be a conversation with transportation, but um I th some of what I'm starting to wonder is if you know if we can actually reduce the the requirement for the number of spaces and if that might facilitate even more uh space to be converted, which again I know is not within your current purview.

Um and just funny you see that you talk about that with malls, you know.

Everybody's talked about you have these asphalt, you know, fields that sit vacant.

Um and people are trying to do what they can to reduce parking.

Um we don't control that, so we would we would we're not looking to go from non-conformity to nonconformity.

We're hoping that we that you folks will give us a positive referral so we can move forward to put this in a make this a fully conforming property.

And we would certainly take the recommendation if whatever spaces that we exceed the required that we would look into turning that into some type of green space.

Um and I'll just I'll just note this again.

This is more just context.

Um, so I uh you mentioned the drive-throughs that already exist in uh like the CN areas.

I live um just off of Hope Street near the um Donut Delight, which you mentioned.

Um, and uh I've been consistently surprised for the past over a decade that one of the most hopping spots in town consistently is the like three tables that are facing the sidewalk next to the um donut delight.

Um, and I I could certainly envision there being interest and demand for um if there were kind of expanded outdoor uh space at this site that that that would be something that I think could be considered a neighborhood amenity.

Um Ashley, I see your hand.

Yeah, I I agree with with Jennifer.

Um first on the reduction in parking, and I would point to those four spaces that are along East Main Street.

The three uh parallel spaces are pretty awkward, and then there's that one that almost looks like that's where a dumpster goes, which I hope you wouldn't put a dumpster right on East Main Street.

Um so that's where I would start with removal of spaces.

And then I I also agree with the recommendation to add outdoor space, especially since you're serving travelers on I-95.

A lot of people are traveling with dogs uh in the summer months, it's nice to have a place to sit outside um before you get back on the road, as well as serving the neighborhood.

I think maybe what we could do is where you see where the handy if we got the thing where the handicap spaces are, we may be able to expand the patio there and maybe push our handicap spaces down.

We would certainly look into that.

So I think if you have your two spaces, those those spaces that are run parallel to the to the entryway and move a space or two where the handicap is, or the handicapped spaces are that would give us an increased patio and uh and give us some give us some addition get rid of if you think those are those spaces are yeah I I I think they're a little awkward because anybody getting out of their car is now going through three travel lanes.

I mean you've got the crosswalk which I think you should keep because I think there's a bus stop near there.

Correct so yeah I mean I think we would be open to eliminating those three spaces and probably move one space down move where you which would get you an 18 what are we 10 by 18 foot area to increase the patio size and still put the handicap space in front of the crosswalk.

That's something I think we would we would we we would certainly we would certainly entertain and I think with your referral um suggesting that I could I I would certainly it's tell the client that it's in their best interest to do it.

And I think you I think those 20 those three spaces are very awkward.

Are we I don't know are we talking about the same are you talking about the same three spaces I it seems like you're talking about the ones on the bottom the two handicap in that area.

I'm talking about speaking out the ones on the along east main street I'm talking about the three along East Main Street good 20 feet.

And then I'm talking about the handicap that are on the other side of the crosswalk.

Oh in addition okay yeah if you slide the slide them down one so you take your four your three three away that you folks think are awkward and I think they're awkward and then take your four space away from the handicapped area moving the handicapped down one that'd give you another 180 square feet of patio.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um I think that modification makes sense I think that where we're where at least I'm still a little bit stuck as stuck as procedurally how we go about this because I think you know I I don't give you know given that the planning board's prior um approval I don't know that we take issue with the uh special permit for the second drive through lane um and you know reconfiguring and reducing the parking but it's just whether accomplishing this through a map change really is the way we ought to do it because it is functionally spot zoning and so we'll have this awkward little parcel here.

Well I would say honestly the what the concern about spot zoning is really that's you can leave that to the planning board to the zoning board.

I thought about that when thinking about this application a lot of the CL districts are spot zones there's not a lot of them they are mostly spot zones and again I I think that concern really is a zoning board concern.

Well Lindsay it's funny when you say that there's really not a lot of connectivity there's not there not a lot of connectivity with regard to the CL zones.

Yeah.

I think this is the most practical solution to move forward with something that would improve the function of the site at this point in time.

And in terms of practicality I think these recommendations to site plan more in make the it more in conformance this with the uh with the comprehensive plan.

The intention of the yeah the mixed use category.

I agree it'll give it a give you a a decent amount of patio space it'll also take away those spaces which you which kind of let's just say probably not best to have within like you talk about where uh where bus stop is or where walkway is or this where the those sidewalks exist.

So it it basically um serves what one of the goals are in the in the C L zone.

So I I we would agree to that as a as as a as a as a I don't know that you can condition your referral but we would certainly then make you can make it clear and we will pass it on to client that the what's what's what's gonna what what's going to change to the plan for zoning.

Yeah we are not able to condition our referral exactly but we can have a list of recommendations for the zoning board to consider.

And I will make sure a client understands it's a strong recommendation.

And I think it's also aligned with what the zoning board would like and I've seen in the past so you know in really large projects where they're required to set aside open space um the chair likes to make those spaces you know purposeful and active um so you know being around the raised crosswalk and providing more patio space for a customer that you know decides to pull over and pop out of their car seems aligned with the zoning board.

It will also get a like you suppose it'll also connect with the with the if you can see there's a let's go back to the plan.

It'll get rid of that break between landscape area and landscape area across the street you know um up on the top of the property near that crosswalk.

So it'll provide a continuous landscape theory except for the crosswalk.

Chet did I see hand or was that just a fidget just fidget all right um so again this is there are two items before us I believe that the recommended conditions that we've discussed would accompany the second rather than the first which is this um the zone change.

I think Lindsay that's procedurally correct.

And I I think it's probably just worth noting in our um in our transmission that though we recognize that typically you know the CL would not be um in harmony with the um comprehensive planned future land use category that this is you know this is a fairly particular pre-existing use that is is likely to continue to be this use well into the future um so um with that said uh do we have a motion on the um on the map change so moved to recommend changing it to CL do I have a second a second from chet all in favor please raise your hand and the passes unanimously thank you all right um now for the second um so I think the um I think the motion ought to be um and I I can move this I think I'll just step back for a moment and say I think as a matter of practice I know that our prior chair uh tended not to put forward uh motions but I think that was really more a matter of preference and decorum and certainly has no bearing in terms of Robert's rules of order whether or not the chair puts forward a motion um but um so uh I uh recommend a move for approval of the special permit uh to install a second drive through lane um and reorganization of the parking area a recommendation to uh the zoning board is as follows one a recommendation to remove the um the parallel parking spaces uh along the main streets they are in access of what is required of the current zoning um and for it the applicant to repurpose uh some of the parking space uh adjacent to the uh to the building in order to uh create an expand um uh through a patio and seating area um in the space where the space the parking spaces would be removed along east main um would uh expect some enhancements uh given the adjacency to the sidewalk to improve the pedestrian experience.

I think and I have some further thoughts on what the parking regulations ought to be, but that's that shouldn't be part of the motion.

So I'll state that for the record afterward.

All right, the second from Ashley, all in favor.

And it passes unanimously.

Well, I can I thank you for your patience and working with working through this with us.

We deserve, I know we've been back to you multiple times, and I really appreciate your consideration helping us work through this problem.

Okay, sure.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Okay.

So just as we have now close those items, I do just kind of for the record want to note that it's as we had identified when the applicant came before us before.

The um the current requirements for parking uh for drive-throughs um is just outdated and it really does require far in excess of of actual demand.

Um, so would certainly encourage uh zoning um alongside transportation to look at um our regulations and see if we can um realize some reductions in that.

Um it seems like this applicant, if the parking requirements had been even lower, would have been amenable to having even less parking and perhaps having that be repurposed to um you know a grass planting strip or further tables and things, which I think would be the sort of thing that would make this more in harmony with the mixed-use zone.

Yeah, I think that could really easily be a very simple text change and aligned with the comprehensive plan.

So I'll bring that up to Ralph and Vanita tomorrow.

Um and I'm really happy that we've been I've been wrestling with that application and this McDonald's for a while, and I'm I'm very happy with how this has turned out.

Um so I think I think it'll be good for everybody.

All right.

Um next on our agenda, uh zoning board of appeals referrals, CBA application uh 021-26.

This is revised application.

Michael E.

Johnson representing Nestor Pasmino, 47 Ferris LLC, uh at 47 Ferris Avenue, variance of appendix B, Table 2, schedule of requirements, and section 12D parking requirements.

The applicant owned a single story 1,230 square foot commercial industrial building and is proposing to construct a second story addition.

Applicant is requesting a lot coverage of 70.7%, um, where 28.1 currently exists in lieu of the 25% maximum allowed.

B building area coverage of 25.4% in lieu of the 25% maximum allowed.

C, a rear yard setback of 29.4 feet in lieu of the 34, or sorry, the 30 feet required.

D, a front yard setback of one foot in lieu of the 25 feet required, uh noting that's on the Harvard Avenue side.

E, a front street center line setback of 26 feet in lieu of the 50 feet required again on the Harvard Avenue side.

F a front yard set back of 17.8 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required, uh, which is along Ferris Avenue.

Um, G, a front yard or sorry, front street center line setback of 42.8 feet in lieu of the 50 feet required again along Ferris Avenue.

Um, and finally, H to provide four parking spaces in lieu of the five parking spaces required in an R6 zone.

Um, do we have someone to speak for the applicant?

We do not.

We do not, which I know is common for the VBAs.

Yes, that is common.

Um this one, I I really feel like they should have had somebody the Michael Johnson is representing um the applicant, Matt Pasmino.

So um, and Johnson is kind of like a, he's not from Stanford, so I don't think he's got experience with our processes.

Um, if he did, maybe I think he probably would have shown up tonight and maybe we can give him a call.

Um because I think for especially with this one, how it's, you know, they came through trying to get an expansion of the rug cleaning business, if you all recall.

Um and now they're back with changing that to a residential on the second floor.

Um, so I I think it would have been important for him to show up and and represent this project.

Um in addition, um, there are other variances that are required um that are not accounted for in this plan, including setbacks of parking areas.

Um and and turnaround spaces.

So if they consider all of those things, do they can they still provide the number of spaces?

It's a mess.

Um, but the zoning board of appeals has to move on the application.

Um, they've already extended it the one time that they are allowed to, um, and they cannot extend it anymore.

Um I actually I see you have a question.

I will say this is the issue with denying without prejudice, had the original application been denied, just regular denied, they would have had to wait 90 days, work on their application, understand the zoning regulations, develop an appropriate proposal, and then they would have been able to reapply for a variance after having spent time developing the application.

Um that's what should have happened.

That didn't happen in this case.

Um, so this is the application that's in front of us.

Okay, Ashley.

I think I kind of answered my question.

I was gonna ask if we could table it and have their applicant the application and explain, but we can't, we cannot, no.

Okay, yeah.

Um, and so um I can provide a little bit more context of like how they got here.

Um just a little.

Uh and that is just that it's in a residential zone.

Um, so the idea was that a residential use would be more aligned with the um existing zoning than the expansion of the rug cleaning business.

Um, but that's the extent of it.

That's yeah.

All right, Jennifer.

All right, just to clarify procedurally.

So if this is a um, I mean, again, we're on referral if the ZBA denies this.

Um, what is the time period?

Um, what is the waiting period for the applicant to be able to return?

90 days.

Okay, but the ZBA can actually waive that if they want to.

Okay.

All right.

They have actually, I think there was a recent application where they may have waived it, but um, yes, they can they can wave them.

Okay, but functionally we can't, we can't table it.

Right.

Okay.

Unless you guys want to schedule a special meeting before the ZBA's next um meeting, which I can find out when that is.

Um, no, I think I think given the procedural remedies that are available to the ZBA, I think the most appropriate action for now would be denial, given that we do not have sufficient information uh from the applicant to um really make an appropriate determination on approval.

And I'm actually just um so I'm in the I pulled up the ZBA's schedule and it reminded me that due to unforeseen circumstances, the ZBA had to cancel their meeting, so I need to remind them that they need to vote on this, so they need to have a special meeting.

Otherwise, this is getting approved.

Um so I mean I would still recommend you vote on it because they're they're they have to have a special meeting within a a very close time frame um to meet this deadline.

I I don't think they want to not vote on it.

Um but I I don't think we should take the risk of having to schedule a special meeting for both the planning board and the zoning board of appeals within a certain time frame.

So okay.

Yeah, I know I'm putting you guys in a tough situation.

I apologize.

It's um it is what it is.

Yeah.

Um, all right.

So given that information, do we have a motion on this item?

Jeremy.

I'll make the motion for denial uh as an incomplete application.

All right, do we have a second on that motion?

A second from Drew, all in favor of denial, just raise your hand.

And the motion passes.

All right, and now we have uh ZBA application uh 032-26, 98 Haviland Road, Crocco and Croco Architecture representing Nicholas Lizo variants of appendix B table two schedule of requirements.

Applicant owns a 3,500 square foot single family dwelling with a deck and a shed, and is proposing to construct an attached 24-foot uh by 24 foot two-car garage.

The applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 15.3 feet in lieu of the 25 feet required and a combined side yard setback of 32 feet in lieu of the 35 feet required in an R20 zone.

Again, uh no representation from the applicant here.

Um, however, this is a much more simple application, um properties in res one residential single family, um, meant for low density single-family households.

Um this is pretty typical application, honestly, getting, you know, a request for get going to the side yard.

We've been seeing a lot of this lately.

Um it's a little different in such a, you know, um wooded and large area, but there are wetlands and conservation easements that do restrict this site just a little bit.

Um so, you know, it's it's set back, it's got a very long two and you know, 200 plus foot long driveway.

So it's certainly not going to be visible to somebody from the street, but it will be uh, you know, proximate to the neighbor's house.

Um I kind of expected that they would be a little bit more separated, the houses on these lots, but um they're a little closer together than expected.

So um I'm sure I think you know, trees would be a nice addition, but otherwise um it's it's not it's really not seeking too much of a variance um given the size of the lot overall.

So the hardship is the presence of wetlands, which limit the um ability to construct this within or without the variance, um and the overall footprint still is in conformance with uh coverage for this zone.

I can let me double, I can double check the application.

Um, sorry, and I'll are there any other questions or comments from the board on this item.

Just just a comment.

Um I just find it interesting that uh and of course we don't we can't I can't tell um from the submitted documentation what the driver of this is, but this um residence already has a two-car garage.

Um so uh what they don't mention at all in in this application is the conversion of the existing two-car garage into a apparently uh a home office of some kind.

Um so it's really the the desire to have the home office that's seems to be driving the nonconformity.

I think they note that it is undersized.

It's I think that's what it what they said it's undersized.

That the existing two-car garage is undersized, yeah.

Well, um there is no it it it it can accommodate two cars.

Um yes, if you want it to have a little bit more elbow room, you know, walking around the cars and walking around things hanging on the walls or being used in storage, you know, adjacent to the cars, a 24 by 24 foot uh garage, you know, it would accommodate that, but there's no requirement of a 24 by 24 foot garage.

So um I'll also just kind of note as a really more of a broader philosophical uh question that I mean we we I don't think we've really um revisited in the zoning code the setbacks for quite a while.

So um I'm not really sure offhand the rationale for, you know, the um the 25 required in in this zone and how that compares to um the way the setbacks um in similarly situated zones in neighboring communities.

Um so just as sort of a general note, not a um I I wouldn't stake in the sand that it should be different than it is, but um I just wanted to to note that as we're considering um the uh the variance request.

Uh it is specific to side uh to um side yards of access way lots.

Um and there's a choice there of where um the applicant gets to choose the front yard and so the additional side yard uh setback, I think is to help protect um the with a lot in the front.

Given the the uh configuration of this lot, is that even germane?

Four sides.

Is it even germane?

The mo the what I'm trying to say is the 25 foot is only for access way lots.

That's that's all, but yeah, I think agreed Jennifer that it could be looked at again.

So they are providing an excess of 15 feet, which would have been the requirement had it not been a flag lot.

That's true.

That's true.

So 15 is common potentially in that area.

Yeah.

It seems reasonable.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, do we have a motion on this item then?

I'll move.

Okay.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second from Ashley, all in favor.

Take your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Okay.

So those are the items on our agenda this evening.

Um the next regularly scheduled planning board meeting is on June 23rd, uh, for which I will be absent, actually.

Um I am traveling.

Um after that, uh, per custom, we are on hiatus for July, and we'll reconvene on August 11th.

All right, so Jeremy will be chairing the June 23rd regular meeting, um, which will also be a public hearing for a five lot subdivision.

So it was already it had been a a subdivision in the past, so um you're not missing out on anything, Jennifer.

Okay, it got consolidated and they're they're coming back to resubdivide.

So okay, yeah.

That doesn't sound particularly fraught, but all right.

Well, thank you very much, all.

Um, and that concludes our meeting.

We'll see you in two.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Bye.