All right, you're good to go.

Great.

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the Stanford Planning Board regular meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026.

And the time now is 63.

We have myself Vice Chairman Jeremy Linder, regular member uh Chet Sallett, and we have alternate Ashley Lai, who will be a voting member this evening.

Our first order of business is the planning board meeting minutes from June 9th, our regular meeting.

Any comments or questions for those?

Great.

Hearing none, uh, is anyone willing to entertain a motion for approval?

Motion by Chet.

Second.

Great.

Thank you, Ashley.

All in favor.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to the first order of business.

Uh subdivisions.

Subdivision number 3098.

Alix Sandra Moach representing Peter Levine, South Lake Drive, modification to section 13 of subdivision regulations.

Applicant is requesting a modification to the subdivision standards section 13 to allow the existing shared access to 116 and 120 South Lake Drive to be maintained at its width, which does not meet the requirements of the 18-foot as per section 10.1.4 of the regulation.

So I um I'll be speaking just on this application here.

It's actually it would be two different subdivisions that would be modified to allow for this since both lots were part of two different subdivisions.

So it should have been noticed as two different subdivisions.

So I just have a little bit more legwork to do on this, so I'm gonna request that the um planning board please table this item until the August 11th meeting, um, so that we can get some all of our ducks in a row.

Great.

Uh do we have a motion?

Check.

Uh so moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ashley.

Uh all in favor.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh moving on to the next uh item under subdivisions, subdivision number 4063, Leonard D'Andrea, D'Andrea surveying and engineering representing Brenda Case 13 Watermill Road, two lots.

Applicant is proposing to subdivide this 31,158 square foot parcel into two lots, which is commonly known as 13 Wiromill Road, assessor number 001-635.

The property is located approximately 100 feet east of the intersection of Long Ridge Road and Wire Mill Road.

The property lies in the R10 single family zoning district.

And we have we have Len DeAndre here representing the applicant.

Len, is there anybody else you'd like me to pull forward?

No, I don't think so.

Just just me tonight.

Okay, great.

Uh you would like me to share my screen.

Yes, and I'm hoping the settings are all good for you to do that.

All right, sending requests.

Okay, I've allowed it.

Okay.

And then I can share.

And I think I have it up on the screen at the existing conditions plan.

That's right.

Yep.

Fantastic.

Okay.

Um, my name is Leonard D'Andrea, Connecticut Professional Engineer with DeAndrea Surveying Engineering PC.

We represent Brenda Case in this application tonight to subdivide this property into two building lots.

Uh, the property lies on the south side of Wire Mill Road, about 100 feet east of Long Ridge Road.

Um, it sits partially on the curb as wire mill turns in off of Long Ridge Road.

It contains, if we put down the corner here, it contains 31,219 square feet or about uh 0.717 of an acre.

And it has a little over 222 linear feet of roadway frontage.

It's located in the R 10 district where minimum lot size requirements are only 10 or 10,000 square feet.

In this case, you might think that we would be applying for three.

We're not.

We are slightly deficient in frontage.

So we'll be looking to subdivide this for only two lots.

And I'm going to switch over to the subdivision map.

So here's what we're we're looking to do.

It meets the requirements for minimum land area with lot 44 being cut out of the overall piece having 10,127 square feet and lot 45 having 21,092, so both exceeding the minimum requirement.

The frontage for both will exceed 75 feet, which is the minimum.

And at this time, which is why we have some jogs in the division line, the owner would like to keep the dwelling for a while, perhaps longer.

And so in order to do that, we made sure we came along here and provided the minimum setback requirement to this westerly side of the dwelling and still gave it the required land area and of course the frontage.

And then we set aside this is again one of these subdivisions where we really don't have any resources to protect.

So we decided on the portion of the southerly line and the easterly line as a best way to provide some sort of a screening buffer.

It does add up to a little over 11.2%, so we exceed the 10% requirement.

And let's see now.

Go into our conceptual site plan.

The next thing is to demonstrate feasibility.

So I try to trace that.

So that's the first thing we did working with the applicant to provide to their architect a building envelope, which gives us the 10 feet on each side, 30 feet in the rear and 40 feet in the front.

And with that, this conceptual box was developed to fit within that building envelope.

Provided a new driveway.

And because this is wire mill road, which has a good amount of traffic, we wanted to make sure we had room and provided a backup area right in this location here.

So with the two-car garage, we can back into back out, head out to wire mill road with the car fronting.

We've shown and traffic has reviewed that we have 250 feet of clear sight line looking to the east, and we have adequate or sight line all the way to the signalized intersection of Long Ridge Road.

So we have a location for the well, which is in this location here.

Has to be, of course, approved by the health department.

The house, we need two parking spaces.

So this conceptual house has a two-car garage, so we meet that requirement.

Fuel source, we've shown a location for a propane tank, 500 gallon would be more than sufficient to service this dwelling.

And then of course, as always, we had to take care of drainage management, which we have a system in the front yard, and then also a system in the rear yard.

Moving on to this set, we've shown we had we've concluded a sedimentation road control sheet.

So we can demonstrate how we can dig these areas, dig the foundation, dig the uh infiltration systems with protection around the site from the neighbors.

And then our third sheet is just the typical detail sheet that would be standard.

Now again, this is conceptual, so uh understand that should the subdivision be approved.

Uh we would develop an individual site plan, it would be filed as a building permit application, and every agency that reviewed this today will be reviewing it again to make sure we have met the requirements uh for design and the subdivision, excuse me, and the drainage management design.

We had comments from most of the agencies, they're all fairly positive.

We had a couple of comments from EPB listing suggested conditions of approval.

We have no problem with those.

The comments from the engineering bureau were very minor.

We've already responded to those, and of course, they'll all be addressed when we do an actual individual site plan application.

Should this hopefully be approved?

I don't really have anything more than that.

It's pretty straightforward.

Again, looking at lot 45, we intend to keep the driveway for now, keep the house for now.

Both lots then will conform in one last thing.

I fear I forget to mention it.

We also included a zoning chart in this location here.

So this would go through each lot on a conceptual basis or for the existing dwelling and show that we've met all the requirements of the zoning requirements.

And with that, that's a that's really my presentation.

Glad to answer any questions.

Lindsay, I know for one order of procedural business.

Uh, would you like to read in the legal notice?

Oh, yes.

Um, yes.

Let's thank you, Jeremy.

Uh let me open that up.

4062.

All right, um, reading in the legal notice uh that ran in the Stanford Advocate for this subdivision.

Uh it starts legal notice, planning board city of Stanford, subdivision application number 4062.

Notices hereby given that the planning board of the city of Stanford will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 at 6 30 p.m.

Public meeting on Tuesday.

It says hearing, but it should say meeting.

Oh, 4062.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

I'm sorry, I was reading the legal notice for 4062 and not 4063.

Um, let me start over again for 4063.

Legal notice, planning board city of Stanford.

Notices hereby given that the City of Stanford Planning Board has received the following application for the subdivision of property into two parcels for review at this June 23rd meeting conducted via the internet and/or conference call at 6 30 p.m.

This item may be moved to a future meeting date and time at the discretion of the planning board.

Subdivision 4063, Bendic Brenda Case, 13 wire mill road, two lots.

Applicant is proposing to subdivide this 31,219 square foot parcel into two lots, commonly known as 13 wire mill.

The property is located approximately 100 feet east of the intersection of Long Ridge and Wire Mill and lies in the R 10 zoning district.

Copies of the above referenced application along with information on how to attend the meeting will be available on the planning board's website.

Hearing impaired persons wishing to attend the meeting who require an interpreter may be uh able to make arrangements by contacting the Stanford's mayor office via email at mayor's office at Stanford CT.gov at least two working days prior to the meeting.

I tested Jennifer Godzino, Chair, Stanford Planning Board dated the city of Stanford the 17th day of June 2026.

So that is the legal notice, and I'll also confirm that the uh neighbor notice mailings also went out.

Um, and that this property is in the res one single family future land use category.

And thank you for that one.

Yep.

Um, are there any questions?

Yes.

I have.

Okay.

Len, could you put back on the conceptual plan again if you wouldn't want?

There you go.

Okay.

Um do any of your documents show the anticipated um uh yard setbacks for the proposed law.

Yeah, so um I could blow it up a little bit more for you, sir.

Um we've added that here.

These are the long dashed lines.

Uh-huh.

And then what we did coming up all the way around like this, parallel to the front.

What we did in working with the applicant who would like to obviously market the property.

Uh not sure again what they're gonna do long term with the existing dwelling, but if that's the case to keep the dwelling, here's your envelope, and we had an architect design a conceptual floor plan that would provide the basics for a first floor.

And that's what you're seeing here.

Again, this is conceptual, so depending on who the client may be, uh, it may be slightly different than this.

Okay.

Um I'm asking the question because um uh I you made a point or uh earlier in your your um introduction, uh pertaining to the east and the south um property lines being potentially where you know buffered uh visual or screening or or whatever can occur, right?

Yeah, uh here on the east of lot 45 and on the south of law 45.

Nothing proposed on this because we had more room to give up here, and there's unfortunately there's just nothing really to want to protect along here.

So we felt the longer continuous border would be more appropriate.

Yeah, I I appreciate that.

Um, but given that the um the use to the west of this uh of the proposed subdivision, um, is a commercial use if I'm if I'm recalling correctly.

Um yes, in a that's quite certain of residential looking home, but yes, yeah, I believe it's a real estate agency there.

Right, right.

So uh so it would seem to me that um um well while perhaps not a requirement.

Um it's likely that um some kind of visual screening is going to be probably more desired on the west side than even on the east side, uh given that you know it's all residential, you know, from this from the subdivision to the east.

Well, it there is, and I did not mention that there is a vinyl fence that's located along this westerly property line, and then the other reason is we we don't have a note saying take this hedge down.

This was uh a hedge that's been started.

So the intent here is at least as we're showing this, is not to be removed and the vinyl fence to stay.

And quite honestly, I believe as you look really closely, this vinyl fence belonged to the neighbor.

Uh it does belong to the neighbor.

That's correct, yes.

Okay, okay, all right.

Um, then that probably addresses.

I mean, even within the 12.8 feet um yard setback or uh that you've established the actual uh setback between the structure and the property line, there's probably room, you know, to dedicate five feet of it to a hedge row if if if somebody needs that.

But um, okay, I I would I hear you, and it all depends on uh again.

I I understand what you're saying in this one being a little bit tight, we leave that up to the homeowner and the and the potential buyer, they certainly have the opportunity to do a green fence or just maintain the vinyl fence uh as their separation.

Right, right.

If they lined the conservation easement area along that um westerly property line, the um EPB would have to approve any hedging or plants to be located in there, they'd have to be um native and et cetera, et cetera.

So um it would be a little bit more restraining if that's what you're suggesting to move a little bit of the conservation easement area over there, or are you just suggesting for landscape thing?

Uh just landscape.

Okay, good, okay, okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Which is a little bit out of the purview of the the subdivision.

Right.

But noted.

All right.

Thank you, Len.

It answered my question.

You bet, thank you.

Uh Ashley.

Yeah.

Um, can you just confirm this is connecting to city sewer?

Is that correct?

Uh yes.

You know, that's a good question.

Um, there is, first of all, Wynamill Road is a busy road.

And uh in my lifetime, not too many years ago, sewers were brought into the area, and that is this um long dashed line in the street.

The existing house is connected to the sewer presently if you follow my cursor like this to this.

Um, WPCA does not have objection and probably prefers that we uh take this house lateral and tie it in to the existing house lateral serving the existing dwelling, and that will be covered with an easement.

Okay.

Um and then just going back to the landscaping comment.

I I don't disagree that there should be landscaping along the fence line, but I would think that the potential future buyer of this property can either make the house footprint a little different, so they can have a wider buffer, or they could just they could plant the landscaping.

Right.

And again, to make that point, this this is not the house that will be necessarily promoted for sale.

The lot would be for sale the way I understand it, and the buyer um can work with the seller to figure out how to configure the house, perhaps a bit differently.

But uh, forgive me for asking interjecting and asking a related question then.

Len, what what is the proposed uh footprint uh of that house?

How many square feet?

Sure.

Uh that will be proposed lot 45.

I'm sorry, uh 44.

And right now what we're showing here is uh 2000, a little over 2,000 square feet.

Okay, so that they do have an opportunity to, if they wanted a two-story home, for example, to shrink the uh first floor and still make it uh very very usable.

Yes, uh, and then the other thing, which is a fairly new regulation.

Um, we also now have to look at lot coverage.

My coverage allowance is 40%, and what we're showing presently is uh 33.5 percent total site coverage.

Yeah, you know, and uh yeah, uh I wasn't coming at it from that perspective.

Uh I wouldn't propose increasing it, um, actually decreasing it, change it by changing the configuration to pull it back from the property line a little bit further if the if the that new owner so wishes.

Yep.

Understood.

Good.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh, if there's no further questions, uh, do I have a motion on this application?

Okay.

I'll propose um approval.

Recommend approval of the application.

A second.

Great.

Thank you.

Ashley, all in favor.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Approved unanimously.

Just gonna add that for Leslie.

Thanks, Len.

Thanks, Len.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh we are now moving on to the public hearing instructions to speak for the public hearing on subdivision number four zero six two.

All public speakers shall announce their name and address clearly for the record prior to speaking.

Public speakers will have three minutes each to speak.

Public speakers wishing to submit written testimony prior to the hearing, may email it to Leslie Cap, Secretary of the Planning Board at L.

Cap at Stanford CT.gov.

Public speakers wishing to speak at the hearing shall use the raised hand function.

When the public comment period of the hearing opens, you may use your phone.

Uh you may dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to mute, unmute yourself.

Planning board staff will call on you when is your time to speak?

Uh, this is subdivision number four zero six two.

John FX Layden representing West Havilland Estates LLC, 20 West Havilland Lane, five lots.

Applicant is proposing to subdivide this 14 acre parcel into five lots, which is commonly known as 20 West Haviland Lane.

Assessor number 004-5764.

The property is located on the south side of West Havilland Lane and lies in the RA1 single family zoning district.

All right, and I'm going to pull the applicant up and then I will read the legal notice.

Okay.

So the applicant's coming.

I'll start a legal notice.

Legal notice, planning board, city of Stanford, subdivision application number 4062.

Notices hereby given that the planning board of the city of Stanford, Connecticut will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026 at 6 30 PM via phone and internet video conference to consider the application of West Havilland Estates LLC to subdivide the 14 acre property into a total of five parcels.

The subject property is commonly known at as 20 West Havilland Lane, assessor number 004-5764, located on the south side of West Havilland Lane in the City of Stanford in the RA1 single family zoning district.

Instructions for joining the meeting will be posted on the planning board's website in advance of the hearing.

The hearing may be continued to such time and place as will be announced on the planning board at the public hearing.

Hearing impaired persons wishing to attend the meeting who require an interpreter may make arrangements by contacting the City of Stanford's mayor office via email at mayor's office at Stanford CT.gov at least two working days prior to the meeting.

Application materials and plans will be available for review online in advance of the hearing and on the planning board's website referenced above or upon request at the Office of the Land Use Bureau, Seventh Floor Government Center 888 Washington Boulevard, Stanford, Connecticut.

I test Jennifer Godzino, Chair, Stanford Planning Board, dated at the City of Stanford this 11th day of June 2026.

And here for the applicant is John Leiden.

So you can introduce yourself and present your application.

Okay.

Thank you, Ms.

Cohen.

Mr.

Acting Chair, members of the board.

My name is John Leiden of the law office of John Leiden, and we have our team somewhat with us physically and somewhat remote.

So first of all, Fabio Albino is a principal of the applicant, West Haviland Estates.

He's a resident of Stanford.

Rob Sandolo is with smaller engineering or engineers.

Ken Fratteroli's on the screen of Fratteroli surveying company.

There are surveyors and Matt Pop is on the screen.

He's with Environmental Land Solutions or Landscape Architect.

I'm the only one with prepared comments, but we're all here if uh there are questions and the appropriate person should be answering.

I'm also going to try to keep this brief, but we're here for all your questions.

This is a nice application because I believe it shows the strength of Stanford's economy now.

And um it's it's it's good to see.

And this application has some special features that we're hoping that we hope you're going to find um more than satisfactory that uh positive for Stanford.

This is a second run of an application that was approved by this board about 10 years ago.

Site is the former Twin Lakes Swim Club, and uh it's about 14 acres.

We're in a one-acre zone, as mentioned in the legal notice.

And I should say we also file our statement of notification.

We sent out the neighbor notice letters the appropriate time.

And um, we're proposing five lots.

So that on average, the lots are 2.8 acres.

Uh, none of them are exactly that, but if you just did this straight arithmetic in a one-acre zone.

So the lots are way, they're significantly oversized.

10 years ago, this application got approved.

The owners then did file the map, but for about 15 years, we've been in a 2008 mode, and the numbers just never worked in order to develop the site.

So owners bought it speculatively, hoping to develop the five homes, but Stanford didn't have the market after the 2008 collapse that would support development.

So the property sat.

And as I mentioned, it was a former swim club that had been out of business years before 2015.

And it's been in that state since.

Swimming pools have been removed, but buildings that we're going to show you shortly.

And if you read the Advocate article that was in the hard copy today in the computer version, I think Friday, but it was over all week and the entire weekend.

The buildings have fallen into disrepair.

And it became a favorite hangout for high school kids throughout Stanford, and great place to have parties and and really fell into disrepair and was overgrown.

The owners, after the initial approval, hung in there hoping the market would turn, hoping they could do the development.

Because instead of one large lot, you're taxed on five lots, each one a prime lot.

So you're paying four to five times or maybe four times your taxes.

Always hoping it'll get better, you'll do it one more time.

They hung in there for a while, ultimately said we're not gonna look for next year anymore, and file the consolidation map, putting the property back into one lot, and uh subsequently sold it to Fabio's entity back about a year, a little shy of a year ago, and fortunately now the economy is strong and and it all works.

So we're asking this board to approve the five lots subdivision, and we're gonna uh take you on a little tour now with pictures uh of the site, and um you'll see that a lot of our infrastructure is there.

The first picture is, and we can slow down if we're going too fast, but we'll try to move through quickly.

Um, it's a large site, and I did my best.

Uh I took the pictures to try to give you a perspective of what exists.

So this is close to West Havilland Road.

Um, it's the driveway into the former club that more or less will serve as our roadway if this application is approved and developed as we proposed.

So that's looking uh south from West Havilland Road.

You're back to West Haviland Road.

Now Rob's gonna move along.

You're moving down the driveway a little bit, so you'll see that a clearing sort of dead center, it looks a little bluish on your left, and there's a picture there, are hills that are part of a conservation easement.

As we keep moving down, I those that's left again or east, that's a west side.

There's a brook or intermittent water course, I believe it's labeled, and homes that front on West Haviland that are on the other side of that, so that they're backyards of homes at that site, and the Frateroli map um sub proposed subdivision map that you have in your packet, shows you the layout at two-dimensional scale.

So we're gonna keep keep moving down.

So again, that's the brook area with the homes to the right.

There's a natural screening.

Uh that's more of the rock outcroppings that are on the um east side of the property as you move down, and it's a really neat natural setting.

And we can envision this being developed, it's really gonna be quite uh quite a neighborhood.

Um, if you saw the advocate article, I I I never like to have press before an application because it just attracts attention and you you don't know what you're gonna get, and it's normal normally not favorable.

If you read that article, it summed it up uh quite well.

I didn't speak with the reporter.

I think he worked off the EPB tape and went for a referral.

You just hold that there.

But um what's pointed out is we had a referral for a subdivision of this size we go before the planning board.

I mean the environmental protection board it's not just staff.

Did we lose them completely or just I think we lost the video and everything.

Um there you go okay he logged out assuming they'll pop up sometime soon.

Just out of curiosity if necessary, what do we have to do to change the order of our agenda potentially.

Yeah we'd have to close the public hearing vote to move up agenda items.

Got it okay.

Which is not isn't it's not too bad.

It's not too bad.

And I'm sure Ralph would be very pleased Ken Ken's here.

Hey Ken um I'm asking you to unmute uh hiya Lindsay uh they're trying to log back in can you hear me?

Yeah yeah we can hear you okay they're trying to log back in now I don't know what the technical difficulty is I just reached out to him and said hey what are you doing?

Doing our thing.

All right so let me let's give them another minute or two um and if they're not on then we'll do well we will close the public hearing and maybe move on to Ralph but let's give him a minute.

Appreciate you all of you thank you.

They're coming back they w lost Wi-Fi.

I get that my wifi cuts out all the time I was gonna give them until 710, but I feel I feel bad closing it out if I know they're actively trying to get back on.

Maybe they could each join from their phones if it's a Wi-Fi problem.

Okay, they're attempting to join via phone.

Do we have people here for the public hearing?

Um not I don't know.

If anyone here is wants to speak, maybe raising hands would be a good if you could raise your hand, use the raise hand function if you'd like to ah there we go.

All right, we're back.

Okay, good, and we hear you.

Good, okay.

Great.

So I'm gonna be really brief.

Um sorry about that, folks.

Want to go to the pictures?

Yeah, let's pull that back down.

So we're reducing impervious surface tremendously.

Um as a result of reviewing what we submitted before, the technology got a little better or the math got a little better, but Ken Fratteroli realized there was a little glitch in the prior approval, and that a very slight portion of our roadway was in the conservation easement area inadvertently.

So part of this proposal would be to modify that conservation easement area.

It's about 60 square feet that was I'll call it trespassing, so to speak.

And um we added uh 2160, I believe.

So there's a net addition of a little more than two thousand square feet of the conservation easement area.

We're more than 40 percent of conservation easement area.

So it's a very economically favorable.

Sorry, I'm just gonna try to show the conservation.

That's that's fine.

We'll just keep rolling so it doesn't cut out.

So that shows the former parking lot.

We're looking north or northeast.

Two of the homes would be in this view.

And uh again, the parking lot would either be restored to grass or would be part of the roadway.

You can keep just whipping through.

Uh that's a neighbor to our west, again, showing the screening that exists.

Um there's an electrical easement that that runs from West Havilland Road in an east-west direction into our site.

You'll see the overhead wires there.

We have to work with ever source.

We'd prefer to use that rather than come down the road, but in either case, our preference is to uh go underground with the wiring.

So we don't have to worry about storms and aesthetically, it just looks better.

Um again, that's a view, and you see in the in the far end uh center, one of the derelict buildings, and to the left a little bit, and we'll see a little more of that later is another one.

Uh these are the I believe the left portion there was the old locker room.

The pool was adjacent to that.

That's now been excavated and filled.

You're up where a uh snack bar was, and you'll see there's graffiti on all the buildings.

There's a barn that will come up soon.

You can keep going.

Um there was a lap pool up, you'll see a foundation in the the distance a little bit.

Um that's now been dug up.

Um one of our neighbors lives there.

There's a knoll on which we would put a home.

This is a home site to your right.

The property slopes downward, and there's a home uh down in the distance there.

That's one of the lakes of the Twin lakes.

It's the one on our property.

The other one's on the other side of West Havilland Lane, and um there's a house, a neighboring home in the distance there on the other side of the lake.

Again, that's showing the knoll in the house below it.

And then um there's an old, it was either two or three tennis courts.

It's quite overgrown.

You'll see a little more of it.

We'd like to keep the center portion for a support court, but we're going to restore the sides of it.

It shows on the Frateroli plan.

What we hope to restore in the very, very faintly in the center there, you'll see the top of an old tennis that's up there.

But that's the overgrown tennis court again.

Back to the deck of the snack bar that's elevated a little bit.

The uh I believe locker room to the left, but a structure.

Again, just showing you more of the state of buildings.

That's a barn that's on the structure.

All these buildings would come down.

That one you wouldn't even want to like poke your head into.

It seems the next storm is gonna cause it to collapse.

Um, and that's another building that will be uh demolished and a home built fairly close to where that building sits.

Um keep whipping through.

Um, more of the same.

There's a shed on the property, it's a large shed.

Someone even took the time to graffiti demo me on it.

Uh, we hope to do that, and then this is working back out of the site on the driveway with those beautiful hills with the rock outcroppings.

Um, again, we hope to have five homes.

Um, since this was approved last, and this is making your way out out toward Havilland Road with those hills that would be on your right, and again, in a conservation easement area, staying in that natural state.

Uh, the drainage manual did not exist 10 years ago, so um that's a further protection to the environment and to the neighborhood.

We anticipate very little cutting and filling that the other than the the hills that are in the conservation easement area, the site is fairly flat, and um our estimates are that we will not be either importing or exporting soil from the site.

We hope to use just the soil that's there, so to the extent that's off, it shouldn't be off by much.

Apparently, an excavator operated from this site for some time, causing disruption to the neighborhood and complaints.

Um, I spoke with about 10 neighbors over the last week or so.

We have a couple letters of support.

We thought we were going to get another one.

We didn't, but two are in your file.

I believe I satisfied uh all the neighbors with responses.

I told them I you have my cell number.

If we get approved and developed, Fabio lives in Stanford.

We're not going anywhere.

We're happy to keep dialogue going and work with people during the construction phase.

Another question we were typically asked by neighbors was um, how long do you expect to build?

EPB put a restriction where we we can't necessarily build all the homes at once.

That was Fabio's goal, but he hopes to do two or three and then two or three, get out of there.

Hopefully, the economy holds as quickly as it can.

So we can keep tradesmen on site going from building the building, not one at a time stacking and and taking an extended period to build the homes.

Um I'd summarized the conversations I had that none were clearly opposed.

Some had concerns, their neighbors, their biggest investment is their home next to us, but no one came out swinging and and saying this is going to really disrupt us.

Um, I would think if I live nearby, it'd be nice to be rid of what's there now with the respectful development.

We think that's what we've got, but that's my opinion.

Um EPB weighed in favorably on this.

We didn't have objections to the conditions they set.

The other uh staff reports we felt were either favorable or neutral, but we believe we were able to answer all the concerns that respective staff members had from the city, and um that's really about it.

We're we're here to answer your questions, and um, we hope to respectfully uh be approved, and we hope to get going as soon as we can.

Um, the Fabio would like to start yesterday, again to address something neighbors have asked, but as you know, it's a process to get your permit for the road and get your building permits for the the home sites, and some of the lots uh will require an EPB permit.

So again, a further protection for some of the lots will be going back to EPB for the permits for the individual lots, but he would hope to break ground before it gets too cold, and at latest after a freeze if we have one in the spring, so fall to spring building time and we're ready to go.

So it's um that's our presentation, and again, we're all here, and sorry for the disruption connection.

Thank you.

Um Lindsay, are we taking questions from the board prior to any public comments?

I think um I think it would probably be uh best if we open public hearing, take comments from the public so the board can hear the comments from the public if there are any, and then you guys can include that in your discussion and and things like that, unless chat you you want a clarifying question from the applicant or anything like that.

Yeah, but I can I can wait until after the public.

It could be that the public might have the same question as you.

So yeah, so if you want to if we want to clear that up, we can we can clear that up and then open the public hearing.

All right, so just just the really one quick question that I had.

Uh John, um, since this at per the history that you you uh recited to us, um this um property had been officially subdivided once before, I think into five other lots.

Is this basically a resurrection of that subdivision plan?

Or over time have conditions changed enough to warrant um modifying that original subdivision plan?

It's almost identical.

Um the only modification is that little tweak I'll call it to the conservation easement area that's up closer to the road.

And we also noticed something that um as you came into the road, there one of our lots did not intervene with one and a half of the neighboring properties.

So arguably that could have created a non-conformity um by creating a second front yard inadvertently.

So we extended that lot out to the street to cure that.

So again, I'd call that a tweak to the lot line that's it's consequential, but it saves a headache later.

If in fact we would have created one, other than that, um I believe, Rob, the lots are identical, right?

Yeah, I would say for all intents and purposes the lots are identical.

Um from an engineering standpoint, the drainage is range manuals a little more stringent now, so the design is a little more robust, but otherwise it's essentially the same subdivision.

So extent to the extent identical isn't entirely accurate, it's from a practical perspective accurate.

Okay.

The only reason I was asking was I was interested in my humble opinion, um the uh it appears that the parcel can like more than likely accommodate additional lots, you know, in in that regard.

So I just wondered if the applicant's uh desired for urgency kind of said we we have a scheme that's basically gone through this process once before satisfactorily.

Let's just stick with it instead of raising you know additional facts.

So Fabio's nodding his head, and he was advised that that perhaps a couple more lots could have been, I'll say now wedged in.

We still would have been way under an average lot size.

I'm getting to leave there also button stay there at soon.

So that's why I wanted to know.

So he he's hoping perhaps, and we can't commit to anything, but to live there himself, and it's just it's if this goes, it's gonna be really pretty.

It's gonna it's gonna be exquisite.

So, yeah, you may make a few more bucks, but the natural features that exist and are that are going to be complemented and we're gonna build into it, so to speak, it should be fabulous.

So maybe we lose a couple lots, but pick up on aesthetics, and there's also value in that.

Quality over one.

Yes, sir.

Yeah, understood.

Um the only reason I I raise the um the point was that obviously we're planning, so our focus is the comprehensive plan.

Um, and and in this regard, um, you know, given the the um last year's update to the 2015 master plan to create the 2025 comprehensive plan, um, kind of um uh adding some opportunities for development um away from the downtown area into North Stanford by um subdividing part larger parcels was part of what had been discussed in conjunction with the comprehensive plan, and and um if you know from my perspective as as you know, uh a planning board member, I would have preferred uh potentially to see those couple of more lots or or even smaller housing in the form of you know clustered housing or whatever um in lieu of the five separate because there aren't too many of these types of lots left in North Stanford, and and hence, in an effort to create, you know, um opportunities potentially for smaller homes, which in turn uh not necessarily by definition, but could have become more affordable, etc.

etc.

etc.

So that's the only reason why I raise the subject.

No, I I smile because it's I guess we are recorded, but probably not often that a board member is uh telling the lawyer that maybe you guys should have done more lots.

So I I like this conversation our youngest is just graduated high school, so I'm gonna be at this for quite a number of years.

So we'll be back maybe to satisfy that perspective.

And Lindsay and I are working on an application that hopefully is going to be submitted within the next month that maybe has something of that in mind down the road.

So we're mindful of what you said, but for this application, um that was Mr.

Bino's perspective.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

All right.

So um Jeremy, uh, if you want to um I think all you have to do is state that the public comment period is open, and then I can start to uh I can start to call people up.

Uh at this time the public comment period is open and Lindsay, I will turn it over to you to call on anybody uh who is here for that.

Okay, and I see uh Mike Miller has raised his hand, so I will allow him to speak.

If you want to speak on this item, you can press the raised hand button on the bottom of the screen, or if you're on your phone, which it doesn't look like anybody is, dial star nine to raise your hand.

All right, Mike, you can unmute yourself, and you have three minutes uh to uh make your commentary, Michael.

You're unmuted, but we cannot hear you.

About now.

Yes, there you go.

We can hear you now.

My name is Mike Miller.

I'm at 90 West Haviland Lane.

Um, I bought the property.

I am supportive of the thoughtfulness of the work that was done.

Um what I do have a comment, maybe more engineering or life safety related, and that and and maybe I've seen this plan 10 years ago, um, come across.

And one of the things that was um identified was uh fire hydrants or a cistern that would uh for fire prevention in this location.

I don't see that those same structures as it was in the past, so um I suspect I don't know what the approach was on the um on this plan to execute that that work if if um that's question one and the only other question I had was along the main twin lakes drive, there's a note of proposed 50 foot private right-of-way, and part of that right away is uh uh takes into account the the seasonal stream that's there, and I I suspect that's that's adequate or um okay from a uh perspective as it enters the road from West Haviland about I'm gonna say 200 feet in, you know, it crosses the seasonal stream a couple times and then back out.

So um again, supportive, just uh would like to understand those two aspects for better clarity.

Thank you.

Lindsay, I think you're muted.

I said thank you, Michael.

Thanks.

Um, thank you.

Uh thanks for your comments.

Um, John, just you know, note the questions and um we can respond after all of the public comment is is finished if that's okay with you.

Sure.

Do you have an estimate like how many people maybe have lined up?

I don't, no, I do not.

Thanks.

Okay.

All right.

Uh the next speaker is Lawrence Cryer.

Lawrence, you can unmute yourself.

Thank you.

Uh I'm also a neighbor adjacent to the driveway, and my questions relate to the driveway.

Will the existing driveway have to be widened?

I saw the plan had a 20-foot driveway.

And secondly, will the driveway have any structures to protect the runoff that goes into the stream next to it?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Lawrence.

Are there any other people here that would like to have a public comment on uh this subdivision?

4062 20 West Haviland.

We have Carrie Hannigan.

Carrie, you can allow yourself that you can unmute yourself.

Uh Carrie, if you can um press the audio bottom left hand so you can unmute yourself.

I've pressed the ask to unmute button so that you might see that.

All right.

Um I'm going to let's see, asked mute.

I've pressed ask to unmute again, so you should see a pop-up saying okay.

All right.

Um, Carrie, we will come.

Oh, okay.

She just she's gonna log off.

We can move on to Lauren Fredet.

All right, Lauren, you can unmute yourself.

Hi, I think I'm on muted.

Yep, you are.

We can hear you.

Okay, great.

You've got three minutes.

Thank you.

My husband and I live at 130 West Haviland Lane.

Uh, we were excited to see this.

Uh it's pretty creepy and spooky back there, and I think it would be wonderful to have uh this very elegant solution.

Our question is around um visibility.

It was a little hard to tell in the drawings how elevated some of the homes would be, especially the ones that would be in the backyards of us on West Haviland Lane.

So how high will these be?

And do you anticipate that any of these homes will be visible from West Havilland Lane or from the backyards of the people who live on West Haviland Lane?

Thank you.

Thank you, Lauren.

Okay.

And we have um a call-in number ending in one three nine five.

Uh you can unmute yourself by pressing star six.

Call in user ending in one three nine five.

There you go.

You're unmuted.

Hi, this is Andrew Chuckas.

Um my mother and brother live at 48 West Haviland Lane.

I'm calling on their behalf.

Uh that's the house that's right at the entrance around the van there.

And my question was really just on the entrance and south of the property with anything.

I was trying to read it on the actual plan.

Is how is that gonna change?

I mean, is there gonna be the widening?

Is there anything along those lines?

It looked like also there's um kind of where the runoff on the road kind of filters into the stream right now, and I want to know if that was going to change as well.

That's my only question.

Okay, thank you.

Mm-hmm.

All right, I'm going to lower their hand.

And we have Carrie back.

All right, Carrie Hannigan.

Uh, you can speak and now you're unmuted.

Let's see if we can hear you.

Can you hear me?

This is actually Edward Hannigan, her husband from her phone.

Uh I'm at 148 West Haviland Lane.

Uh, our backyard is directly across um the lake from the proposed area.

And one comment and one question, the comment is just in support of beautifying what has been a uh bit of an eyesore for a number of years uh with all the dilapidated buildings and the question was something that came up on the end of the presentation about restoring a sport court, and if that means uh pickleball, which can be quite loud.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ed.

Okay.

Are there any more people that want to speak on this subdivision?

Uh subdivision 4062 20 West Haviland Lane.

Please use the raise hand function.

Or if you're calling in, please press star nine.

All right, this is the final call for anybody wanting to make public comment on this subdivision 20 West Haviland, subdivision 4062.

Seeing no other hands, seeing no other chat messages.

Not having received any emails saying I can't get through.

Let me double check.

There's a hand.

Oh, we got it.

Okay, hey Jeff Cohen, okay.

Let's see.

Um, okay, Jeff.

You can unmute yourself.

All right, I'm gonna click ask to unmute so that you might oh, there we go.

Okay.

So just a question with respect to there's well, a number of people that walk dogs in the neighborhood.

I'm wondering if um the what the existing driveway, if it becomes a road, will be will it be accessible for people to you know walk the neighborhood, including the the new development, which in general I think we're also very favorable of uh doing having been uh members of Twin Lakes uh um in its heyday and being sad that it's no longer there and and happy to finally have a good use for uh for the property as it is not just locked outside it's gonna be gated thank you Jeff do you do you have any other any additional comments no just I I think what my wife also said will it will is it going to be a gated community or again accessible for people walking dogs or people just walking just in general all right thank you very much.

Okay.

Second final call for public comments on subdivision 4062 20 West Haviland.

Please use the raise hand function or dial star nine to raise your hand from your phone.

Going once going twice okay I am comfortable saying now that nobody else wants to speak on this application.

Not seeing anything in my email not seeing anything in the chats.

Great um with that the public hearing section is now closed.

Public comment public comment public comment period is now closed my apologies.

And now let's move on to the board discussion could there be any comments or questions from the board.

Should we respond to public comment first?

Yeah yeah okay let's we let's let's have um the applicant team respond to any comments and then board can make discussion and and um and and opine okay so we well Rob and I took notes um most of the questions I believe involve him if he doesn't fully answer maybe Ken can jump in.

I don't know that that's necessary um I just like to say I appreciate the questions um I spoke with one of these neighbors which one of the neighbors with whom I spoke um again my cell number was part of the application notification that went out it's not going to change so this gets approved we're happy to field questions all along the way um some of them are technical that Rob's gonna answer as far as home size we're restricted by zoning and that's in the frateroli is a zoning chart in this particular zone it's three stories of 35 uh feet as a limit and um we're for the most part below the elevation moves from West Haviland uh as you move east it it decreases so I don't think any of our five homes are going to create any sort of nuisance or or be obtrusive um when developed one is up on a knoll but the homes that are closer to that site are are down in the gland and also screened by considerable wooded area so and our our conceptual footprints are approximately 3,000 square feet so we intend to build four to five thousand square foot homes that the trend now you know pre-2008 there were 5,000 now they're more than the 4,000 range.

So we're gonna have homes that we believe are compatible, maybe a little larger than a typical home in the neighborhood, but not not that much.

So they'll they'll fit in with the neighborhood, and again, we won't be imposing um to the question about I think maybe towering over or you know, really obnoxious or uh we couldn't do that if we wanted to because of the zoning restrictions, but we intend to follow them and we think will fit in.

Um as far as gated Fabio hadn't considered that one way or the other for tonight, so we don't know is the answer to the question.

The city, I use the word steers or encourages or does not object to a private road, which is what this is proposed to be.

Um, so that will be up to the neighbors that live there if they allow neighbors to to walk dogs on the road.

Um Fabio hopes to live there, and again, the people who live there are gonna be one of part of the neighborhood from which this extends, so don't have a specific answer on the dog walking, but hopefully neighbors get along and problems aren't created.

Um, so I think Rob's gonna address the the rest, but on the life safety, uh it should be clear that the application was reviewed by the among others the fire marshal's office, and we had a sit down meeting with with staff members.

Um prior application did have a cistern, that was not requested.

It seemed like the reaction was almost why did we have one?

Not from us, but from staff.

And I believe I don't want to misstate the facts, but I believe, and maybe one of the neighbors knows, but up by the roadway might be a dry hydrant.

This is called Twin Lakes.

There's a lake on our property, and then right across our driveway, uh there's another lake.

I believe there may be a dry hybrid there, but at any rate, there are water sources on the property, both our lake and the lake across the street.

And actually, I would love to speak to that cistern comment.

Um, the uh it's actually our regulations are catching up to actual practice, and the fire departments do not use cisterns anymore.

Um they use they have water tankers.

Uh it's quicker, um, it's more reliable than cisterns, and um, cisterns are are a cost, you know, burden on on some folks.

So um the department doesn't use them anymore, so we don't require them anymore.

We'll be changing that in our regulations.

So Rob will go ahead and great.

Um for the record, Robert Sandolo, licensed engineer in the state of Connecticut.

Um so you guys uh took care of Mr.

Miller's comment about the fire uh hydrant in the cistern.

I'll just go down my notes here.

Next comment was from uh Lawrence Cryer.

Um asking about the driveway having to be widened and uh what measures are being implemented for runoff.

So the proposed road is essentially along the same alignment as the existing driveway.

It will be widened to a pavement width of 20 feet.

Um the 50-foot right-of-way does encompass some of that intermittent stream, but the 20-foot paved width is along the eastern side of that right-of-way.

Um as far as runoff, the new road will have curbs, catch basins, new stormwater piping that will capture all runoff um and direct it to a new retention system located beneath the cul-de-sac.

So no runoff from the new road will be will flow directly into the intermittent stream, it will go to the retention system, which in large storm events will overflow directly to the lake.

Um, and that's via, and sorry, Lindsay, if you're saying something, I think you might be muted again.

Oh, sorry.

Um right, so uh overflow from the retention system will go directly to the lake, and that's via the existing culprit system that's there that we're proposing to upgrade with new um concrete pipe and slightly larger concrete pipe.

Um moving on to um Edward Hannigan's comments, uh, lake.

Uh that was about the sport court.

Um there's two or three tennis courts there now.

We're proposing to keep the footprint of essentially one tennis court.

I don't know that it's specific use is gonna be pickleball.

It'd be most it'd be multi-sport.

Um, sorry not to address that, but that's in the far south eastern corner of the property, and it abuts a very wooded area.

So um it's on one of the most remote parts of the site, so we don't anticipate and it's residential, there being any significant amount of noise that's generated by the use of that core.

And also to that point, I believe EPB um one of their conditions was no lighting.

Right.

That I forgot that, so correct.

Um, mention that as well.

Um Lauren at 130 West Havilland Lane was concerned about visibility.

John spoke about that uh already, I'll so I'll just touch on it quickly.

Uh the max height is 35 feet, and though the row of houses sort of directly behind West Havlin Lane, they're actually situated a good bit lower than the houses up on West Havlin Lane, and um we're not proposing any removal of that existing wooded area.

So, and the screening is it's relatively dense there, so I I wouldn't anticipate any of the new homes being sort of like an ISO or anything like that.

Um the entrance, the entrance.

Andrew had a comment about the entrance.

Uh no significant change to the entrance or might be it's getting a little bit wider, um, some new curbing, just a direct runoff where we want it to go, um, which is into the new retention system.

Um, other than that, no significant change to the entrance, no tree removals proposed or no like extensive earth work happening at the entrance.

And uh and right now things are pretty beat up, so when we're through, they're going to be restored and classy.

Sorry, no, that that was that was all I had.

So, uh if I miss anything, let me know, but uh have to answer any other questions.

Great, thank you both.

Uh moving on to board member uh comments or questions.

Ashley.

Um, just following up on the uh visibility question, I was looking at your topographic maps, and looks like the closest lot is lot A3, and that would have a finished floor elevation of around 246, and the nearest house, one eighteen West Haviland, uh looks like their first floor is around 271.

So this proposed lot would be roughly 25 feet below the houses on West Haviland.

You think that's pretty accurate?

That seems to be similar all along West Haviland, looks like 110 is around 265, 122 is it's above 269, that's just where the topo cuts off.

So I I think that's accurate.

I think that their assessment of it not being very visible is probably true.

Um, just uh looking at the the photographs and the topo, I I do appreciate that you are maintaining the buffers along the existing uh roadway into the site, uh all the rock outcrop.

Um, and I and I think that the while you may have been able to squeeze one or two more lots in here, um, it is an environmentally sensitive site on the one side where you've got the wetlands and the lake, so um, and you know, everybody here has to be on well and septic.

There's no there's no sewer out here, so I think the lot layout makes sense from that perspective.

No questions.

And just so the board's aware, I I did speak with um Mr.

Walker earlier today.

He had questions.

That's the the owner of that lot that's adjacent to and thank you for the details on the elevations, but that you just cited.

And uh we had two conversations, one earlier and one later, and in the end, he said uh that I it satisfied all his questions, so didn't appear to me that he was concerned about that particular issue, but it's also good to hear the details that the math works, so to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from the board?

Okay, sharing none.

Um I can now ask Lindsay to close the public hearing, or is that after the vote?

Um let me just make a few notes.

Um about so this is in the uh res one single family future land use designation, um, as well as uh open and it's surrounded by res one and open space designations.

Um they have completed the neighborhood note the neighbor notices uh required by the uh subdivision regulations.

Um the road width of 20 feet meets the subdivision requirements um for private roads.

Uh we have a road name um you know of uh Twin Lakes Drive that engineering has approved.

Um and they've addressed all of uh the comments that referral comments that have been coming in from the different departments.

Um so we should be good on all of those, all of those items.

Um so with that, yes, Jeremy.

You can um vote and then after the vote, um, then you can close the public hearing.

Okay, great.

Uh with that, uh, do we have a motion on this application?

Move to approve this application.

Great, thank you, Ashley.

Chet with a second.

Thank you, Chet.

All in favor.

Great.

Thank you.

Approved unanimously.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, the neighbors as well.

All right.

The public hearing.

Oh, you want to close that, close it out, Jeremy?

Yep.

Uh with that, uh, the public hearing on subdivision number 4062 is now closed.

Okay.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Not a problem.

Uh moving on to our uh as we're gonna continue with our regular uh meeting.

Uh zoning board referrals, ZB application number two two six-12, Stanford zoning board map change.

Applicant is seeking a zoning map change from current R-MF multifamily residential design district and C-B community business zoning districts to a V-C2 village commercial zoning district.

I believe we have uh Ralph Blessing here to present.

If you were muted, sure.

Um, good evening, everyone.

So this is a referral from uh the zoning board.

Uh the zoning board will um hold an up uh a public hearing on this application umce uh the referral period is over.

Um, and obviously part of the referral is um this presentation to um the planning board.

Uh I have prepared a little uh presentation.

Um I'm going to share my screen.

Give me one second.

Uh can you see my screen?

Yes, we can.

Yep.

Excellent.

So um this uh resulting has been um a long time in the making.

Um we did in uh 2018 a south end neighborhood study that had um identified Pacific Street, a sort of the um local main street for um the South End neighborhood.

Um so the vision was really for this corridor uh to have small-scale development uh ground floor retail with um apartments on top.

Um so no high-rise development, but really creating sort of a meeting point between the low rise areas and the high-rise areas.

The comprehensive plan actually put very strong emphasis on the whole idea of neighborhood centers that provide services, including retail and other local services.

So this could also serve as one of those neighborhood centers for the South End.

So those were really sort of the thoughts that went into that proposed uh zoning map change for Pacific Street.

So this is the rezoning area, just to give you an orientation.

So the train stations over here, this is Pacific Street.

We have Henry Street going through the center here.

This is the Yale and Town Development.

This is the former BNS carding site, and this here is the lathen wider community center.

So basically, what we're proposing to rezone is uh that area here that is outlined uh in yellow.

Um the community center is part of the rezoning, um, but it's really more a technical technicality since this is uh city-owned property and uh city facilities are generally not uh subject to um zoning regulations.

So um what we are proposing to do, so uh unfortunately a lot of the area uh looks a little bit sad.

So uh in the upper area of Pacific Street, uh we have uh former auto body shop, um, we have those vacant sites uh right next to um the Lathenwider Community Center.

So the goals really of this uh rezoning is to uh help revitalize clean up uh Pacific Street, and as I mentioned before, establish Pacific Street really as sort of the south uh ends main street with uh local retail, uh, but also to uh increase conformance and compliance.

So uh as you will see in one of the next uh slides, um, compliance and conformance with the current zoning uh is really um an issue.

So um what you see um on the left uh side the map on the left shows the rezoning area and uh the parcels uh part that are part of that rezoning area, and you see uh that uh there are um quite a few non-conformities in the area.

So everything that is in purple here does not conform uh to the current zoning.

Uh so this is zoned RMF, and uh what you see here in those pink areas are um a lot of commercial uses that are not allowed in the RMF district.

Um you have the occasional um industrial use.

So for example, this here is a manufacturing use, this here is a uh contractor's yard.

Um so those uh all do not uh conform uh with the current zoning, which is uh either RMF, which is the majority of the uh the area, and here around the intersection of woodland, Pacific and Ludlow, we have an area uh that is zone C B, uh which is a uh local um commercial district.

So if the rezoning was uh approved, um a uh the conformance um uh with the zoning would uh increase dramatically.

You might ask why is conformance important.

Since an uh legally established use is grandfathered in, it's really uh important for um uh further developing uh existing uses.

So for example, if you have a commercial use, uh a grandfather commercial use, um, uh you will not be able to expand that use um if uh it is a legally uh non-conforming use, so it holds back local businesses uh um in that um area.

So um here's what we're proposing to do.

So on the left, you see the current zoning that we uh already touched upon.

So once again, this here is the RMF district, which is a medium density multi-family district, uh, and then here around the uh intersection of um uh Woodland Pacific and Ludlow, we have uh CB, which is a local commercial district, and the proposed zoning uh would be a rezoning uh of the whole area to uh VC2.

So what does that uh specifically mean?

So uh here on this slide uh you see a comparison uh between uh the different zoning districts.

So uh here you see uh the existing zoning districts, the RMF and the CB district.

So uh with regard to lot size and front edge, they're very similar.

Um both uh CB and RMF are sort of medium density districts, the density can go up to um 40 units per acre uh depending on um if you provide the BMR units on site or not.

Um the VC2 district that is proposed works a little bit differently.

Um it is a district that has an FAR, and in uh the uh VC2 district, you can go up to 1.5 FAR.

Um so FAR basically means you get the maximum floor area that is allowed by taking the lot area, multiplying that with the FAR, and that gives you the square footage you can build on any given parcel.

And when you divide that by uh the RDD, which is the residential density divider, that gives you the maximum number of units that is permitted.

So the difference really is if you have uh a measurement in units per acre, you can have small units, you can have large units, there is no real limit on uh the square footage, just on the number uh of units.

So in that sense, uh the floor area ratio districts are more predictable uh than uh the districts that um operate on a unit per acre um basis.

Um with regard to building height, uh they're very similar.

So the RMF allows for four stories, uh the CB uh allows for four stories.

Uh however, the building height is a little bit uh taller.

Um the VC district allows for up to five stories, but only on commercial streets.

Uh so as part of the rezoning, there's a companion application that would dedicate Pacific Street as a commercial street, so along Pacific Street, um you would be allowed to go up to uh five stories um tall with setbacks, uh and you couldn't cover the whole fifth story.

Um, but on the side streets, like Garden Street, for example, uh you would only be allowed to go um four stories tall.

Um, with regard to um the front setbacks, um there's also uh uh a different approach in the RMF and the C B districts.

The front setback is measured from the front property line.

We measure the setback from the curb line.

So on a commercial street, we would get a 15-foot um wide sidewalk, and on the side streets, we would uh get a 10-foot wide um uh sidewalk.

Um with regard to um side yards, um there are side yard requirements of uh six and eight feet uh in the CB and RMF districts in the VC district, there's none required within 70 feet of a street line, but beyond the 70 feet, you would have to provide 10 feet um uh of a side setback.

The idea being uh that we want to create a continuous street wall.

So you walk down a street uh and you walk along um uh storefronts and and uh shop windows, and you don't have gaps uh between um the buildings.

Um rear yards are also very similar.

Um between 20 and 30 feet um and uh also uh the building coverage is um somewhat uh higher in the VC district.

Um however the um RMF and the CB districts they don't have any limitations on the lot coverage.

So uh in theory, you could um asphalt uh the whole lot in an RMF district in a CB district, there's no limitations uh on that.

So uh the VC district uh has a requirement to leave uh some of the lot area as uh pervious um uh surface, so um we also looked uh a little bit into uh which sites um would be most likely to um uh redevelop if uh that zoning um was approved.

Uh so that is um uh also known as a soft side analysis.

So a soft side is a site that is likely to be redeveloped as the result of uh a rezoning and um to determine which site uh is a soft site, we said that the site has to have a certain minimum size.

Uh so we assumed at least 10,000 square feet, which is fairly small actually, and also that uh a site is more likely to be redeveloped if uh it is only uh developed to up to 50% of the proposed density.

So if someone is on a small site and the site is fully built out and there's not much development rights left, it's very unlikely that someone would tear down a building and build a new building.

So the idea is really you have a larger site uh that uh has a lot of unused development potential, those are more likely to be uh redeveloped.

Obviously, it's up to the owner of the site uh to make the decision and to invest um that uh uh capital.

So um one thing that we did was we looked at the property ownership, and uh what we discovered is that actually uh even though um there is a much larger number of individual lots, uh there are a couple of um assemblages.

So for example, this corner here uh is like three or four lots, but it's owned by the same entity, so by themselves, the lots are small and probably would not be very likely to be developed.

However, since they're owned by the same entity, uh they get over the 10,000 square foot threshold, and uh um are actually an uh a reasonable um uh development site.

So what you see here um are uh the different assemblages, the different uh ownerships uh of those uh sites.

So even though on the tax map they might show up as different lots, what we did here is we show all the sites and assemblages of sites that have more than 10,000 square feet of area, and therefore are uh potential soft sites.

So you also see a couple of larger sites here, here, here that are larger than 10,000 square feet, but they are not characterized as a soft site.

So those are already developed um uh and probably overbuilt under the existing uh zoning, that it's very unlikely that they would be redeveloped um uh in the future.

So that's why they're not showing up uh as soft sites, um, one um through seven.

So um uh and uh just to give you a little bit of a flavor, uh, what is on those soft sites.

So um this here is uh actually a former order body shop and a parking lot.

Um this here is the loft artist number four is the loft artist association.

Uh number two is uh uh a business that actually has an approval for redevelopment uh while maintaining the historic facade.

So they're getting um the historic preservation bonus uh under the zoning regulations.

Um this one here are uh two multifamily buildings.

Number six is a vacant uh lot, uh, number seven is uh an industrial business.

Uh and number five is uh St.

Luke's uh chapel and and additional uh buildings on that site.

So um we did a little bit of an analysis um about the the development potential.

Um so uh um we assume that the most likely development because that's what people are building uh at the moment would be uh residential development, and uh most of the sites actually don't have any residential units on them.

Uh so if they were all developed under the current zoning, the RMF and the CB, uh it would give you um about 114 units.

And once again, those are estimates, those are assumptions that are made.

Uh and under the um proposed rezoning, um uh they would um uh generate up to 345 uh residential units.

Um, so um uh overall with the rezoning we will get uh 231 uh additional units um based on the assumptions that were made.

Um, what I also want to highlight is that actually out of the seven soft sites, uh six are already soft under the existing conditions.

So even if we weren't to change the zoning, uh those sites would be likely to be um redeveloped in uh uh the near or not so near future.

Obviously, this is all not going to happen one day from one day to the next.

This is a process that probably takes 10 to 15 years, depending on uh economic uh conditions um and so forth.

Um, another thing uh that I wanted to highlight uh because um a couple of weeks ago I went to the um South and uh NRZ and there were concerns about parking issues uh in the uh historic core of the neighborhood.

Um, is that um under new state legislation um that is going into effect on july 1st uh there's actually an exemption from parking requirements for developments that are smaller than 16 units so under the current uh zoning if if we don't change the zoning there would actually be redevelopment on a couple of parcel that would not uh that would be exempt from from the parking requirement while uh with the rezoning um all the parcels basically would have to provide parking because they are larger than um uh 16 units so uh in summary what we're proposing to do is um we want to revitalize uh pacific street we want to keep it uh in context with the historic neighborhood so we're not proposing high-rise buildings we'll build it we're proposing buildings that are very similar in scale uh with with what is there and what is in the surrounding um area um and uh we would um uh increase the density um somewhat um but it's also fairly large area uh so create uh additional housing um and all that housing would actually be subject um to um uh a parking requirement so um we believe that this is uh uh a very measured approach uh to help um pacific street really uh become a connector rather than uh sort of this it doesn't know what to be kind of street um in uh in the middle of the of the south end and uh with that um i'm happy to answer any questions you may have well uh i guess uh if no one else has other questions um can you go back to the overall um i maybe perhaps it's your last slide that shows the proposed uh rezoning uh this one yeah yes that one um have you and and is there a way to to share with us um superimposed over this defined area what the existing limits of the national historic landmarks are uh so i would think um the whole rezoning area is in the historic district um but as i tried to explain before is that um uh so number six is vacant so there's there's no historic structure on there um number seven is an industrial business so that's like a one-story uh sort of factory uh kind of building um number one is a former auto body shop so also not of of any uh historic significance so this is the loft artists building and the third place uh number four um so uh that is an an uh older sort of uh brick uh manufacturing building uh and the same is true for um uh number two uh that is also an an older historically valuable um uh uh building um but as i said uh the the owner of this property actually has a has a proposal uh an approved proposal that would um uh keep the historic structure and and build uh an addition next to it uh utilizing the historic preservation bonus um those are two uh I think it's like a three and a four family home uh number three uh in pretty rough um condition uh and uh number five is uh St.

Luke's Chapel which is actually uh a really beautiful building like the chapel itself but also the uh the the uh other buildings on that campus um are um I think uh very striking and and historically very uh important but um what I want to stress is that um the national uh register uh designation doesn't provide uh uh additionally protections um and uh sites one four two uh six seven and five are actually even under the existing zoning soft sites that are likely to be redeveloped if we rezoning them or not understood but to come back to your question the the um the areas is pretty much the whole rezoning area is is within the historic district and the store district sort of extends here along Henry Street um further to the east and it pretty much follows uh that uh zoning line here uh along Henry Street Lipton Place this is all in the historic district um and the BNS carding side which is this large parcel here is not while well I um favor um the proposal to designate Pacific um as a village commercial um because to me it it's um an ex an example of of what the village commercial was intended to do um personally I'm not in favor when when those uh the rezoning that goes with the village commercial you know encompasses the entire block um and and starts to get uh into uh areas interior streets that are away from the village the commercial designation so in this particular case you know um the the rezoning uh of that that involves you know your your soft one four two um six and five um you know makes perfect sense because they they front in in one way or another Pacific Street um where where I I get a little can more concerned is when it seems like the limits of that revised zone begin to encroach on other interior streets in this particular case like garden and henry um that are that are already multifamily in their structures are probably residential in character um historic and residential in character not commercial um and I'd um I I'd I think I would much prefer in this rezoning to to um independent of you know current ownership of those lots um you know if there are existing historic structures um along a long garden um and potentially along uh the few remaining lots uh that don't touch Pacific Street uh along Henry to leave those in the multi-family uh zone um sorry I I didn't mean to interrupt you um so the way the VC works is that um so from from a use perspective, the commercial uses are only allowed along the commercial street so uh it would only be allowed on the lots fronting uh on Pacific.

Um it would not be allowed on Garden street because this is not planned to be designated as a commercial street.

So on the on the side streets, the VC actually works very much as a uh residential district.

So you can't have um commercial uses.

So along the commercial street, along Pacific Street, uh you can have four stories uh and five stories uh with a setback or only covering part of the the building footprint, while uh on the side streets, such as Garden Street and and uh Henry Street, um, you uh can uh only have three stories with the ability to go up to four stories after a setback.

So um that's that's the idea of uh the VC district is to really focus the commercial um development on a corridor rather than sort of distributing it and and um sort of watering it down that that you have a uh commercial use here and a commercial use there, and then you walk by a residential use and it doesn't really gel.

Um so um in that sense, I think the the VC tries to um accommodate those um uh uh and I think you're absolutely right.

There should be a distinction between sort of the the spine, the corridor, and uh um the side streets.

So uh that's uh I think built in uh into the district.

Um so um I'm I wouldn't be too concerned about that.

Well, um, well I well I appreciate your advice.

Um I I remain concerned um because you know on lot on city blocks such as these um which are basically only two lots wide from street to street, um they are you know those the the zone change if the zone change for example left those lots on garden and henry in in RMF and uh and allowed the ones uh fronting on Pacific uh to become village commercial, uh then that zone change would also be an inhibitor toward acquisition of all of those historic lots, um and and ultimate uh demolition of them to for in favor of a larger development, um which you know, our we spent a fair amount of time in the comprehensive plan trying to figure out what we can do to strengthen our historic districts and and strengthen um endeavors at preservation, um, but I haven't heard anything that will accomplish that you know once it all becomes village commercial.

Um so if you can if there are some things that haven't been talked about before, um I'd love to hear them.

Yeah.

Uh so um one of the things is that um the uh so for example, if we look at number four here, uh the loft, and and this is an this is not an assemblage, this is an existing lot uh uh as it exists now.

While number one, two, and three, for example, they they are assemblages, so they they when you look at the tax assessors data, they have the same owner uh even though they're technically separate lots.

So uh the way uh the VC district works is that um the commercial development rights, so the five stories versus the three uh and four stories, uh they are within 125 feet of the street.

So uh in this instance here, they wouldn't apply to that part of um uh um lot number four.

Um but the other thing is that um this here is basically uh uh a parking lot.

So the loft artist building is is like here in front, and this this is actually a pretty pretty substantial uh parking lot, which is a which is a nice development site, and what uh is uh one one of the opportunities here I think is to keep uh the building the historic building and redevelop the parking lot into something uh that uh is not a parking lot which is uh a value in itself and and uh can provide uh um uh additional housing and also takes sort of the development pressure off uh the historic building um the other thing is that um obviously uh all those um uh sites and that's not limited to um the historic district that is available to historic structures anywhere in the city uh they can apply for uh the historic preservation bonus so um under section eight of the zoning regulations uh you can uh get up to 25% uh additional density if um the owner commits on uh to preserving um the historic structure and uh for this building here uh or or this parcel here number two um uh as i said before we do have uh an approved plan uh that uh does exactly that so it preserves the historic structure and uh allows for the redevelopment of of the parking area and and uh uh uh another building that is not historically significant um on uh on the same lot um and the same actually is happening so you see here uh this area here this is actually already zoned vc and uh uh they actually took advantage of the same regulation so um this uh uh corner here is the old firehouse that was uh renovated uh then uh there is um a church here i believe on this property and then uh those parcels here are uh currently vacant i think there's a parking lot uh on it and uh actually part of that assemblage is also this lot here so what they've been doing um was uh they use the historic preservation bonus to transfer the development rights the leftover development rights from uh the firehouse and the church uh to this parcel here that is a parking lot um for uh for the redevelopment so what we've actually seen in the south end is um uh uh good utilization of the historic um uh preservation uh bonus program and obviously we would hope uh that um uh other development in uh in that uh area would would use the same uh tool as we've seen and once again uh there is no uh better historic protection under the the current zoning than uh there is under the proposed zoning um so uh but the the intent and i think it it worked in in many instances of the uh historic preservation bonus program is to um uh put uh help with the protection of those um structures then you know um but uh ralph when i appreciate um more uh uh call them neighborhood institutional facilities, such as um like your religious uh places and and fire stations and uh as you've pointed out, you know, are are our more ripe uh to independent of that to be um preserved and and adaptively reused in some way, um, but they're multifamily residential is less so.

So to what they what else can we do to help um you know preserve um and protect you know those along Garden Street that are still residential uh and along Henry Street that are still residential to dissuade you know developers from putting all their their efforts into consolidating the blocks even further, which would you know whether for commercial or not, um I'm not uh my concern is not about commercial versus residential, uh it's about you know uh keeping the scale, the historic and the residential, you know, intact.

Um which which I understand your point about uh you know garden street versus uh Pacific uh relative to commercial, um but it it's not the it it won't I'm afraid it won't encourage the preservation aspect as opposed to um you know we'll transfer our rights and we'll we won't we won't build commercial, it'll still be residential.

Uh yes, we'll get more.

Um, but we have to tear down the existing structures in order to do that, yeah.

So um, as I said, like uh on on parcel four, there's there's nothing to be torn but down here.

It's a parking lot.

But I'm talking about the gray the gray lots uh along garden, for example, or or or yeah, you know, the corner lot, you know, right at the corner of Garden and Henry things of that sort.

Yeah.

So to give a little bit more um flavor.

So for example, those lots here on Henry Street, uh they're already protected, uh, under an agreement, those those are um, I think BLT sold them, but they were owned by BLT, and there's a uh there's deed restrictions on there that A keeps them as affordable, and and B they had to restore them to the historic character.

Um so um with regard to the gray uh uh lots, um, as I said before, I think they're not very likely to redevelop because they are very small, and uh also when you when you look at this uh assemblage here, this is even though it's a it's a pretty substantial uh lot, it is not marked as a soft site.

The reason it is not marked as a soft site because um uh it has so many units that uh even with the changed zoning, you couldn't build uh you could build some more units, but it's probably very unlikely that they would be tearing down those historic buildings because the disadvantage that they would have is for for a few more units is they would have to provide BMR units, which is obviously we from a city perspective, we want them to provide BMR units.

From a developer perspective, they don't want to provide BMR units.

Um so if they were to tear down uh those those existing buildings, they would be subject to the BMR requirement, and they would be uh becoming subject to um uh a parking requirement.

So currently they don't have no parking require any parking requirement, and they don't have any um BMR requirement.

So for a property owner, um it would be there's there's not enough of an incentive through the rezoning uh to tear down this uh those those old buildings, and I think um and the same is true for this parcel here um and this uh parcel here and all the other gray ones because they are so small and probably already over uh the density uh uh it is even less likely um to uh to happen yeah well what you're saying is less likely to happen is that those lots by themselves will be redeveloped uh you know i i absolutely agree with you um and so what will yeah by and the operative words being those sites by themselves um so what will happen is that the owners of you know uh soft site two three and two or four and four will continue to try to acquire those those and tear them down um and that and that's what I'm not in favor of so once again I think two they they have their approvals so um I think it's unlikely that that anything will will happen there uh but conversely it's also if you have um uh a site like number one which is let's go back I mean this is uh this is site number one um so uh which is probably a site we want to see redeveloped because it's clearly not um what I think people want um Pacific Street to look like uh in order to facilitate and create enough of an incentive to uh redevelop a site like this uh you have to provide um additional uh uh an additional incentive which which is uh um density um what we see a lot um is that um yes residential is very much in demand but so is also um manufacturing in the sense of um a landscapers yard or something like that so in order to get rid of and and that's particularly a problem in in the south end where you have residential areas with um the the uh landscapers in between and and industrial uses and uh in order to get to get rid of those um the property owners need an incentive uh because the what what we've seen is the current zoning and the zoning that has been in place for decades uh has not moved the needle um for a lot of those um uh uh properties so in order to to um facilitate that um i think um uh you need to uh uh create an incentive with uh zoning to to uh get rid of those types of uses using this picture just uh uh a question for you uh and unfortunately I can't point to it because you can't see my cursor um in the left-hand picture the uh right in front facing uh pacific street is this dark gray building yeah um but I also see much further back it looks like uh a two or three story dark gray building it is that part of the same uh building yes that is that is actually the loft artists association of third place it is uh uh building okay all right got it and I think if we go back to the yeah I don't I don't think I can easily zoom in here but no but I but I'm seeing it now in in this area.

Yeah so this this is the loft artist building that's the black building uh that we just saw and this is here is the um the the auto body shop and and and the parking area and this is the parking that that belongs to the loft artists building so that is this whatever we call it like right pen handle yeah yeah of of that uh of that property so the the the building the loft artist building is a little bit like L shape but the majority of this area is parking yeah yeah um which they probably did you know regardless of whether by by uh permission or entitlement um just to be able to market those you know those loft uh spaces yeah in that building um could you know could you could you consider um you know you know modifying the uh the limit you know so that at least in fr um from the this contiguous um soft lot four um the gray lots uh uh perhaps uh um not three and and i think there are two lots here on the corner of of garden and henry just given that you had mentioned that the real aim of this is across the next 10 or 15 years um you know keep i i'd much prefer you know that those the lots uh facing uh garden and henry you know if if a much smaller development you know to that stays residential and gives um that them the the opportunity of preserving existing structures or replicating an architectural style that is you know uh much more uh can compatible with the historic uh residential structures is that something you might be able to consider um sure i think you you should um uh uh you you can write in your letter that that you propose to uh take that area here um out of uh the proposed rezoning um one thing i wanted to mention is that that this sorry the the cursor seems to be disappearing um so uh let's go back maybe to the area so um one other consideration is obviously that this site here uh across the street from from garden street is is vacant and the zoning allows for for uh quite high uh densities uh uh here so the question is also how does garden street meet that potential future development uh on the other side of of garden street and uh um a lot of the the the buildings and structures on garden street are uh even though historic not in uh a great um uh shape so um that that was also a consideration why we uh added it to um uh the uh rezoning um area the thing about the vc is also that um unlike the rmf um it requires uh site plan uh review um even for small or relatively small development projects while uh the rmf is an as of right district so um there is no uh um architectural review whatsoever uh or control that you have uh in the rmf while um in uh the vc district um there is, and i think when when we worked with them on those sites down here where where the firehouse is um uh where where the zoning board i think was was quite involved in in working with the applicant on like the facades and the materials used and and those kinds of things.

So those are also things to consider with the VC that you don't have with um the RMF or the C B district.

Um well that's a good point.

Um but um perhaps uh you know, relative to our comprehensive plan, which uh if I recall there is there is still one of the strat um the strategies aimed at developing additional uh regulations or means of protecting a sort of structures, you know.

Um maybe uh in a you know um maybe that is one that you point to that you know um for um those kinds of structures along Garden Street, um, if if even in R and RMF, if they were to stay RMF, just for sake of discussion, um, that they can you know be in as you know national registered structures in this historic district, um, they can be subject to you know uh design plan or or plan review or design review or whatever.

Yeah, I think that that would be um you know uh certainly a help at helping to preserve them.

Coming back to your point about across the street, you know, sensitive architectural design, of course, if you had those structures right there, you know, would call for the designer or the developer to skip step down the heights of their buildings, you know, from Atlantic Street to Garden Street, yeah, so that you know you don't have you know uh a five or six story building right across the street from these two-story you know residential structures.

So um no, absolutely.

I I totally agree with you on that.

Yeah, no, and and as I said, um uh uh you might want to add like a recommendation to the zoning board to consider um uh taking garden street um uh out.

Okay, uh of the rezoning area.

Okay, all right, thank you.

I think I will.

Okay, are there any any other questions?

Okay, hearing none.

Um do we have a motion to for a recommendation with with any possible amendments or or you know comments to that recommendation?

Yeah, well, yeah, I'll put forward uh a motion if I may.

Um all in all, you know, uh particularly vis-a-vis the um Pacific Street, I I like what this zoning is intended to do.

So I'm in favor of it.

You can tell from the discussion there's certain lots and certain streets that I have concerns about.

Um so I'd like to uh move um, you know, that the planning board recommend approval of this, but uh with the um that the zoning give consideration to as you said, Ralph, modifying the line, the uh the zoning line district to allow the historic uh residential structures on Garden and Henry um to remain in the in the uh residential multifamily.

We have a second on that.

So just to confirm you're saying consider we're not saying it's a requirement.

Um yes, yes.

Okay, then I'll second.

Yeah, I think all just for clarification, all we can do is provide a recommendation, not a it's it's right, you know, they can consider it whether we put it as a requirement or not.

I don't think that language is going to affect it.

Um okay, so all in favor.

Great, thank you.

Uh moving on to ZB application number 226-13 Stanford zoning board text change.

The purpose of this text change is to designate Pacific Street between Atlantic and Doc Streets as a commercial street.

So yeah, this is really the companion um application uh to the map change.

So um it would basically uh designate Pacific Street as a um as a uh commercial street, which means that along commercial street, uh the commercial street, Pacific Street, you would uh uh be allowed to have commercial uses on the ground floor, you're not allowed to have that on the on the side streets, and it also allows you to go up to four uh uh or five stories uh on a commercial street versus three and four stories on uh the the non-commercial streets.

So uh that is really, as I said, the companion piece to um uh the uh the proposed map change.

Right, thank you.

So that I can understand what that what that requiration uh actually uh entails.

So uh um uh a large lot, let's uh we'll we'll take it on the corner of Pacific and Henry or Ludlow and Woodland or one of your soft ones, where there's a single building that fronts on um Pacific Street, but also um basically represent uh it has a side to that same building which fronts on one of those side streets.

You're saying the village commercial does not allow ground level um commercial, even in the same building uh face uh facing the um the side street.

So basically um uh you you have to think about an imaginary line that is 125 feet from uh the the front uh property line.

So basically this line along and and the locks might be a little bit deeper uh uh then 125 feet, but basically on this side of the line, the commercial street uh side of the line, the commercial street regulations apply, and on the other side of the line, uh it's so on the corner here, you you could have a commercial use, but even though the lot is is larger, deeper than 125 street uh feet, you cannot go all the way with the commercial uses to the end.

So you're allowed to sort of wrap around the corner, yeah, but you're not going into the side street all the way back.

Okay, so so I that I understand, and that I'm that I'm okay with because it allows at least the commercial use to literally wrap the corner.

Yeah, which is I think an important part of the village commercial.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, um thank you, Ralph, for that.

I don't know um if there are any further questions.

I think Ralph, as you said, this is sort of in tandem with the the past uh application in terms of you know the height in the the commercial space on the bottom.

Um Ashley, do you have any any comments, questions?

No.

Okay.

With that, uh hold on Jeremy, excuse me.

Uh there I I did have one more, which Ralph can address.

Uh, because in all this discussion, we haven't talked about doc street at all.

Um it's not highlighted on the maps or on the graphics in any way.

Can you show us where Dock Street is relative to your application 226-1 3?

So uh Doc Street is just out of the the area of the map.

So uh it's if you can see my cursor, it's probably up there.

And it like curves um a little bit.

Can you can we go back to the um perhaps the aerial?

And you can um point it out to us.

Yeah, so here this here is Doc Street.

Yeah.

So here this area here is in the what's called the TCD, the transit center development district.

Okay, got it.

Uh so that's that's the very high density.

Um around the transit center, uh encompassing all those or mostly vacant uh sites here on top of uh Garden and Pacific Street, 650 Atlantic Street, uh, and then here this building that you can see the corner of is is the hazel, and then you have 18 Dock Street up here.

So you want so this this um 226-13 is also aiming to um to designate the entirety of Dock Street, it's entire length as a commercial commercial street.

Um I think it's only uh talking about Pacific Street from Doc Street to between Atlantic um between Atlantic and Doc.

But Doc is perpend uh if I'm understanding what you just said, is Doc perpendicular?

Um it's off the map, so we can't quite see.

Yeah, so it's it's up here.

So this this stretch of Pacific Street from up here.

Okay, down to uh maybe maybe it's like now I'm understanding it a little bit better.

I got hung up on the words there a little bit.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Yeah, so so it's it's the north and south end basically of um uh what will be designated as a commercial street.

So uh it doesn't have any any relevance uh if it's not in a VC district because other districts don't make the distinction between a commercial street, it's really in this area between um uh that that is zone VC where the designation of commercial street makes a difference.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Uh with that um is there a motion to uh motion for this uh zoning board referral.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Ashley.

Uh second, I'll second it.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Uh unanimous.

And thank you, Ralph, for that.

Thank you.

Um that will uh conclude our meeting.

Uh and just as a reminder, the next regulation schedule planning board meeting is on August 11th, 2026, as there are no meetings in July.

Uh for the hiatus.

Okay.

Thank you for joining me, Jeremy.

Have a have a great summer.

Yes, hope you guys have a great summer too.

Feel free to reach out if you need anything.

Okay.

Thank you.

And enjoy your break.

Thanks.

The time is 8 56.

Bye.

Bye bye.